Interesting preterist argument

[claninja]

My question is how important is it for me to satisfy your demands to identify which specific descendant of Ephraim first went into slavery in Egypt.

From my perspective, it is not necessary to identify which descendant of Ephraim's began to be oppressed by the Egyptians. It makes no chronological difference to our understanding of God's timeline for the unfolding history of Israel.

My listing of the ten descendant generation in Ephraim's line destroys your understanding that there were only four descendant Israeli generations born in Egypt over the full 430 years that Israel remained in Egypt.

Now unless you can demonstrate that the four descendant generations is important to the storyline of Israel then as far as I am concerned, this conversation cannot go any further.

Goodbye

Joshua, who entered the promise land, was the 10th generation from Ephraim. Eleazar, who entered the promise land, was the 4th generation from Levi.

I’m not sure how using Joshua’s lineage over Eleazar’s lineage demonstrates genesis 15 is not about Israel’s being strangers in/bondage in Egypt for four hundred years/ in the fourth generation of Abraham’s descendants.

 

[claninja]

When are Preterists going to convincingly prove that the times of the Gentiles are already fulfilled, and was fulfilled before this generation in question allegedly passed in 70 AD?

What some are not factoring in here is this. In order to see something fulfilled in the Discourse does not require that one has to actually be alive at the time in order to do so. For example, 70 AD. Clearly, I wasn't alive when that happened. Clearly, I can see it has already been fulfilled, though. That means we can check that one off the list, in regards to all these things in verse 34.

What I haven't seen evidence of being fulfilled yet is the times of the Gentiles. Nor have I seen evidence that Matthew 24:14-31 has been fulfilled. Some of you, apparently including @Spiritual Israelite, seem to think one can't see any of these things as fulfilled unless they are/were living during the era of time some of these things are/were fulfilled.


Clearly, all these things in verse 34 is meaning everything Jesus predicted would take place prior to Him having said that in verse 34. You don't appear to be disputing that. But even so, the way you try and get around some of these things, though you agree, for example, that verses 30-31 in Matthew 24 is among these things that need to be fulfilled first, you disagree that it involves His coming in the end of this age and the rapture of the church.

One reason why you are misinterpreting verses 30-31, IMO, is because you are applying verses 14-29 to the wrong era of time. Ironically, even though @Spiritual Israelite is also applying some of those verses to the wrong of era time, mainly meaning verses 15-21 in his case, he is correctly interpreting verses 30-31. Except his hermeneutic is questionable since he is inserting a 2000 year gap between verse 21 and 29 that the text knows nothing about. The way to solve this, verse 21 does not fit 2000 years ago, it fits the final days of this age instead.

But what if you did agree that verses 30-31 do indeed involve those things, His coming in the end of this age and the rapture of the church? Would you still be arguing that this generation in question already passed away 2000 years ago? If no, there you go then. No wonder, someone such as me, is arguing that this generation did not pass away 2000 years ago, because, for one, per my opinion regarding some of these things, verses 30-31 haven't even been fulfilled yet. Not to mention, neither have the times of the Gentiles. Obviously, when the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled, this indicates we are no longer in the times of the Gentiles from that point on.

Any understanding of the “times of the gentiles” is going to be a subjective interpretation, because the NT doesn’t explicitly state what the “times of the gentiles” are in relation to Jerusalem.

That being said:

Why would a preterist define the “times of the gentiles” as a 2,000 year post 70ad time frame, when Jesus stated - this generation will not pass away until all these things occur?

if the “times of the gentiles” is to be fulfilled within Jesus’ generation, why wouldn’t the preterist understand the times of the gentiles as the gentile dominion over old covenant Israel? - beginning with Babylon and culminating in Rome’s trampling of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Any understanding of the “times of the gentiles” is going to be a subjective interpretation, because the NT doesn’t explicitly state what the “times of the gentiles” are in relation to Jerusalem.

I think it does.

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.

I believe this explicitly indicates that the times of the Gentiles would be during the times when Jerusalem was "trodden down of the Gentiles". Other translations describe Jerusalem as being trampled on by the Gentiles. Jerusalem is still trodden down or trampled on by the Gentiles today. They still don't have a temple and Gentiles are in control of the place where the temple stood.

That being said:

Why would a preterist define the “times of the gentiles” as a 2,000 year post 70ad time frame, when Jesus stated - this generation will not pass away until all these things occur?

Because He was talking about a future generation. The same generation that would see things that would indicate His return was near. He did not return in 70 AD. You can't get around that.

 

[Davidpt]

Any understanding of the “times of the gentiles” is going to be a subjective interpretation, because the NT doesn’t explicitly state what the “times of the gentiles” are in relation to Jerusalem.

Maybe what is not being considered by Preterists is that Jerusalem is not always meaning in the literal sense every time? I'm not saying Preterists don't know that, thus disagree. I'm saying that in regards to Luke 21:24 and what all that is involving. Then by comparing with Revelation 11 and Revelation 13, for instance.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


Clearly involving the times of the Gentiles.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Clearly involving these same 42 months mentioned in Revelation 11:2.

We can know from Revelation 13 alone that Revelation 11:2 has zero to do with 70 AD.

For example, the following, pertaining to this 42 months in question.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

What does any of this have to do with what happened to the Jews and why what happened to the Jews in 70 AD happened to them? Zero, that's what. Doesn't even remotely fit a 70 AD scenario involving the unbelieving Jews being attacked by the Romans in 70 AD. Yet, the verses above are involving the same 42 months that are mentioned in Revelation 11:2. And that Revelation 11:2 undeniably proves it is involving the times of the Gentiles.

No one in their right mind would argue otherwise, that Revelation 11:2 proves that these 42 months are involving the times of the Gentiles. After all, it's not like it doesn't mention Gentiles in verse 2. Equally, no one in their right mind would argue that Revelation 13:11-17 fits what happened and why it happened to the Jews in the first century. Not even remotely the same context. Therefore, in Revelation 11:1-2, a literal temple and a literal city are not meant. And that Revelation 13, for one, undeniably proves it.

And since Revelation 11:1-2 can't logically fit 70 AD in light of Revelation 13, where does it logically fit then? It has to logically fit somewhere, otherwise it's a false prophecy. And that where it logically fits, meaning these 42 months in question, they can't fit anywhere until the beast ascends out of the pit first. When John was given the visions, be that before 70 AD or after, he indicated that the beast was currently in the pit and would ascend in the future. Even if John received these visions prior to 70 AD, Revelation 13 already proves that 70 AD nor the previous 3 or 4 years leading up to 70 AD is the future he was meaning.

 

[Jay Ross]

It seems to me that the major discussion has been around Mat 24:34: - Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

It comes down to what our understanding of the Greek Root Word "genea" means. Below is one definition for the Hebrew Root Word G:1074: -



And on the first line in the table above for where the Greek Word "genea" is found embedded in the New Testament text the first three verses are these: -

Matt 12:39: - 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.​

​

Matt 16:4: - 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." And He left them and departed.​

​

Matt 17:17: - 17 Then Jesus answered and said, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me."​

where Jesus was not referring to a single descendant generation but to a number of descendant generations listening to Him we cannot assume that Jesus was only referencing a single descendant generation in Matt 24:34.

I would suggest that Jesus was referencing an Age in time and was not referring to a single generation as is being force in this discussion.

Jesus was referring to a Season and a little while period which together will last for an age. The Summer season in verse 24 is a time of peace when the beasts of Daniel 7 are imprisoned in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years before the Bottomless Pit is unlocked and the beasts and the judged kings of the earth are then able to rise up out of the pit for the Little While Period in an attempt to instal Satan as the King over all the peoples of the earth before the end of the seventh age concludes with the Final Judgement.

Jesus in Matt 16:26-28 tells us this: -

Matt 16:26-28: - 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

In 70 AD Jesus did not come with His angels to reward each according to his works. When Jesus comes for the Final Judgement, then some of those who were standing there with Christ will then taste the second death. Sadly, many people reading the scriptures cannot see where the second death is found in the New Testament except in Rev 20:14-15.

Many people try and justify their preterist theology based on their understanding of Mat 16:28 but not on the basis that some will taste the second death but that some will not die until Christ return and as such they have forced Christ's return into the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple and the nation of Israel being scattered to the four corners of the earth in preparation for Israel become a Nation of priests and a holy kingdom and God's possession among the gentiles during the seventh age.

Using a man focused logic to explain away the scriptures will always lead us into misunderstanding of what the scriptures actually say.

Shalom

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus said they would be - “this generation will not pass away until all these things happen”.

And that generation was a future one. We are still waiting for the events to happen so we do not even know if the generation is ours or not.

You cannot take away from any teaching or prophecy of the OD.

Nor can you.

Contextually, the Olivet Discourse is Jesus answering to two specific questions from His disciples:

1. “When will these things be?”
2. “What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3)

Grammatically, the antecedent to “these things” is the destruction of the temple in verse 2:

He didn't answer the first question. His teachings on the Mount were not related to what he taught at the temple. The OD is only what he taught while on the Mount.

• “Truly, I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another.”

Therefore, the content of Jesus’ response — the entire Olivet Discourse — must at least in part be answering question 1, regarding the timing of the destruction of the temple.

Nope. The destruction of the temple is not even mentioned in the OD.

If you claim that verses 4–34 are completely unrelated to verses 1–3, then you must demonstrate contextually or grammatically why Jesus suddenly shifts from the subject of the temple’s destruction to something entirely different — without any textual marker to indicate such a shift.

To dismiss the connection between the questions and the discourse on the basis that “certain events didn’t happen” — according to your own theological expectations — is the very definition of eisegesis: reading one’s system into the text, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself.

I'm not the one adding things to the Olivet discourse. You are doing that.

 

[claninja]

For example, you try to say that "all these things" must refer to literally everything He had previously said. That is a grammar rule that you made up. It can't possibly mean that and I've shown that in relation to Luke 21:36 how that would mean we should pray to be worthy to escape His second coming and the gathering of the elect. To get around that you then make up another rule (not a grammar rule, but just a ridiculous man-made rule) that something Jesus is quoted as saying in Luke 21 can't be applied to anything He was quoted as saying in Matthew 24 or Mark 13, which is utterly ludicrous since there is just one Olivet Discourse. Before saying what He is quoted as saying in Luke 21:36, He had talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect. So, you can't try to say that "all these things" would not include the gathering of the elect if you insist that it refers to everything He had previously mentioned.

Regarding Matthew 24:34 — the phrase “all these things” (Greek: panta tauta) refers to “all” of what Jesus just finished describing. That’s not a my own “man-made rule”, It’s basic grammar. demonstrative pronouns like “these” refer to things mentioned in the previous continuous narrative, and when modified with “all”, there is no grammatical reason to exclude some events.

If I said - “I am going to water my garden, go to the grocery, and clean the house, and I plan to finish all these things by the end of the day”. What are the antecedents to “all these things” ? Only some of the task, but not all will be done by end of day?

Wrong. There was no gathering of the elect in 70 AD. That is a ridiculous claim.

Only according to your subjective framework.

There was no gathering of the elect by the angels following the destruction of Jersusalem. You are just making things up. I can't take this preterist nonsense seriously.

Only according to your subjective framework.

There was no "post-judgment-of_Jerusalem" gathering.

The parable of the wedding feast’s thematic narrative suggests otherwise - when does the gathering of the good and bad occur, pre or post the judgment of the city?

 

[claninja]

He didn't answer the first question. His teachings on the Mount were not related to what he taught at the temple. The OD is only what he taught while on the Mount.

I agree the olivet discourse is what he taught on the mount. But contextually, the olivet discourse is triggered by the 2 questions posed to Jesus, by his disciples (Matthew 24:3-4) in response to what Jesus said about the temple (Matthew 24:1-2).

So, Just to clarify, your position is that Jesus ignored the first question the disciples asked (when will the temple be destroyed) and only answered the second question (what will be sign of your coming/end of age)?

Can you demonstrate this contextually or grammatically? Or is this solely based on your theological framework that you import onto the text?

 

[ewq1938]

I agree the olivet discourse is what he taught on the mount. But contextually, the olivet discourse is triggered by the 2 questions posed to Jesus, by his disciples (Matthew 24:3-4) in response to what Jesus said about the temple (Matthew 24:1-2).

Or he had planned the discourse ahead of time and the disciples asked two questions. Either way, it's the content of the OD that matters not the two questions.

So, Just to clarify, your position is that Jesus ignored the first question the disciples asked (when will the temple be destroyed) and only answered the second question (what will be sign of your coming/end of age)?

Yes.

Can you demonstrate this contextually or grammatically?

Sure. Read the OD. He did not answer when all this would happen. He also did not mention destruction of the temple one time, nor destruction of the city. Neither is part of the OD events which are events that precede the second coming.

People ALWAYS conflate the two discourses as seen in this and every thread about the OD.

There is the temple discourse which happened at the temple.
Then after walking to the mount, Christ sat and the Olivet discourse occurred.

 

[claninja]

Or he had planned the discourse ahead of time and the disciples asked two questions. Either way, it's the content of the OD that matters not the two questions

Contextually, it’s clear - “Jesus answered them”.

Sure. Read the OD. He did not answer when all this would happen. He also did not mention destruction of the temple one time, nor destruction of the city. Neither is part of the OD events which are events that precede the second coming.

People ALWAYS conflate the two discourses as seen in this and every thread about the OD.

There is the temple discourse which happened at the temple.
Then after walking to the mount, Christ sat and the Olivet discourse occurred.

Jesus does mention the “holy place” and the “abomination of desolation” “according to Daniel,” which alludes to Daniel passages such as 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. These passages likely concern the temple complex—especially since the Greek word ἱερός (hieros), the adjective form of hieron - is translated as temple in Daniel 9 in the LXX. So, it seems unreasonable to claim the Olivet Discourse makes no reference or allusion to the temple or temple complex at all.

However, you correctly point out that Jesus does not explicitly or clearly say, “the temple will be destroyed” within verses 5-34. Because of this absence, you argue from silence that Jesus doesn’t answer the disciples’ question about the temple’s destruction.

But this argument from silence cuts both ways. I could also argue from silence that Jesus ignored the question about the end of the age—since the Olivet Discourse doesn’t explicitly or clearly mention it either. Grammatically and contextually, the argument from silence here is not a strong or reliable method.

You are clearly importing your framework onto the passage in order to argue from silence that Jesus didn’t answer the first question. This is text book eisegesis.

 

[claninja]

Maybe what is not being considered by Preterists is that Jerusalem is not always meaning in the literal sense every time? I'm not saying Preterists don't know that, thus disagree. I'm saying that in regards to Luke 21:24 and what all that is involving. Then by comparing with Revelation 11 and Revelation 13, for instance.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


Clearly involving the times of the Gentiles.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Clearly involving these same 42 months mentioned in Revelation 11:2.

We can know from Revelation 13 alone that Revelation 11:2 has zero to do with 70 AD.

For example, the following, pertaining to this 42 months in question.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

What does any of this have to do with what happened to the Jews and why what happened to the Jews in 70 AD happened to them? Zero, that's what. Doesn't even remotely fit a 70 AD scenario involving the unbelieving Jews being attacked by the Romans in 70 AD. Yet, the verses above are involving the same 42 months that are mentioned in Revelation 11:2. And that Revelation 11:2 undeniably proves it is involving the times of the Gentiles.

No one in their right mind would argue otherwise, that Revelation 11:2 proves that these 42 months are involving the times of the Gentiles. After all, it's not like it doesn't mention Gentiles in verse 2. Equally, no one in their right mind would argue that Revelation 13:11-17 fits what happened and why it happened to the Jews in the first century. Not even remotely the same context. Therefore, in Revelation 11:1-2, a literal temple and a literal city are not meant. And that Revelation 13, for one, undeniably proves it.

And since Revelation 11:1-2 can't logically fit 70 AD in light of Revelation 13, where does it logically fit then? It has to logically fit somewhere, otherwise it's a false prophecy. And that where it logically fits, meaning these 42 months in question, they can't fit anywhere until the beast ascends out of the pit first. When John was given the visions, be that before 70 AD or after, he indicated that the beast was currently in the pit and would ascend in the future. Even if John received these visions prior to 70 AD, Revelation 13 already proves that 70 AD nor the previous 3 or 4 years leading up to 70 AD is the future he was meaning.

Luke 21:32 — “This generation will not pass away until all has taken place.”

The phrase “has taken place” translates a verb in the aorist middle subjunctive form. Here’s what that implies:

• Aorist: This indicates a punctiliar or one-time action, rather than a continuous or ongoing process. It views the event as a complete whole—not as something gradually unfolding across ages.
• Middle voice: Suggests the action may have some relevance or effect for the subject (here, “all things” being fulfilled in relation to “this generation”).
• Subjunctive mood: Expresses contingency or expectation, typically within a dependent clause. In this case, the clause is tied to the condition: “this generation will not pass away until…”

Grammatically, this means Jesus is saying that everything He just described—“all these things”—would come to completion as a definable, one-time set of events, and that this would certainly happen within the lifespan of the generation the living through the events. The grammar does not support a drawn-out, multi-generational fulfillment. Instead, it ties the fulfillment to a specific, bounded timeframe.

In other words - grammatically - the trampling of Jerusalem can’t be thousands of years as it is to take place before the generation passes away.


As to your points on revelation -
I don’t agree with interpreting the Olivet Discourse through the lens of Revelation, especially since Revelation was written later and in a very different apocalyptic style. Each text should be interpreted in its own context first.

 

[claninja]

I think it does.

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.

I believe this explicitly indicates that the times of the Gentiles would be during the times when Jerusalem was "trodden down of the Gentiles". Other translations describe Jerusalem as being trampled on by the Gentiles. Jerusalem is still trodden down or trampled on by the Gentiles today. They still don't have a temple and Gentiles are in control of the place where the temple stood.

The text is vague enough that the times of the gentiles could be understood as beginning and ending with the trampling of Jerusalem OR could have begun at some point prior to the trampling, with the trampling being the end/culmination.

However, I don’t think that Grammatically, it allows for the trampling to be thousands of years since it’s to happen before the generation passes away.

Because He was talking about a future generation. The same generation that would see things that would indicate His return was near. He did not return in 70 AD. You can't get around that.

Christ didn’t come in the clouds within the first century generation, only according to your framework - there are understandings/interpretations/frameworks of what the phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” means other than just literal/visibly/bodily, that fit with the context, grammar, and linguistics of the Olivet discourse.

 

[claninja]

That's where you are so... in error.


For Brethren in Christ:
I don't know why it seems claninja is trying... to hide what the Jeremiah 24 Chapter prophecy is pointing to, but the fact that claninja just mentioned... that last statement above about the fig tree in relation to Israel about to blossom, reveals at least some familiarity of what I've been talking about. So I will summarize here for those brethren interested in learning Christ's "parable of the fig tree" that He commanded His disciples (and us) to learn...

Christ's "parable of the fig tree" involves the FINAL GENERATION on earth that will SEE His future 2nd coming. And that generation that SEES His future coming will also SEE ALL THESE THINGS He gave in His Olivet discourse, meaning ALL the SIGNS of the end He gave. That is the gist of what He said above.

Yet Lord Jesus did NOT give an actual detail of what that "parable of the fig tree" is about, i.e, in what way it is being used as a symbol for something. The reason is we are supposed to already know about the figs per the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah. claninja is simply being coy, and doesn't actually know what was shown in the Book of Jeremiah about it, and is obviously in Biblical ignorance about the Jeremiah prophecy.

The Parable...

Jer 24:1-3
24 The LORD shewed me, and, behold, two baskets of figs were set before the temple of the LORD, after that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, and the princes of Judah, with the carpenters and smiths, from Jerusalem, and had brought them to Babylon.

Two symbolic baskets of figs, Jeremiah is shown by vision from God.

And notice that part in bold above is specifically pointing to those of the "house of Judah" (Jews) that were carried to Babylon for 70 years by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. That means God is pointing to a specific 'group' here, and not... to all 12 tribes of Israel, but to Judah and certain others only.

2 One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad.
3 Then said the LORD unto me, "What seest thou, Jeremiah?" And I said, "Figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil."
KJV

We well know that figs are not naughty or evil, so that has to mean the figs are being used as a symbol for two different groups of peoples, the one group of figs as "good figs, very good", but the other group of figs as "evil, very evil."

Jer 24:5-9
5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good.

Those carried away captive to Babylon along with the Jews of Judah, by Nebuchadnezzar, is about the foreigners and bondservants that lived among the Jews of the southern "kingdom of Judah", or "house of Judah" at Jerusalem/Judea.

In Ezra 2 about a small group of the Jews returning to Jerusalem after the Babylon captivity, it is shown how some of those foreigners had crept into the priesthood, and had to be cast out. Recall Judges 2 & 3 where God had commanded the children of Israel to literally wipe out specific nations of the land of Canaan, but failed. Thus many of the Canaanites became bondservants to Israel. In 1 Kings 9 under Solomon's reign those Canaanite bondservants are still there among the children of Israel.

6 For I will set Mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.

That is one of the most important revelations of the parable of the fig tree. God said He would bring both symbolic baskets of figs, the two groups of peoples, the remnant of Judah and the foreigners that went captive to Babylon with Judah, and set them back in the holy land, and not pull them down, and will plant them and not pluck them up.

When was that fulfilled, or has it been fulfilled yet? And the hinge-point is where God said He would set them in the land and NOT pluck them up anymore, i.e., not scatter them or remove them again.

That did not happen in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple, for they scattered the Jews out of the holy land then, called the Diaspora. And only in the latter centuries did the Jews start returning to Jerusalem and the holy land, in small groups, UNTIL... 1948 when Israel was made a nation against by United Nations charter vote of the nations.

Since then, the Jews in the nation of today's Israel have NOT been plucked up. And if that continues, which looks like it will, that GENERATION of 1948 will REPRESENT the fig tree of the parable being set out.

7 And I will give them an heart to know Me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart.

Of course in the above verse, our Heavenly Father is speaking of the good basket of figs, those of Judah in the holy land that love Him, and keep His commandments.

8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt:
9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.
KJV

Then for the evil basket of figs, the "crept in unawares" of Jude 4, the Canaanite foreigners that crept into Israel's priesthood and positions as scribes and bondservants of Israel, God said He would give to Zedekiah, king of Judah, and those Jews in Jerusalem that remain in the holy land, and in Egypt. And, that God would deliver some of them also through the countries to be a reproach and a curse.

So have no doubt brethren that we are living in the LAST GENERATION on earth today that will SEE Christ's future return.

So far, every generation, post Jesus’ first century generation, that has claimed “they” are the last generation, based on their interpretive framework, has been wrong.

The parable of the fig tree is about recognizing the nearness of events, not identifying ethnic groups based on Jeremiah 24.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Regarding Matthew 24:34 — the phrase “all these things” (Greek: panta tauta) refers to “all” of what Jesus just finished describing. That’s not a my own “man-made rule”, It’s basic grammar. demonstrative pronouns like “these” refer to things mentioned in the previous continuous narrative, and when modified with “all”, there is no grammatical reason to exclude some events.

If I said - “I am going to water my garden, go to the grocery, and clean the house, and I plan to finish all these things by the end of the day”. What are the antecedents to “all these things” ? Only some of the task, but not all will be done by end of day?

Thanks for sharing your wrong opinion on what "all these things" means. I appreciate you taking the time. Jesus did not return in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. You cannot get around that.

The parable of the wedding feast’s thematic narrative suggests otherwise - when does the gathering of the good and bad occur, pre or post the judgment of the city?

Both. Can you not see that He said the invitation goes out to the highways, representing the Gentile nations? The invitation is still going out today since the gospel is still being preached today. People being cast out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13) will happen when Jesus returns in the future.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The text is vague enough that the times of the gentiles could be understood as beginning and ending with the trampling of Jerusalem OR could have begun at some point prior to the trampling, with the trampling being the end/culmination.

However, I don’t think that Grammatically, it allows for the trampling to be thousands of years since it’s to happen before the generation passes away.

Of course you don't think that. But, I don't care that you don't think that.

Christ didn’t come in the clouds within the first century generation, only according to your framework - there are understandings/interpretations/frameworks of what the phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” means other than just literal/visibly/bodily, that fit with the context, grammar, and linguistics of the Olivet discourse.

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus said that when He comes He will destroy all unbelievers just like all unbelievers were destroyed in the flood and heaven and earth will pass away when that happens. And He said no one knows the day or hour that will happen (Matthew 24:35-39). That does not describe what happened in 70 AD. Unless you can tell me the day or hour He came in 70 AD and destroyed all unbelievers? No, I'm sure you can't do that.

 

[claninja]

Thanks for sharing your wrong opinion on what "all these things" means. I appreciate you taking the time. Jesus did not return in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. You cannot get around that.

Ok, so you have no rebuttal for your grammatical and contextual inconsistencies with which you negotiate with the text, and you can’t even address a simple example of how antecedents work. It appears Your sole argument for altering the grammar and context is that if you didn’t, the passage wouldn’t align with your framework - that’s textbook eisegesis.

Both. Can you not see that He said the invitation goes out to the highways, representing the Gentile nations? The invitation is still going out today since the gospel is still being preached today. People being cast out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13) will happen when Jesus returns in the future.

In the narrative of the wedding feast, the gathering of the good and bad occurs after the destruction of the city, not before.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok, so you have no rebuttal for your grammatical and contextual inconsistencies with which you negotiate with the text, and you can’t even address a simple example of how antecedents work. It appears Your sole argument for altering the grammar and context is that if you didn’t, the passage wouldn’t align with your framework - that’s textbook eisegesis.

Thanks for sharing your meaningless opinion. In case you can't tell, I've become bored with you and have already said everything I wanted to say about this topic. You can continue talking about your grammatical and contextual nosense if you want, but I'm not interested. Jesus did not return in 70 AD and there was no gathering of the elect in 70 AD and you cannot prove otherwise. You have shown that you can't prove otherwise or you would have done it by now.

In the narrative of the wedding feast, the gathering of the good and bad occurs after the destruction of the city, not before.

No, the invitation goes out up to then and continues after that. It's a parable, man. It's not as if all Jews rejected the invitation, but since most did, their city was destroyed. The parable is about the gospel invitation/offer to salvation which is still going on today. You can't even discern simple things. Preterism has blinded you.

 

[claninja]

Of course you don't think that. But, I don't care that you don't think that.

Ok

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus said that when He comes He will destroy all unbelievers just like all unbelievers were destroyed in the flood and heaven and earth will pass away when that happens. And He said no one knows the day or hour that will happen (Matthew 24:35-39). That does not describe what happened in 70 AD. Unless you can tell me the day or hour He came in 70 AD and destroyed all unbelievers? No, I'm sure you can't do that.

I don’t think the total destruction of the wicked in the Noah analogy goes beyond — or is any more ‘universal’ — than the hyperbolic warning that ‘no flesh would be saved’ if the days of the Great Tribulation weren’t cut short. Both are examples of apocalyptic exaggeration meant to emphasize severity, not literal global scope. Additionally, the point of the analogy seems to be more about suddenness, than global scope.

 

[ewq1938]

Contextually, it’s clear - “Jesus answered them”.

Yes he gave an answer, but did not answer the first question.

Jesus does mention the “holy place” and the “abomination of desolation” “according to Daniel,” which alludes to Daniel passages such as 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. These passages likely concern the temple complex—especially since the Greek word ἱερός (hieros), the adjective form of hieron - is translated as temple in Daniel 9 in the LXX. So, it seems unreasonable to claim the Olivet Discourse makes no reference or allusion to the temple or temple complex at all.

No mention of the temple being destroyed. That's because it is not destroyed during any of the OD events he spoke of.

However, you correctly point out that Jesus does not explicitly or clearly say, “the temple will be destroyed” within verses 5-34. Because of this absence, you argue from silence that Jesus doesn’t answer the disciples’ question about the temple’s destruction.

They did not say teh word for temple in their question. You are assuming that is what they meant. It is not an argument from silence to say Jesus did not speak of the temple being destroyed in the OD because he does not speak of it. It is not an event that happens alongside the other events.

You are clearly importing your framework onto the passage in order to argue from silence that Jesus didn’t answer the first question. This is text book eisegesis.

False. It is a fact he did not speak about it. It is eisegesis on your part to take something taught at the temple and force it into the OD, despite it not being discussed in that discourse.

 

[ewq1938]

The text is vague enough that the times of the gentiles could be understood as beginning and ending with the trampling of Jerusalem OR could have begun at some point prior to the trampling, with the trampling being the end/culmination.

However, I don’t think that Grammatically, it allows for the trampling to be thousands of years since it’s to happen before the generation passes away.

Correct.