Let's Begin with the End

[mikesw]

Let us go right to the Bullseye of Truth concerning who the disciples of Matthew chapter 24 were and are Today.

Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. 26And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.” 27John answered, “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ 29The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. 30He must increase, but I must decrease.”

The disciples were more like virgins when Jesus spoke the words of Matt 24. The bride did not come into existence until the Day of Pentecost. What is of interest in this thread is the OT concept of the end, as understood by the disciples.

 

[DavidTree]

The disciples were more like virgins when Jesus spoke the words of Matt 24. The bride did not come into existence until the Day of Pentecost. What is of interest in this thread is the OT concept of the end, as understood by the disciples.

John the Baptist lied and just tear that passage out of the bible...............
OR
we believe "It is written"

 

[DavidTree]

The disciples were more like virgins when Jesus spoke the words of Matt 24. The bride did not come into existence until the Day of Pentecost. What is of interest in this thread is the OT concept of the end, as understood by the disciples.

Holy Spirit = "He who has the Bride is the Bridegroom"

 

[mikesw]

John the Baptist lied and just tear that passage out of the bible...............
OR
we believe "It is written"

There is no assertion that the bride exists at this point. His statement is just one of definition. In the context of the definition, the focus is on John's joy associated with Christ and there's the strong association with Christ being like the bridegroom. I just mean this is analogically presented. At the same time, this does not deny the fulfillment of that.
So I would not find these verses somehow countering that the disciples inquired in Matt 24:3 from a purely Jewish OT context. More importantly, it should not be assumed that the end in mind was not within the Jewish OT context. Scripture needs to be interpreted in light of scripture.
I do appreciate your goal of defending scripture though.

 

[DavidTree]

There is no assertion that the bride exists at this point. His statement is just one of definition. In the context of the definition, the focus is on John's joy associated with Christ and there's the strong association with Christ being like the bridegroom. I just mean this is analogically presented. At the same time, this does not deny the fulfillment of that.
So I would not find these verses somehow countering that the disciples inquired in Matt 24:3 from a purely Jewish OT context. More importantly, it should not be assumed that the end in mind was not within the Jewish OT context. Scripture needs to be interpreted in light of scripture.
I do appreciate your goal of defending scripture though.

the Apostle John wrote his gospel based on OT = beginning with Genesis

John establishes the Identity of JESUS in his most profound Statement of Truth = "In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God"

John immediately compares Moses/law with JESUS/Grace & Truth, thus proclaiming JESUS as Greater then Moses

John immediately identifies the Authority of JESUS to give power to those who believe on Him to become "sons of God".

All this and more in just the opening chapter of his gospel.

 

[mikesw]

the Apostle John wrote his gospel based on OT = beginning with Genesis

John establishes the Identity of JESUS in his most profound Statement of Truth = "In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God"

John immediately compares Moses/law with JESUS/Grace & Truth, thus proclaiming JESUS as Greater then Moses

John immediately identifies the Authority of JESUS to give power to those who believe on Him to become "sons of God".

All this and more in just the opening chapter of his gospel.

Indeed it is wonderful what insight the fourth gospel gives us about Jesus. Never forget what was shared there.

My focus here is the scriptural basis to define the "end" brought up in the question in Matt 24:3.

 

[armylngst]

I do not know who said God's kingdom would end. I did not say that.
The 70 weeks time frame was the period for the Jewish people to repent before the kingdom started. This was to be the end of their transgressions for those who accepted the Messiah. (Dan 9:24)

It is the end of God's dealings with Daniel's people, the Jews, the people if Israel, and Jerusalem.

We have to infer that the kingdom was restored to Israel but essentially through those who came to Christ. I would be curious which verses in the OT you think I have missed. I can miss some at times but unless a verse interrupts the pattern of scripture that I have come to understand, I will be content with what Daniel shows (and Moses, in Deut 32)

So... instead of going with what the scripture says, we have to infer? I prefer going with sripture. Jesus says that the Kingdom is a time/epoch established by the authority of the Father, and that it isn't for us to know when that will be. There is A LOT in the Old Testament, with Daniel being important, but also Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, with Zechariah being a big one. And there is more than that.

I have done the study on the meaning of "the end." We see it in Deut 32:29 as the latter end.

Deuteronomy is written in Hebrews. I'm not sure how that helps studying a word in Greek. I know the spetuagint exists, but if you knew the story behind it, it isn't something to be heavily leaned upon.

The end of sacrifice and offering is in Dan 9:27, Dan 8:11,13, Dan 11:40, Dan 12:7. The idea is within Isa 10:20-22 (as called out by Rom 9:27) but is not as clear. The end of the nation also appears in John 11:47-51 where we see the nations was destroyed but the remnant (i.e., Christ followers of Israel) were preserved per Isa 10:20-22 to keep the nation in a heavenly sense.

You meant Daniel 11:31. Daniel 12:11 is the other one. As for Isaiah 10:20-22 is a real stretch. It is not only clear, it isn't there at all. Also, John 11:47-51 is speaking that Jesus death is for the nation.
" 51 Now he did not say this from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad"

If anyone has said the disciples did not know anything of the judgment coming upon jerusalem, they would be missing the basis for the question of Matt 24:3.

Anyhow. I do understand that you have a different concept of these things. It is certainly an option to treat these passages in your comprehension as you feel inclined. I'm hoping people can become aware of what end was defined, especially as found most clearly in Daniel-- and then work out the eschatology from there. I certainly believe Jesus had not changed the concept of the end that Daniel shares.

Zechariah is very important. Jesus did not change anything. He just gave more background. Luke and Matthew do not appear to be speaking about the same event, but two different events that are closely related. Luke, speaking of Israel and Israel's judgment as seen in AD 70, and Matthew, a parallel event in the future that marks the judgment of not just Israel, but the world. And, by bringing Daniel into it, it is paralleled to Daniel 11, which was fulfilled a few centuries before Jesus was born. Hence the author of Matthew saying, may the reader understand. (not the listener, as this message was intended not just for the disciples in their day, but for anyone who reads what Matthew wrote in the future.) Remember, God wrote the Bible using men.

 

[mikesw]

It is the end of God's dealings with Daniel's people, the Jews, the people if Israel, and Jerusalem.

That is what I mentioned happened. That is what Daniel mentions as the end

So... instead of going with what the scripture says, we have to infer? I prefer going with sripture. Jesus says that the Kingdom is a time/epoch established by the authority of the Father, and that it isn't for us to know when that will be. There is A LOT in the Old Testament, with Daniel being important, but also Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, with Zechariah being a big one. And there is more than that.

I could introduce those other prophets but I didn't want to overload the discussion. But if Daniel is wrong, then the NT is wrong. You see that I mentioned Isa 10:20-22 which Paul has quoted in Rom 9:27-29. The events get tied together.

Deuteronomy is written in Hebrews. I'm not sure how that helps studying a word in Greek. I know the spetuagint exists, but if you knew the story behind it, it isn't something to be heavily leaned upon.

I guess you hate Paul's and the gospel's use of the LXX too. That is your choice.

You meant Daniel 11:31. Daniel 12:11 is the other one. As for Isaiah 10:20-22 is a real stretch. It is not only clear, it isn't there at all. Also, John 11:47-51 is speaking that Jesus death is for the nation.
" 51 Now he did not say this from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad"

I'm pretty sure I did not find the word "the end" in Dan 11:31. Maybe you have a different version of Daniel. Then Isaiah speaks of only the remnant existing. that is how the nation avoided being totally destroyed. I am not fully clear on Daniel 11 but it seems to be an earlier incident and context leading up to the prophesies of the first century found in Dan 12. It is good to see you have a few details in view from Daniel.

Zechariah is very important. Jesus did not change anything. He just gave more background. Luke and Matthew do not appear to be speaking about the same event, but two different events that are closely related. Luke, speaking of Israel and Israel's judgment as seen in AD 70, and Matthew, a parallel event in the future that marks the judgment of not just Israel, but the world. And, by bringing Daniel into it, it is paralleled to Daniel 11, which was fulfilled a few centuries before Jesus was born. Hence the author of Matthew saying, may the reader understand. (not the listener, as this message was intended not just for the disciples in their day, but for anyone who reads what Matthew wrote in the future.) Remember, God wrote the Bible using men.

I only see one event in Luke 21 and Matt 24. If you see many, I probably cannot get on the same track that you are on. Also Matthew's point about reader was for those in the first century who actually were reading Matthew's gospel. That is not too hard to recognize.

Maybe you can clarify how the many mentions of the end in Daniel fit into your eschatology if they are not describing Matt 24:3. Then you need to explain where the disciples came up with a different concept of the end in Matt 24:3.
Edited in: It is okay for you to hold a different view. I am advocating the significance of the end expressed in these passages and how people take that into consideration for interpreting the eschatological passages. My gut feeling is that most interpretations of Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 neglect that concept and just interpret those passages without an OT foundational basis .

 

[TedT]

Ted's post did not bring to mind the connection with the OT context. So, I had no response to it.

Yes...I did springboard. Sorry if it was a bother.