That could be helpful at times, but not needed at the moment.
Great. I shall continue on that blessing.
Let's Begin with the End
- Thread starter mikesw
- Start date
Consider Peter was WRITING to an audience. Why? So a record is present for those still around two thousand years later. Note how in Matthew the author knew it would be a written letter, and knew people might not understand. When you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel (let the reader understand). He knew the audience might be someone who may not understand the reference, and so points the reader back to Daniel, which was also a written record. Why? The abomination of desolation comes up TWICE in Daniel, in two different prophecies. They both are one however, because the major prophecy is a multi-fulfillment prophecy. We have a record of what happened a few centuries before Jesus was born in prophetic form, and we have the 70 weeks prophecy, which has an explanation of the abomination of desolation that parallels the previously fulfilled prophecy.
Who made peace with Israel (perfect peace) and surrounding areas, though not everyone (a covenant with the many) 23 years after the Prince was cut off (which means that the one making the covenant is not Jesus, or the prophecy implodes in non-fulfillment) then violated the covenant as in the previous prophecy of the abomination of desolation? I looked again, because everything I look at Matthew 24, there is something knew to see. In looking at the key verses in Matthew 24, can you point out where Jesus explicitly states in Matthew 15-28, that the temple and city are going to be destroyed? He doesn't say it once. However, in Luke 21, he is explicit in saying that Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed, and the people put to the sword or thrust out into the nations. (Another exile.) If you look at the questions the disciples are said to have asked in Matthew 24 and in Luke 21, you will see that the questions are not the same, therefore the answers are not the same. Luke 21 doesn't even talk about the final judgment in the discourse. It is mentioned prior. Luke was writing a historical piece on testimony of the disciples. Matthew was not.
You left out Deuteronomy 30, which has a descriptive sub title of "Yahweh Will Take you Back".
"“So it will be, when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you cause these things to return to your heart in all the nations where Yahweh your God has banished you, 2 and you return to Yahweh your God and listen to His voice with all your heart and soul according to all that I am commanding you today, you and your sons, 3 then Yahweh your God will [a]return you from captivity and return His compassion on you, and He will gather you again from all the peoples where Yahweh your God has scattered you. 4 If those of you who are banished are at the ends of the sky, from there Yahweh your God will gather you, and from there He will take you back. 5 And Yahweh your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.
6 “Moreover Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 And Yahweh your God will [c]inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall return and listen to the voice of Yahweh, and you shall do all His commandments which I am commanding you today. 9 Then Yahweh your God will [d]prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the [e]offspring of your [f]body and in the [g]offspring of your cattle and in the [h]produce of your ground, for Yahweh will return to rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers, 10 when you listen to the voice of Yahweh your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, [j]when you return to Yahweh your God with all your heart and soul.
This is what you are missing. Here God has told the people, basically, they are going to rebel and here is what is going to happen. Then He says that they WILL return to Him and He will circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their children to love Him, that they might live. This is how deep the promises God made to the forefathers go. He will keep them and not break them. Notice God said WHEN they listen to the voice of Yahweh their God, not IF.
That is quite a vivid development of concepts. However, it would help to begin with the basis for interpreting "the end" outside of the sense found in scripture. I've not checked MacArthur's study of that term to be able to either assess it or integrate the concept into my examination of the end. I mention it likely is the apocalyptic language that improperly gets interpreted as physical events. But we first have to get through the examination of what end could be in mind here. It also has to be consider that the concept of the end of the world may reflect an early misconception by people such as Hippolytus that improperly has influenced interpreters ever since the second century.
Last edited:
The alternative to them not knowing is simply that he is asking the reader to apply the context of Daniel's prophecies so that the reader pays heed to the broader warnings.
Hopefully I was clear earlier. The prophecy of Matt 24 must be relevant to the disciples and must fit their concept of an end. I show multiple parallels of Daniel with Matt 24 concerning the city, the sanctuary, and the end.
Matt 24:2 is explicit about the temple destroyed. You might be right noting the passage does not say the city is destroyed. However, Christians were told to flee. The attack and damage were described as a flood. Despite the lack of naming Jerusalem here, Jesus shares these details of judgment while he and the disciples are in Jerusalem.
I'm unsure how the temple is destroyed multiple times. Also, it seems like only a very clever person could create a distinction of events between Luke 21 and Matt 24. We can logically consider that the difference is between Matthew's content directed to Jewish readers while Luke 21 relates the same information to gentiles. Luke does not have say this is the judgment of Jerusalem inasmuch as the reader of his gospel have the basic knowledge to understand any and all of that gospel.
This is great if you are talking about the people returning from the Assyrian and Babylon captivities. The benefits are contingent on when and if the people listen to the voice of Yahweh. More dominant for the judgment of the Israel people is the content of the Song of Moses in Deut 32, which speaks of their ultimate failing. However, blessing also came with that both to the remnant of Israel that survived and the blessing to all who come to Christ.
Well. supposing this is a certain "when." That does not stop them from falling again without the exile and return that Deut 30 shares with them. What is of special focus for Matt 24:3 and 14 is the type of end that the disciples could know from scripture. No other type of end has been defined.
@Selah
A wise man once said: "it is much easier to believe a doctrine of the scriptures than it is to defend the same, it takes much more knowledge in defending where others can see, believe and learn thereby."
Acts 18:25-28~"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ."
Convincing the Jews a little is progress, but Apollos did so mighty by using the scriptures which true men of God do. But, the point is this: Apollos, not only knew the truth, he could defend the same in a very convincing way and his gift to do so, help many, who had come to believed through grace.
It would be worth while, if indeed you have believe you have the truth, then share it, and be ready to support and defend such as you believe. for only then can anyone can truly know that they have the truth.
A wise man once said: "it is much easier to believe a doctrine of the scriptures than it is to defend the same, it takes much more knowledge in defending where others can see, believe and learn thereby."
Acts 18:25-28~"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ."
Convincing the Jews a little is progress, but Apollos did so mighty by using the scriptures which true men of God do. But, the point is this: Apollos, not only knew the truth, he could defend the same in a very convincing way and his gift to do so, help many, who had come to believed through grace.
Please do so, and then we shall test them with the scriptures just as we are commanded to do, which if you are a lover of the truth should expect us to do so.
I will make an assumption that the point about Matt 25 is about the judgment of the sheep and goats. I think Dr. J. Vernon McGee had the best commentator statement about this judgment of nations. If memory serves, he said he does not quite understand it. I will be a bit more foolish and try to point out critical details.
This is not a final judgment of all humanity, as the ESV titles this section. First, this only appears in Matthew and thus likely is pertinent to Jewish concerns. It must be considered that the description does not account for the behavior of all humanity. Instead, the judgments are based on each nations' treatment of Christians -- of clothing them, feeding them, helping them in prison and illness. That element seems to be neglected then is that the nations in view are those with contact to Christians in distress. The interpretation as "nations" instead of "gentiles" also is significant. It would be odd to have gentiles as the sole ones getting judged. It still is odd for nations to be judged. However, if the nations refers to those surrounding Judea, a more reasonable image forms (even if some inaccuracy is found here). The nations can be equated to those that the 70/72 visited in Luke 10:1-16 or the twelve -- Luk 9:1-10 (Matt 9:1-11, Mark 6:7-16). These had the same sense of rejection of the sharers of the gospel
I'm taking a concept shared by another wise man -- The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable,
@mikesw
Why check with MacArthur's (John I assumed) study? You first must come to the knowledge of the truth and then check him to see if indeed he's on the right track or not, and if he is, then maybe you then can learn more from him to add to what God has first graciously given to you. We must trust God to reveal His truth to us, before searching others, which I'm not in any means against, only our first trust must be in the scriptures of truth.
One more quick note: Mike, again, if you truly desire to know the "end" of Matthew 24,25, then listen carefully to Christ's own words in this discourse. As a matter of fact, if you desire to know what Daniel spoke of then the answer is found in Matthew 24!
”
Daniel was a prophet not an historian as so many portray him as! Jesus here plainly said: The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, whosoever readeth let him understand as I'm NOW revealing those words spoken by Daniel.
From Daniel to Christ, to Paul to John, we see clearly exactly what the abomination is that God will make desolate in his time of end time events. Abomination of desolation is NOT what was abominable to Israel as many have said, Bu that which is abomination to the God of heaven!
So Mike, all that is mentioned is Matthew 24,25 are end time events that as one progresses to the end of Revelation becomes clearer and clearer if we allow and depend on the Spirit of God to be our teacher of his word.
I have heard preachers say, that you got to understand Daniel BEFORE you can understand Matthew 24, that is a lie, acutally it is totally the other way around, you first must understand what Christ is saying BEFORE you will understand those dark prophetic words spoken by the Prophet Daniel. The word of God is one cohesive whole teaching one truth on whatever particular subject is under consideration.
Pray to tell me why this would help? It would be impossible to step outside of the scriptures and then think we are going to end up with a biblical position, that's not possible Mike.
Why check with MacArthur's (John I assumed) study? You first must come to the knowledge of the truth and then check him to see if indeed he's on the right track or not, and if he is, then maybe you then can learn more from him to add to what God has first graciously given to you. We must trust God to reveal His truth to us, before searching others, which I'm not in any means against, only our first trust must be in the scriptures of truth.
Daniel 10:21
“But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”One more quick note: Mike, again, if you truly desire to know the "end" of Matthew 24,25, then listen carefully to Christ's own words in this discourse. As a matter of fact, if you desire to know what Daniel spoke of then the answer is found in Matthew 24!
Matthew 24:15
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand”Daniel was a prophet not an historian as so many portray him as! Jesus here plainly said: The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, whosoever readeth let him understand as I'm NOW revealing those words spoken by Daniel.
From Daniel to Christ, to Paul to John, we see clearly exactly what the abomination is that God will make desolate in his time of end time events. Abomination of desolation is NOT what was abominable to Israel as many have said, Bu that which is abomination to the God of heaven!
So Mike, all that is mentioned is Matthew 24,25 are end time events that as one progresses to the end of Revelation becomes clearer and clearer if we allow and depend on the Spirit of God to be our teacher of his word.
I have heard preachers say, that you got to understand Daniel BEFORE you can understand Matthew 24, that is a lie, acutally it is totally the other way around, you first must understand what Christ is saying BEFORE you will understand those dark prophetic words spoken by the Prophet Daniel. The word of God is one cohesive whole teaching one truth on whatever particular subject is under consideration.
I have done deeper studies Romans and Galatians, at least to creating an outline, before seeing what others wrote. In broader topics, I have come through various sequences. I got some help on Isaiah listening to common themes but much has just come with slow familiarity. But I was focusing on Isa 40-47 a year ago and probably not very well resolved. Everything is different.
@mikesw
Mike, before we consider Matthew 25 and the end which is spoken of in Matthew 24, let us consider:
Mike what coming is Christ speaking about? When will this coming be fulfilled according to the scriptures? Give me your best answer possible. I trust you are not like some who rubber stamp these scriptures fulfilled 70 A.D. !
Off to bed.
It is close to the time I must head for bed, so this will be short, and we shall say more later the Lord willing.
Mike, before we consider Matthew 25 and the end which is spoken of in Matthew 24, let us consider:
I'm going to ask you one question and allow you to answer this question and then I'll come back tomorrow morning and give my thoughts on these scriptures using the word of God as my support of what I will say.
Mike what coming is Christ speaking about? When will this coming be fulfilled according to the scriptures? Give me your best answer possible. I trust you are not like some who rubber stamp these scriptures fulfilled 70 A.D. !
Off to bed.
Did you first define terms before you started interpreting the text? You are getting ahead of the proper exegetical process.
I have many insights that only have come to light in the last year. I have been challenging people on taking the prophesies out of context. I also address issues where translators (like in Zeph 1) use mankind instead of people and earth instead of land.
Zephaniah 1:3 (NKJV)
3“I will consume man/mankind and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, The fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man/mankind from the face of the land/earth,” Says the LORD.
The passage pertains to nations surrounding Judah and thus has a limited reach of land, not the earth. The same issue happens between saying people and mankind. The translation to earth/mankind give the illogical implication that a prophet to Judah is speaking of worldwide calamity in the vicinity of Judah. It is more reasonable that the prophet refers to land and people near Judah. Then, people in the bible study group just followed the translator instead of breaking out of the spell they were in.
The lesson then is that words have to be used correctly if you want to analyze a text properly.
Last edited:
@mikesw
Mike, the OT prophets wrote many scriptures in parables, dark saying that's to be interpreted using all scriptures, most from the NT as the Spirit taught the apostles and prophets in the beginning of the NT church ~ yet has gifted others since then to understand the prophets, and apostles. The process is laid out for us.
We take a little from here and a little from there and make them fit so that we can see the truth. The bible is a spiritual puzzle and before we can see the truth we must put the pieces together and then we can see and understand. I know there are many, many different rules to follow, but the best rule of all is follow the context and it generally will lead one into the truth. Eschatology is a little different subject than let say the new birth, for context always delivers on this subject, but with eschatology we must follow scriptures from where we first see the subject.... let say the subject of Mystery Babylon following all the way from Isaiah 13 to Revelation and it becomes so clear as to whom is Mystery Babylon, but still context is so important even with eschatology which I hope to show later.
Now to the question I ask you to answer, which you did not do a very well job in my estimation. You said:
A text is a word, clause, verse, paragraph, chapter, or book you are seeking to interpret.
Context is the surrounding information, which shows the author’s meaning by the text.
Out of context is using words and their sound contrary to the surrounding information.
A pretext is a false and incorrect impression designed to hide or disguise the real intent.
Mike, Using a verse contrary to its context gives a misleading and deceitful sound of words to teach something the author did not intend and/or is not true.
Mike I'm sure you have had your words used out of context before, and you hated the corruption of your intent and meaning. We must make sure we never do it with the precious Word of God.
This rule applies to all writings and conversations of every sort, and so context is well understood by most people. Contracts, court records, novels, promises, and poetry are all understood in context, or surrounding information, to truly understand their meaning.
Even single words are meaningless without a context, which is why you asked your teacher to use them in a sentence before you would try to spell them in a spelling bee!
Even if you use a verse to teach a true point, make sure you still honor its context. For using the wrong verse to teach the right point is the first subtle step to heresy. You are making a big mistake, and need to reconsider this.
Along with....
So, I know WHOM is the prophet Zephaniah is talking about and what land he is speaking against by comparing scriptures with scriptures, here a little, and there a little.
Mike I also know what Matthew 24: 35-42 is speaking about, do you? If yes, then show me.
Having a hard time sleeping because of the medicine I'm taking due to my present situation. So I'm up until I can sleep.
Mike, the OT prophets wrote many scriptures in parables, dark saying that's to be interpreted using all scriptures, most from the NT as the Spirit taught the apostles and prophets in the beginning of the NT church ~ yet has gifted others since then to understand the prophets, and apostles. The process is laid out for us.
Isaiah 28:9
“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”We take a little from here and a little from there and make them fit so that we can see the truth. The bible is a spiritual puzzle and before we can see the truth we must put the pieces together and then we can see and understand. I know there are many, many different rules to follow, but the best rule of all is follow the context and it generally will lead one into the truth. Eschatology is a little different subject than let say the new birth, for context always delivers on this subject, but with eschatology we must follow scriptures from where we first see the subject.... let say the subject of Mystery Babylon following all the way from Isaiah 13 to Revelation and it becomes so clear as to whom is Mystery Babylon, but still context is so important even with eschatology which I hope to show later.
Now to the question I ask you to answer, which you did not do a very well job in my estimation. You said:
That's a first~context is so important.
A text is a word, clause, verse, paragraph, chapter, or book you are seeking to interpret.
Context is the surrounding information, which shows the author’s meaning by the text.
Out of context is using words and their sound contrary to the surrounding information.
A pretext is a false and incorrect impression designed to hide or disguise the real intent.
Mike, Using a verse contrary to its context gives a misleading and deceitful sound of words to teach something the author did not intend and/or is not true.
Mike I'm sure you have had your words used out of context before, and you hated the corruption of your intent and meaning. We must make sure we never do it with the precious Word of God.
This rule applies to all writings and conversations of every sort, and so context is well understood by most people. Contracts, court records, novels, promises, and poetry are all understood in context, or surrounding information, to truly understand their meaning.
Even single words are meaningless without a context, which is why you asked your teacher to use them in a sentence before you would try to spell them in a spelling bee!
Even if you use a verse to teach a true point, make sure you still honor its context. For using the wrong verse to teach the right point is the first subtle step to heresy. You are making a big mistake, and need to reconsider this.
Mike are taking about Matthew 24:36-42? Or Zephaniah 1:3 which I'm assuming you are? I did not ask about Zephaniah 1:3, but while you are there it is easy to see WHOM the prophets is speaking about BY COMAPRING scriptures with scriptures, which so far you my friend have not attempted to do.
Along with...
Matthew 24:28
“For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.”Along with....
Along with your verse....
Zephaniah 1:7
“Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.”So, I know WHOM is the prophet Zephaniah is talking about and what land he is speaking against by comparing scriptures with scriptures, here a little, and there a little.
Mike I also know what Matthew 24: 35-42 is speaking about, do you? If yes, then show me.
I have no idea of anything identified as wrong about basic interpretation methods from what you wrote here.
Some other stuff you wrote suggests to me that you are treating scriptures as some sort of wisdom sayings that have to be analyzed to come out with a unique message. I see scripture in the context of God's interaction with Israel and that the message makes sense cohesively in this fashion. Sure there are some difficult areas and there are ways the NT aids to understand difficult passages, but the NT findings do not lend toward something far off from what the prophet originally says.
Regarding Babylon in Isa 13-14, that passage is simply about judgment that would come forth on Babylon. There also is mention of Cyrus who would act on behalf of Israel. These are things that were going to happen in the future, even by Cyrus (for his specific act) hearing about his role.
And I figured your sleep cycle has been messed up some. Hope it works out okay. I have had sleep issues and was figuring it did not matter much as long as I could work on writing projects when awake. But recently, I have not been on my regular projects. oh well.
Last edited:
I looked it up in a concordance, and it speaks to consummation. The complete end, which Jesus gives as the final judgment. That is where everything that happens this side of eternity is wrapped up.
So no, you can't find it in the verses of Matthew 24 where it speaks to a great tribulation. Christians were told to flee. In Luke 21 it is when they see the armies surrounding the city. In Matthew, it is when they see the abomination of desolation in the temple. (In a wing of the temple, or in the pinnacle of the temple.)
Actually it shouldn't. In Luke it says that there would be wars, natural disasters, and nation against nation. It says the same in Matthew 24. However in Luke it says that before all of that, the church would face persecution. In Matthew, it says that the church faces persecution after the natural disasters, nation against nation, and rumors of war. Which one is right? Who got it wrong? Or.... are they both right, and it is actually dealing with two different times. Luke 21 dealing with AD 70, while Matthew speaks of a future fulfillment without the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. (Hence why Jesus does not mention their destruction in connection to the great tribulation. The other difference is at the end of this time of turmoil for Israel (Luke 21), those who survive are put to the sword, or exiled amongst the nations, while Jerusalem is tread under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled. What happens at the end of the time mentioned in Matthew 24? People put to the sword and exiled amongst the nations of the world? No. Immediately after, Jesus bodily returns to gather up the elect from the whole world, and is seen by everyone in the world. Being that He is God, there is no reason that cannot happen.
There are people who have taken the AD 70 diaspora, exile of Israel, and used the Old Testament prophecies that spoke of this exile, and used the Leviticus principle to calculate timeframe. The date they found for the end of this exile using this method was... 1948. I don't take that without a very large shovel of salt, however, it is most certainly a curiosity. Someone did the same calculation using the 70 weeks prophecy, and ended on a day that was the proper day to be Jesus triumphal entry. And that is after converting it back to the Jewish calendar. Most of the calculations ended too early, but this one calculation, using what was believed to be the correct decree, ended when it needed to. God doesn't throw numbers out that don't mean anything. He doesn't give estimates. He is exact.
The disciples questions in Matthew 24 come from the fact that they were NOT ignorant of Jewish eschatology of the Old Testament. Hence all the questions they asked where Jesus never told them they were wrong. Why not? They weren't wrong. They just didn't have a proper understanding of how it would work. When they asked the question about signs of His coming, they were not talking about the second coming. They didn't know He was going to leave yet, or did not understand it. The word for coming in the greek is a word for royalty, like when a king makes a royal visit to His kingdom. They were asking when Jesus would be revealed as King, and would enter into his Kingdom in Israel. How can we be sure that this is the idea? In Acts, before Jesus left they asked Him point blank, "Will you now restore the kingdom to Israel?" He never told them He would not restore the kingdom to Israel. He didn't say they were wrong. He said that it wasn't for them to know the seasons and epochs established by the authority of the Father. In other words, there was a season/epoch established by the Father where Jesus restores the Kingdom to Israel, it just isn't for them to know when. Jesus didn't know either, hence He didn't have an answer.
I sort of messed up by saying to check outside of scripture. That is not completely bad, but the real thing is to see what it means inside scripture. That is what I was showing in the original post. The only defined "end" is the end of the events surrounding Israel/Jerusalem, as expressed in several places in the OT.
Here are some specific types of uses of συντέλεια identified in the TDNT
>>
Outside the Bible this means ... “a common accomplishment” for public purposes, Demosth. Or.,20, 23, or a voluntary one
Gerhard Delling, “Τέλος, Τελέω,Ἐπιτελέω, Συντελέω, Συντέλεια, Παντελής,Τέλειος, Τελειότης, Τελειόω, Τελείωσις,Τελειωτής,” 64
>>
“expiration”of a year, 2 Ch. 24:23, “end” of the phase of the moon, Sir. 43:7(in both cases HT תְּקוּפָה “turning”);
Delling, idem. , 65
>>
Da. LXX also uses συντέλεια for קֵץ the eschatological “end” at 8:19, cf. too 11:27; 12:6 (in all these Θπέρας) and 12:13a (Θ the same); συντέλειαἡμερῶνis the transl. of קֵץ הַיָמִין at12:13b (also Θ). συντέλεια for “end” in a more gen. sense occurs for קֵץ at 9:26 (twice); 11:6, 13, 45; συντέλειακαιρῶν with no HT 9:27.
Delling, 65
>>
The version συντέλεια τοῦ αἰώνοςis peculiar to Mt. (→ VII, 232, 2 ff.). It occurs in interpretations of parables, 13:39 (without τοῦ),40, 49 (both in the fixed form οὕτωςἔσται ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος). It is used by the disciples in 24:3 and is again in the material peculiar to Mt. in 28:20. Materially it refers to eschatological events which have still to take place (24:3; 28:20); of these judgment is especially mentioned, 13:39f., 49.
Delling, 66
I decided to show several ways the word was used and is pretty conventional, even similar to the English. (I normally do not want to add complicated word analyses into the short discussions.) The end in Dan 12:6 is the end used in Matt 24:3 since these two concepts would be interrelated in Jewish culture. We also see, beyond the total destruction of the Temple and the city, that the power of the people was shattered (Dan 12:7).
Last edited:
Uh. The same Jerusalem. The same Temple. The same fleeing. You again forget that these two gospels appear focused on two different ethnic groups. I think the persecution distinction was not distinctly different but just shared in a different sequence in Luke 21 than in Matt 24. There is not enough difference between these accounts to say they are separate events.
The Christians faced persecutions at various times and at all times in the first-century. Another difference is that Luke can be highlighting persecution of non-Jewish Christians while Matthew highlights details that pertain more to Jewish Christians.
Then you state a bodily return without any explanation how Matthew or Luke has said this. (I know some people want to refer to Zech 14 for this, but listen to Steve Gregg on this topic for the best response.)
Either the 70 weeks of years happened or Daniel was wrong. This was one of at least three indicators of the time Christ would appear. The other is the fourth empire, namely the Roman empire. The third is that John the Baptist appeared as a forerunner to the judgment on Judah/Israel (Mal 3:1, Matt 3:3, Isa 40:3). As follow through, the city and Temple were destroyed, as found in Dan 9:26. For you to say God is exact, you have to consider all that happened in accord with the Book of Daniel.
Rom 3:4 Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”
That is fine that they did not know Jesus was going to die and be resurrected. When ideas of this were shared, they did not comprehend it. That does not mean that we deny Jesus's coming in judgment over Jerusalem.
As much as I can tell, people are commonly trying to fit their preconceived concepts into the passage rather than recognizing the passage as informed especially by Daniel but also by other prophets. Jesus summed these up and filled in additional details so the disciples would recognize when these things happened.
Anyhow, this thread is about the biblical context that helps explain the meaning of "the end" as found in the OT background. There is no other definition except when assuming, without any sources, that Jesus had shared a new concept of an end.
Last edited:
2 Pet 3:10-13 is a difficult passage with the apocalyptic language.
One thing appear is that the point about the heavens is more about the being cleared so that the works of the people facing this judgment would be clearly visible to God. That is basically how the analogy works. It is similar to Isa 34:4
"All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree."
Similarly, Rev 6;13-14 mentions the sky vanishing like a scroll that is being rolled up.
There may be similarity to Luke 17:28-30 that speaks of "the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven " (One scholar found more similarity to Sodom and Gomorrah themes, but I'm not settled on his proposed ideas.)
The application to Peter's audience was that they should behave in godliness because their deeds would appear along with those of the unrighteous. If you notice in verse 7, only the ungodly are affected by that moment of judgment. The righteous are left intact.
Note that on verse 10, the KJV has a unique wording but the more common is "the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." The imagery at that point is again of the behavior of people on earth being exposed to the eyes of God. The elements or celestial bodies melting with intense heat may refer to a refiners' fire scenario or could correspond to the Luke 17:28-30 theme.
However, none of this says that the physical earth is destroyed. Even the stuff about the heavens appears to be symbolic. Our modern reading should recognize that Peter is likely using the poetic symbology that his readers would recognize without thinking this was the physical reality.
Note that I only have looked closely at this passage today, so the concepts may not be perfectly understood or explained.
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing that passage. It suggests more detail of what John the Baptist was teaching. This also is an example of the way Christians may have wrong ideas but their inclination is to accept the more accurate teachings about Christ.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
You can never begin at the end. You must begin with the beginning.
The purpose of God is found in death. All things in Christ point to the necessity of death for establishment of Eternal Life.
Christ is the fulfillment and only promise Seed of Abraham.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, “and to the descendants,” referring to many, but “and to your descendant,” referring to one, who is Christ.
