While I agree Covenantee, I'm thinking of "telos" is the end of the OT that came through the cross, and 70 AD the resulting desolation of that end?
Last edited:
Preterism misrepresents Scripture
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
While I agree Covenantee, I'm thinking of "telos" is the end of the OT that came through the cross, and 70 AD the resulting desolation of that end?
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 be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
...we see that they, i.e. deceivers, wars, and rumors of wars, occurred after Calvary but before 70AD; thus "end" in verse 6 logically refers to 70AD.
Similarly here:
Matthew 24
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
The gospel was preached in all the world after Calvary, and prior to 70AD, thus "end" logically refers to 70AD.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
I understand how 70 AD seems to fit the prophetic words of Christ. What causes me to conclude Christ was speaking of the end of the Old as being the advent of Christ's cross, is remembering who Christ was speaking to. Yes, they are Jews, but first and foremost in my mind they are His disciples. I believe the deception Christ was warning the disciples of, speaks of liars, false apostles, false doctrine etc. Those who claim to be of Christ, acknowledging that Christ is "I Am" who was to come. Christ warns His disciples that "time draweth near" so they are forewarned not to follow after them. Don't believe those who say Christ is here, or there while looking for the Kingdom of God. Because the Kingdom of God is not now of this earth, and is not physically discerned, but shall be in you through His Spirit.
Luke 21:8 (KJV) And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am (Christ); and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
Since the audience is Christ's disciples, and the greatest enemy they would encounter would be Satan and his angels. The battle between the forces for good and the forces for evil began in earnest when Satan and his angels warred against Michael and his angels in heaven. When Christ was born this great spiritual battle in heaven commenced. And Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven to the earth, and immediately this spiritual warfare that began in heaven continued on earth with Satan trying to stop the Kingdom of God in heaven from being built as the Church went into all the nations of the earth with the message of Christ (Gospel) in the power of the Spirit. I believe this is the war and rumor of wars Christ warns His disciples would come. Not physical warfare, but spiritual warfare that would bring "great tribulation" to the Church on earth until the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven is complete.
Yes, I agree the Gospel had been preached in the world known only as the regions then existing after Calvary. But the end for the Old Covenant through Calvary began another ending for ALL mankind, that will not come until all that is written shall be fulfilled.
Matthew 24:29-31 (KJV) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
But that was not happening in the build up to the cross - the end of the old covenant.
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, 7).
Mark: “And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be, but the end is not yet, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (13:7, 8).
Luke: “But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by [immediately]. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (21:9, 10).
We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.
Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.
In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”
Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.
But though there would be wars, rumours of wars, and commotions, Jesus told his disciples: “See that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the END is not yet.” The word “end” that is used here is not the same Greek word as in the expression “end of the world.” (See footnote on page 59). As Barnes says, the end here referred to is “the end of the Jewish economy; the destruction of Jerusalem.”
Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains.
Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow
Last edited:
But the OT Jewish economy finished at the cross. The cross is constantly shown as the introduction point of the new new covenant and the termination point of the old covenant. The old covenant is dead. It is gone. AD70 was not the end of the old covenant. That occurred 40 years earlier. When Christ said "it is finished" on the cross that was the end of the old covenant arrangement. From a heavenly perspective the renting of the veil finished the temple sacrifices forever. Whilst Matthew doesn’t identify what Christ said before He gave up the ghost John does in 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
The continued practice of the Jewish sacrifice system and the strict religious laws that the apostate Jewish religious leaders enforced after Christ's death did not in any way negate the abolition of the old covenant at the cross. To say otherwise is to fight with multiple NT Scripture.
The book of Hebrews shows the removal of the old covenant arrangement and its replacement by the new superior covenant. Hebrews 8:6 declares (before AD70): “now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
Hebrews 8:7-8 explains (before AD70), “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”
The old covenant was faulty or defective. It had many limitations. It had to be replaced. Those who suggest it was still active and useful between Calvary and AD70 undermine the cross and fight with clear and repeated Scripture.
Albert Barnes contends: “it did not contain the ample provision for the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul which was desirable. It was merely ‘preparatory’ to the Gospel.”
The Preachers Homiletical states: “Not merely ‘free from defect’, but ‘incomplete’, unable fully to meet man’s case. The old system was complete enough for its limited sphere and purpose: fault was found with its limitations.”
John Wesley explained: “For if the first had been faultless - If that dispensation had answered all God's designs and man's wants, if it had not been weak and unprofitable unable to make anything perfect, no place would have been for a second.”
Scripture (before AD70) describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”
The sad thing is: many Christians today speak on this subject as if the cross never happened. They talk as if the old covenant still exists and is still relevant today or in the future. They fail to see that it has been eternally removed and the new covenant has replaced it. This is why they get messed up when they get to this subject. They want to go back to the old imperfect arrangement or they want Israel to go back to the old imperfect arrangement. They yearn for an old-covenant-type physical kingdom that is focused on the natural, temporal and earthly.
Equally, they want to elevate Israel to a place that they no longer own in the New Testament. Many want to render circumcision (the sign of the old covenant) meritorious or advantageous when the New Testament says it avails nothing.
The fact is, on the authority of God’s Word, we are never going back to the shadow, the type and the abolished. The reason being: God was, and is, fully and eternally satisfied with the new covenant. It doesn’t need modified, added to or replaced. The cross did it all!
The old covenant was only a signpost to the new covenant – the substance, fulfilment and the reality. It simply pointed to the new covenant arrangement that was focused on the real Jerusalem (the heavenly), not Christ-rejecting carnal Jerusalem. The old has been eternally abolished.
Hebrews 10:1 (before AD70) makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things."
The old Jewish temple in Jerusalem, which is now destroyed, served as an impressive physical, yet, imperfect temporal type of the living temple of God – the Lord Jesus Christ and His mystical body. It was the focal-point for the whole Judaic sacrificial system for many centuries.
Paul the Apostle addresses this in Galatians 4:9-10 (before AD70), asking, “now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”
The New Testament writer is referring here to the old covenant ceremonial calendar. His contention is simple: why would a liberated Christian want to go back to the old elaborate abolished Jewish arrangement? This phrase “days, and months, and times, and years” refer to the many holy days, feasts and festivals that Israel had to carefully maintain until Jesus died on the cross. All of these were a heavy bondage to them. Paul despaired because some believers were looking back to the bondage of the old that was gone. This is so opposed to the freedom that comes in Christ.
The phrase “Ye observe” is one Greek word paratēreō meaning you ‘assiduously observe’ or you ‘painstakingly observe’. The word translated “weak” here (asthenes) means strengthless or impotent. The word interpreted “beggarly” in this passage (ptochos) relates to the condition of a pauper. It is derived from the original word ptoeo meaning fallen or flown away. The word “bondage,” which relates to the old Judaic system, is the word douleuo, meaning to be a slave.
As we piece these original Greek words together, we start to get a real sense of how the New Testament viewed the whole Old Testament ceremonial law. The old covenant ritualistic system has been abolished because it is expressly ‘impotent, impoverished and slavish’. The old covenant could not remove sin. It could never eradicate a guilty conscious. It was destitute. It has fallen and flown away. It has been rendered redundant. It is obsolete!
It has no ongoing purpose in the plan of God because of its weakness. It could never secure eternal salvation because it was not an eternal covenant. It had an expiration date. The coming in of the new perfect covenant removed the old imperfect system. When Christ came, He introduced “the everlasting covenant,” thus making the old temporal system useless. The shadow simply pointed to the substance.
Why would God ever want to bring back an insolvent and ineffective religious system that has been replaced by a perfect arrangement?
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.
But it did, and was.
I don't agree. This doesn't make sense.
It was dead. It was worthless. It was finished. The new replaced the old at the cross.
He gave the Jews 40 years to repent before destroying the temple, but that did not in any way legitimize their rebellious ongoing trust in the abolished ceremonial sacrifice system. The cross had rendered it all obsolete and dead.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I agree.
I think that's an acceptable way of looking at 1 Peter 4:7. But, I think looking at it similarly to how you look at James 5:8 (which I agree with) is acceptable as well and that's how I tend to look at 1 Peter 4:7 (that it's talking about the end of all things as approaching). The same Greek word translated as "draweth nigh" in James 5:8 is used in 1 Peter 4:7 in regards to the end of all things. So, I don't see any reason not to interpret the word the same way in both verses.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I disagree. I don't see how you could possibly conclude that He's not talking about His second coming in verses 30-31. If those verses aren't about HIs second coming, then I don't know what verses are. I guess you are closer to being a partial preterist than I thought. Do you consider yourself to be one or do you consider yourself to be a historicist?
If you read Luke 21 you can see that there is a time period called "the times of the Gentiles" between the events of 70 AD and His future second coming, so that should be taken into account when reading Matthew 24 and Mark 13 as well.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
How does it make sense? You are using terms that aren't used in scripture, so that is adding confusion to this discussion. Scripture never references the "OT Jewish economy", so can you define exactly what that is? Scripture does reference the old covenant and the old covenant was made obsolete by the death of Christ and not in 70 AD.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Show me where there is a reference to "the OT Jewish economy". What does that even mean? I don't think different words being used that basically mean the same thing is enough evidence to conclude that when He referenced "the end" that it wasn't a reference to the end of the age.
Also, why should we not relate this:
Matthew 24:10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
To this:
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Jesus talked about a time when many would turn away from the faith and there would be an increase in wickedness and Paul wrote about the same thing, but indicated it would happen just before the second coming of Christ. So, I don't see why we should not see what Jesus said as relating to the same thing Paul talked about. If He was referring to the end of the age, as I believe, then that would be further evidence that He was talking about the same thing.
Last edited:
Jerusalem was destroyed. It was brought to an end in 70AD.
Was Jerusalem the old covenant?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course. But, is that "the end" Jesus was talking about? Considering that He was asked about "the end of the age" and considering that 70 AD was not the end of the age, I don't think so. I know you pointed out that a different Greek word translated as "the end" was used in verse 3 than was used in verses 6, 13 and 14, but I don't see that as really making any difference. The end is the end. The same word doesn't need to be used every time it's referenced.
The ancient earthly city of Jerusalem? No, of course not. The old covenant is a reference to the law of Moses and included the animal sacrifices that were performed at the temple and such that it required. Why are you asking me this?
Last edited:
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.
Similar threads
