Question about Luke 21:32 (end times)

Actually He was speaking of the "time of the end". End of what? In my opionion the end of the Jewish age/Old Covenant.
Was it all fulfilled? Yes

Maybe He did return. Maybe its the "nature" of His return we are confused about. Go to the OT and look at the "comings" of God. Then see if this might be the type of "coming" Jesus and the NT writers had in mind.

I know exactly how you feel. I got sick to my stomach when I started seeing things from a fulfilled point of view. Study on with an open mind and your fears will disappear.

 

Read it in context. The verse before says what the beginning signs are for the end. Then Jesus says that this generation -- those that will see the beginning signs -- will not pass away until all those things have happened. In other words, once it starts, it will be swift.

 

I strongly disagree with Grasshopper there, for verse 35 states that the end 'it' will come upon ALL who are alive at that time, all over the earth. Verse 36 closes with reference to the Judgment. This has not happened yet.

 

My position is somewhere between Grasshopper and Helen (though closer to GH).

My disagreement with Helen is that words like "whole earth" probably meant the entire region, rather than the entire globe (compare Luke 2:1). The idea that Jesus is talking about a future generation is really not supported by the statement "this generation". Besides, if this warning did not apply to the audience he had then, then why would the warnings be directed to them?

My disgreement with Grasshopper (sorry GH) is that I don't believe this to be a reference to the only return of Christ. Christ's return here in Luke 21 in judgement upon this region seems to a be a type of final judgement yet to come upon the world.

Saved4Life, you have good reason to question these things. In fact, Albert Schwietzer questioned them. He believed that if Jesus and the Apostles said the world would end within a generation and then it didn't, their word was unreliable. Apparently no one explained the more fulfilled view of prophecy to him which GH and I hold to. By Schwietzer's time, futurism was all the rage (as it remains today).

In Christ,

Tim

 

Someday Tim we should discuss our differences. Honestly, I would rather you be right than me.

 

GH,

I have some dear Christian friends who are full-pret.s--so I can relate. It can be pretty lonely as a partial-pret., not to mention a full-pret.!

Tim

 

Full preterists are heretics. How can you call them Christian Tim? They might be liberal and call themselves Christian, but they aren't actually.

This generation refers to the generation that sees these events take place. Since they haven't taken place yet, "this generation" hasn't occured yet either.

 

Perhaps Tim has studied the Word.

Perhaps your belief is heresy. Let see what others have to say:

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
Matthew 24:34

Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass… Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live till all these things were fulfilled;see as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is, that John, one of the disciples of Christ, outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destroyed; as Rabban Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before, relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state.

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This t generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
(t) This age: the word "generation" or "age" is here being used for the men of this age.

Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible
"This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled (v. 34); there are those now alive, that shall see Jerusalem destroyed, and the Jewish church brought to an end.’’

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible

Verse 34. This generation of men now living shall not pass till all these things be done - The expression implies, that great part of that generation would be passed away, but not the whole. Just so it was. For the city and temple were destroyed thirty-nine or forty years after.

So, I have John Gill, Thomas Henry, and the Reformers on my side. You have Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, and John Hagee on yours. I'll take my chances.

Maybe these will be a little easier for you.

Matt. 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Whom is Jesus speaking to? Do we have the context? Good lets move on:

23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you , Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

That speaks to the Disciples lifetime.

Now lets move on to one you never could give me an answer to.

Lets set the context:
Matt 26:57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.

So Jesus is in the presence of Caiaphas, the scribes and elders.
So..
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you , Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

So I ask you again, did Caiaphus see Jesus coming in the clouds? Yes or No will do.

Do I even need to bring up Matt 16: 27-28.

 

Bringing up postmills won't score any points.

The early church was UNQUESTIONABLY premillenial.

Sorry, heresy is denying that Christ will physically come again. Since he will return the same way he ascended (visibly, bodily, physically).

You are free to bring up Matthew 16 whenever you want. I love that text on premillenialism.

By the way, the identity of "you" in Matthew 26:57 is debatable, seeing how the word is plural.

Wow, the strength of your argument is a verse here and a verse there. Very good exegesis.

 

Fine, its plural. Caiaphus, scribes and elders make it plural. Is that the best you got?

I will provide many more NT and OT passages. But as usual you cannot answer the simple questions. Why should I think you could handle more in-depth ones?

Come back when you've checked your Tim LaHaye Bible Commentary on the verses above.

 

GH, did Caiaphus have telescope eyes to see into heaven and actually see Christ sitting next to the Father?

Btw, LaHaye is a fool and I can't stand him. In case you haven't noticed, I am not the run of the mill, sensationalist.

I can't agree with you because I must hold the Scriptures with respect.

 

Ask Jesus, He's the one who said it.

Again you avoid the questions.

 

Actually, this is just more and more ridiculous. I am not avoiding any question.

It is obvious that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE MEANT.

If you say he literally came in the clouds in AD 70 and that introduced the new heavens and new earth, then Caiaphus actually has some powerful eyes. Pretty good for an old man I must say. I am 25 and wear glasses.

 

Your not? Since you haven't answered any of the questions I've asked I just assumed your were avoiding them. Silly me.


64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you , Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

So according to your responses I just assume your answer is no, he did not see the Son of Man coming on the clouds. Jesus was mistaken. So what is it reffering to?

Yes, one of us is very confused. So I ask again, What did He mean?

I say He came in the clouds in the same manner He came in the clouds in the OT. Do you think God came literally in the clouds in the OT? I'm really curious about this.

 

Jesus was stating that the next time he would be seen, it would be when he comes from the right hand of God in judgment.

Does that verse actually apply to Ciaphus specifically? I don't know if he has a front row seat in hell or not, but it is true that Jews will see him that way and will mourn as one would mourn over their first born.

In the OT (which is types and shadows), God came in judgment upon other peoples. The NT is not shadow. Christ will personally come down from heaven to invade humanity and take over from the earth.

Kind of funny that a dispensationalist is telling a preterist to see that the OT is shadow and the NT is reality. Actually it isn't. It just proves how ignorant most non-dispies really are.

 

Yes, and who did Jesus say would see it? Oh, thats right. According to you Caiaphus has a front row seat in Hell to view it from. Hal Lindsey would be proud.

He is speaking to Caiaphus isn't He? If you think it is not speaking to Caiaphus then don't ever "preach" to me about context ever again. You pick and choose your context. And again you avoid the context of Matt. 10:23.

You always resort to name-calling when you lack scriptural support.
So using your superior intellect and logic, the Flood didn't literally happen because it was just a type of the future literal /physical judgement. Are you willing to be consistent in this type of interpretation, or is this like "context" you apply it however it best fits your view?

 

GH, come on man. Try to follow an argument.

1. I was being sarcastic about Caiaphus and his front row in hell.

2. He is speaking to Caiaphus, but the word is plural. Caiaphus was the leader of the jews. It is still the context to say he was speaking to the representative group of jews.

3. We both know that the 'coming in the clouds' was symbolic in the O.T. The flood wasn't symbolic.

It is you who insist that what is true in the O.T. is true in the N.T. I would argue that it isn't always the case. Much of the O.T. is shadow.

I would like to recommend the book of Hebrews if you still don't understand.

 

You might be, but many futurist will interpret it in this very way or one close to it.

For the 3rd and last time the context is this:

Matt 26:57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.

Therefore the plural YE refers to Caiaphus, scribes and Elders. You refuse to admit this.

Then why can't it be symbolic in the NT? In the "Glory of the Father" seems to say I will come just as My Father did.

Very good. Physical Israel was a type of Spiritual Israel. Physical Jerusalem was a type of the now Spiritual Jerusalem.
Let me guess, you now say those aren't types but will be literal/physical in the future.

Hebrews is a book loved by the Preterist I read and hear. Perhaps you should start with Hebrews 1:1-2:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

I'm sure you will tell me what "last days" really means.

Context Context Context

Matt. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Who are the "you" and "Ye"

Do you use the representative method on this verse as you did Matt.26:64?

Matt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.28 Verily I say unto you , there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Who are the "you" and "they" that would see His coming and judgement in vs.27 and His Kingdom in vs. 28?

Matt 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:

Who are the "you" and "Ye" in this verse?
Looks an awful lot like what Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 10:23 doesn't it?

I bet these are just representative of future disciples, future scribes, future prophets, and future wise men and has nothing to do with the disciples in Jesus's day. Right?