The Olivet Discourse – Fulfillment When?| A Response to A Poster – #3

Spread the love

Olivet Discourse and the End of the Age

We are examining some claims by a visitor to our site. The claim has been made that the Olivet Discourse speaks of two different events: The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and, the final coming of Christ at the end of this age. Be sure to read this entire series, beginning here: #1  —  #2” href=”” target=”_blank”>#2

In my previous article, I noted that this position is based on a presupposition that the disciples asked about the end of the Christian age. This claim has no support other than preconceived ideas about the “end of the age.”

The Olivet Discourse and the End of What Age?

Consider this: It was Jesus’ prediction about the destruction of the Temple and judgment on the city that prompted the disciples’ question about the parousia and the end of the age. So, as noted previously, in their mind, the end of the age and the destruction of the temple were inseparably linked. But ask yourself: What age did that temple represent? Did it represent the current Christian age? Patently not! Did it in any way represent or symbolize the Christian dispensation? Not in any way whatsoever! Be sure to read my book We Shall Meet Him In The Air, the Wedding of the King of kings, for a full discussion of the unity of the Olivet Discourse, and its exclusive application to the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70.

The Wedding of the King of KingsSo, the disciples linked the parousia with the end of the age represented by the temple, and that temple represented one age, and only one age: the Old Covenant age of Torah and Israel. Why would Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple prompt the disciples to ask about the end of an age totally unrelated to the age represented by the Temple? There is no connection between these thoughts!

As I noted in #2” href=”” target=”_blank”>the previous article, the majority of commentators believe the disciples were confused or simply wrong to make that connection. However, as we showed, in his parables in Matthew 13 Jesus spoke of his coming at the end of the age, and asked the disciples if they understood his application of Daniel 12 to that time. They said “Yes.” Jesus did not, in any way, reject their statement. We therefore have no authority or evidence to claim that in fact they did not truly understand Jesus’ application of Daniel to the end of the age.

[add_to_cart_btn_style_3_no_paypal link= + target=”_self”] [/add_to_cart_btn_style_3_no_paypal]

The Olivet Discourse and Matthew 13– One Eschatology!

In response, the Objector has made some rather amazing claims. He says: “I don’t see much ‘eschatology’ in Matthew 13, as some do…Moreover, the details of Jesus’ Matthew 13 parables that touch on the end are scant at best, and certainly seem as if they could be construed generally, as framing or outlining the other prophecies, rather than the technical equating of the particular points as you are doing.  The specific reference in Matthew 13 you listed does talk about the end of the age, but your specific Daniel 12 references are inconclusive.”

To suggest that Matthew 13 is not particularly focused on eschatology is quite remarkable. Take note of a few facts:

1.) In his parables, Jesus is speaking of “the end of the age.” He uses the identical distinctive Greek term “sunteliea tou aioniou” in chapter 13 that the disciples use in Matthew 24:3 when they ask about the end of the age. To suggest therefore, that Matthew 13 is not particularly eschatological is specious and tenuous. To suggest that it is not the same “end of the age” as in the Olivet Discourse has not linguistic or contextual support. Matthew 13 is thoroughly eschatological.

2.) Matthew 13 speaks of the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:29f also speaks of the coming of the Son of Man. Thus, the Olivet Discourse and Matthew 13 are parallel, and clearly eschatological, unless one can show that in Matthew 13 Jesus had a totally different coming of the Son of Man for gathering the elect in mind from the coming of the Son of Man for the gathering of the elect, in the Olivet Discourse. This is clearly not a proper contrast, and proves the direct, eschatological connection between these two texts.

3.) Matthew 13 speaks of the time of the harvest. This is the resurrection, and thus, purely eschatological. It is the gathering of the elect of Matthew 24:31.

4.) I noted that Jesus said the end of the age would be when “the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom” a direct allusion to Daniel 12:3. But, Daniel 12:2-4 predicted the resurrection (the harvest of Matthew 13, and the gathering of the Olivet Discourse), the time of the kingdom, and, the end of the age of which Jesus spoke. (The LXX even uses a form of the distinctive term for the end that Jesus used). Thus, there is a direct connection, and Jesus was saying that Daniel’s prophecy would be fulfilled.

5.) Jesus’ comments on the end of the age are not all that “scant” as claimed by the Responder! He repeatedly speaks of “the end of the age”, and, his rather lengthy parable of the Wheat and Tares is one of his longest parables! Thus, to suggest that somehow Matthew 13 is not sufficiently detailed as to allow us to draw conclusions from it– especially in light of its perfect correspondence to the Olivet Discourse, and Jesus application of Matthew 13 to Daniel, it seems rather disingenuous at best, to negate the eschatological significance of Matthew 13.

But, note that in Daniel 12 after the prediction of the Tribulation, the resurrection, the kingdom and the time of the end, one angel asks another: “When shall these things be, and when shall all of these things be fulfilled?” The divine answer was: “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all of these things will be fulfilled.” (V. 7).

The “Objector” has responded by claiming that the angel’s question was not related to the events of the end, but rather events in the middle of the vision way back in chapter 11:
“I only remind you of what I’m sure you’re aware, but Daniel 12:2-3 do not need to follow directly on the heels of Daniel 12:1.  As the body of the prophecy is in Daniel 11, the last few verses of it, Daniel 12:1-4, point to the very distant future for Daniel, and, ends with the sum total of all things at the very end, whenever that is.  The need to connect that, then, with Daniel’s then later interest in Daniel 12:7 comes at the expense of the fact that this is exactly Daniel has been doing all along…  He sees something, and then asks for more detail about something in the middle of the vision, not adding to the end.

My response is that “No, I am not aware that Daniel 12:2-3 need not be connected to Daniel 12:1.” This is another remarkable claim that I find no support for in the text and context.

There is a remarkable fact found in the OT (and New) that is mostly overlooked by the commentators. That fact is that Biblically, the Tribulation and the Resurrection are absolutely tied to each other temporally. The resurrection is the climax of the Tribulation!  (Brant Pitre does a great job of explicating this, however, in his book Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of Exile, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 1975). There is no justification for positing a huge temporal gap between these two events. (I am currently writing a book on Daniel 12 and am documenting this connection extensively. It is an undeniable truth).

The second fact, directly from the context, is that there is no justification at all for saying the angel is ignoring the events of 2-4, and jumping back to events in chapter 11 when he asks, “when shall these things be?” Where are the linguistic markers delineating this? They are not there. Where does the angel say, hint or imply that he is not asking about the immediate antecedents to “these things” and “all of these things”? He does not. Those making the claim that “all of these things” does not include the events of vss. 1-4 bear the responsibility and burden to prove that claim with textual and contexual evidence. But that evidence is not there.

Notice that the question of the angel was, “When shall these things be?” Grammatically, “these things” would naturally refer to what had just been “immediately” discussed. Strong evidence, grammatical, linguistical, contextual evidence would be needed to even suggest that “these things” is not a direct referent to verses 1-5. But, again, there is not a word in those verses to suggest that “these things” do not refer to those verses.

Furthermore, the question “when shall all of these things be fulfilled” is a comprehensive question, unless, once again, context, linguistics and grammar demand that “all these things” does not refer to, well, “all these things.”

The point of the angel’s question concern’s the entire vision. There is not a hint of a suggestion that the angel is focused on only one part of the vision as opposed to others. There is no grammatical suggestion that he is divorcing “all of these things” from the resurrection, the kingdom, the time of the end” – the climax of the vision– and asking about things unrelated to the very things that have just been mentioned.

The “all these things” is comprehensive, not limited. And this means that from the beginning of the vision to the time of the end is included. The consummative fulfillment would be at the time of the resurrection of v. 2, which would be the climax of the Tribulation of v. 1. This would be the time of the bestowal and entrance into the kingdom of v. 3, the time of the end of v. 4.

There is not one word of qualification that would demand– or even suggest– that “all these things” actually means “some of these things,” and those things are not the immediate antecedent things, but only some of the things mentioned much earlier.

Only a presuppositional approach to the text would divorce “all of these things” from that immediate antecedent discussion and apply it to only “some things” said much earlier, when there is no indicator of such a dichotomization.

The Olivet Discourse and Daniel 12– Powerful Connections!

The implications for understanding the Olivet Discourse are very clear. The disciples asked about the end of the age, the end of the age of Daniel 12:4. They linked the destruction of the temple to that time, just as Daniel 12:7 demands.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus foretold the Tribulation foretold by Daniel (Matthew 24:15, 21f) and emphatically said it, along with his coming would be in his generation (24:21, 29-34).

Our Responder, remember, has tried to dichotomize between these events, claiming that verse 36 of Matthew 24, “specifically excludes v. 29-31 events from the v. 34 genea, ‘These things will happen within a generation… but that day’s day and hour are unknown… ‘that day’ can only refer to the v. 29-31 events, since the rest of the events are not single day-and hour-things, but general conditions leading up to the fall.”

So, our Objector, is saying that “these things” of verse 34 cannot refer to “that day and hour” of v. 36, and that this means that verses 29-31 are excluded from Jesus’ referent to “this generation.”

This is an unwarranted claim. I will examine this claim in the next installment, so stay tuned!

The Olivet Discourse and Immediately

Let me close with just a thought on the word “eutheos” which the Responder has claimed can allow for a period of time between the events prior to Matthew 24:29 and the parousia.

The claim is made that the word eutheos, means straight (in its primary definition this is linguistically correct). The claim is then made, by examining some texts where there was a short period between the “immediate” and the actions, that this proves that in Matthew 24:29f there has been, (and must be!) so far, a gap of 2000 years. This is a logical fallacy.

Let me reiterate that I have not found a single Bible translation to support such a claim. So, the world’s best Greek experts believed that the proper translation is “immediately.” Remember, this is not commentary, or interpretation, it is definition.  The burden of proof therefore lies on the Responder to prove that “immediate” is not the best translation and that “immediately” must bear the idea of a long, interim gap. Linguistically, this is untenable.

Second, while examining other texts is certainly a solid hermeneutical practice, it is not linguistically sound or proper to say, “Well, I know that the meaning of the word is ‘immediate’ but, I have found a couple of examples where it cannot mean immediate, therefore, I am setting aside the normal definition and imposing that exceptional definition on the word.” This is an illegitimate transfer of context. The subject matter in the texts offered as exceptions is different from the Olivet Discourse. Therefore, it is hermeneutically improper to impose those contexts onto Matthew 24.

Third, to deny the “immediately” idea, is to deny the Biblical connection noted above, between the Tribulation and the resurrection. As we have noted, textually and contextually, there is no justification for divorcing the Tribulation in Daniel 12:1 from the resurrection of v. 2. There simply is not contextual justification for this.

Fourth, note that the Objector is claiming that if / since he has found one or two texts in which a very short period of time elapsed between the “immediate” and the following actions, that this therefore allows for a 2000 year period between the “immediately” and the “immediate events.” This is a huge logical leap. Exactly how would one go about proving that “immediately” means 2000 years, which is a clear violation of “immediately”?

Not one of the exceptional cases cited by our Responder allows for an interval of extended time. Thus, while one may find one or two examples where “immediately” meant straightway, or very shortly, those exceptions to the rule do not make another definition of extended time, and for certain, those exceptions to not allow for a 2000 year “gap.”

The implications for our understanding of the Olivet Discourse and eschatology are very clear. The normal linguistic meaning of eutheos (immediately) negates any attempt to delineate between “those days” and “that day and hour” except to allow and to show that “those days” would lead up to and climax in “that day.” Honoring the “immediate” definition of eutheos honors Jesus’ emphatic statement that “all of these things” would be fulfilled in his generation.

Stay tuned!

One Reply to “The Olivet Discourse – Fulfillment When?| A Response to A Poster – #3”

  1. I am intrigued by the responses. I trust my continued responses are not uninvited.

    That said, I must say that in my attempt to summarize, I do at times over state things, or state things imprecisely, which your responses certainly pick up upon. That said, I am, again, indicating that ‘clarification’ is in order, as well as further dialogue my case. Moreover, I believe, in my haste, I did wrongly examine the case in Daniel 12, so I am correcting that here, as follows. My appologies.

    I said, “I don’t see much ‘eschatology’ in Matthew 13, as some do”. I also said, “I do not, however, interpret Matthew 13 as primarily eschatalogical.”. The second is more precise. My intent was not to deny the eschatological elements therein, but to indicate their prominence in the chapter as a whole. You are correct, that the Wheat and the Tares, as well as the dragnet parables comment on the end, but the yeast, mustard seed, treasure, pearl, and sower parables do not. My point was that 5 of the 7 parables are not overtly eschatalogical. Further, while it is arguable, I do not see the eschatology contained in the Wheat and the Tares to be the main pedagogical purpose of the passage, although it certainly is contained within, and from it certain conclusions are certainly intended to be drawn. While truths may certainly be extracted from it, the purpose seems to be to illustrate the presence, side-by-side, of the true and the false, up until the time of the end.

    As for Mt13.43, I wholly agree that it is a direct reference to Dan12:3, a claim which can hardly be denied. Additionally, the phrase “sunteliea tou aioniou” is analogous in both passages. It is agreed by me that they certainly do talk about the same ‘coming’, point #2 through #4 above. But, as for ‘scan’t, my comments were in reference to the chapter as a whole. Even the parable of the wheat and the tares itself, as I understand it, while obvious elements can and should be understood from it, the primary message is reflected in the statement, “Let both grow together until the harvest.”. The key is ‘until’, and this is the primary picture in the parable. The wicked will endure until the end, so as not to harm the wheat with their removal. The other points are valid, but the intent of the passage appears, to me, to be the ‘mean time’.

    Further, as for your statement regarding a separation between Daniel 12:1 and vv2-4, you said, “This is another remarkable claim that I find no support for in the text and context”. Further studying what you are saying, I see the point you are trying to make with the ‘all these things’ of v5, and I did not fully understand your case before I began replying, and gave an inconsistent answer. However, I still contend that there is no support in the text that necessarily connects v1 and vv2-3, temporally. Looking from history, we know vv2-3 are the work of the cross of Christ. Notice the cues in v2-3, however. In v1, (NIV) it speaks of ‘at that time’, but vv2-3 shift to the eternal.. ‘everlasting life … everlasting contempt’ and ‘like the stars for ever and ever’. So, the textual clues coupled with the historical understanding of the context of the cross gives, to me anyway, indication that v2-3 are speaking of something different than the specific time frame of Daniel 12:1, which I do put in the First Century. Put more plainly, the accomplishment of v2-3 was plainly in this period, through the cross, although their full realization is yet ongoing. But, again, Daniel 12:2-3 are as applicable to us today as they were then, in my reading. I’m still planning to shine, even though I wasn’t alive in the time of Michael’s Daniel 12:1 standing.

    But, I do not see the objection to the dividing of Daniel 12 after v4. The discourse given by the man speaking to Daniel ends in v4, and v5f describes the resultant of the vision. I suppose you could stand on the claim that “all these things” of v5&7 must include the vv2-3 ones, but, since they are ‘eternal’ states, certainly the conclusion of those things did not happen, even if their beginning did. Their shining ‘forever and ever’ was not ‘completed’ in the same time-frame as v7, so it seems there is the possibility of some leeway. The case could be argued in your direction, but I do not see it as air-tight. The other clear reading of this, and perhaps it is presuppositional as you say, but would be that the accomplishment of ‘those who sleep in the dust’ was brought about in that time-frame through the cross, even though its ultimate fulfillment is still in the sense of “will”, future tense. Even if the fullness of it was not so accomplished, its essence was, and hence, the fulfillment of ‘all these things’ of v5&7, in that it was through these events that this was eternally accomplished. But, because of the transition into the Eternal in vv2-3, yet it is still contestable, it can be construed as fulfillment of these words. That these could be the prophetic predictive outcome of the entire previous chapter seems a simple enough conclusion, and thereby its necessary inclusion in the ‘all these things’, being ‘astonishing things’ is not definite, in my mind. Obviously, v5&7 is in some way referring to vv1-4, but there remains, in my mind, opportunity for interpretation.

    And, of course, ‘eutheos’. Perhaps ‘next’ is too much of a reduction, but ‘directly’ would probably be a better fit, comparing all the various usages of it in the New Testament. Again, simply look at the other passages. “Immediately” just doesn’t work with Mark 1:21; 4:5; John 6:21; 3 John 1:14. It also may not be the most semantically correct word to use in some of the healings. The definition of the word certainly includes ‘immediately’, but also includes ‘directly’ and ‘straightway’, which could indicate timing even in English, but does not need to be ‘immediate’. As indicated through the work of Ted Noel, as quoted before, “Louw-Nida goes on to say that [eutheos/euthus] describes, “a point of time immediately subsequent to the previous point of time (the actual interval of time differs appreciably, depending on the nature of the events and the manner in which the sequence is interpreted by the writer).” In other words, “next in sequence,” not “right away.”” That is, right there, the ‘time interval’. That this time interval is employed by the other uses of the word is apparent. The nature of this interval, though, it must be stated, is ‘unknown’, however, by v36. Hence, Jesus said He Himself did not know the time. To clarify the situation, since ‘immediately’ and ‘directly’ could be interchangable in the translation, one could say, ‘Directly but after the tribulation’.. That is, in a straight course from here to there, no side journeys, as direct as possible. Yet, the actual timing of this second event, per v36, is not known, and hence the difficulty in the interval. This is a matter of definition, and while ‘eutheos/euthus’ can be ‘immediately’, it can also be ‘straightway’, ‘directly’, or, sometimes, even ‘next’.

    In his commentary on Mark (Mark: A commentary), M. Eugene Boring makes the following claims:
    Here translating euthys, a word Mark uses more than any other New Testament writer, fourty-two of the fifty-nine New Testament occurances. The adjective means ‘straight’, ‘direct’ [hence the KJV’s “straightway”], the derived adverb thus “directly,” “immediately.” The meaning is oftened weakened to simply “next,” or to a function word with little content (as when “well,” “then,” “so,” and the like are used to introduce an English sentence). Both Matthew and Luke considered Mark to have overused the word, either eliminating it altogether (Luke eliminates all Markan instances) or changing it to the more common eutheos. I have rendered euthys in a variety of ways, depending on the context. The word is probably a remnant of oral style and gives a certain vividness to the narrative, but by no means does it always mean “immediately” (this cannot be the meaning in, e.g. 1:21; 4:5), and it should not be taken to indicate that the Markan Jesus always acted quickly and directly as a “man of action”. [END QUOTE]

    The problem with the third point above is that it is primarily Matthew 24 that establishes the temporal connection between the time of great trouble and the resurrection. That is, the very verse in question is the primary basis for the argument, and therefore, should not be used in its own defense. The only other solid connection between the two temporally, that I am aware of, is the Daniel 12:1-3, noted above. As that is what we have just covered, these are the only two direct indications that the “Tribulation” and the “Resurrection” must be linked in any temporal sense. And, since, it can be demonstrated sufficiently (to myself) that the Daniel 12 does not necessitate this claim, and the whole of the argument of ‘eutheos’ is to illustrate the failure of Matthew 24 to do the same, there is no argument there, unless, of course, there is some other source of connection, speaking of time frame, that requires they be linked. That is, if Daniel 12 is understood in another, legitimate sense, and Matthew 24:29 was never truly implying that in the first place, the argument is effectively eliminated.

    The case for ‘eutheos’ being used to imply what is now a 1900+ year gap is in the nature of the Mt24.34,36 issue, which is also the root of whether the disciples were ‘confused’ or simply not in possession of the knowledge which Jesus Himself said He did not have. Since eutheos can certainly imply some form of an elapse of time, from definition, lexicons, and examples throughout the New Testament, the fact that this ‘period of time’ is particularly is long does not fully disqualify the possibility of this translation, because no one ever knew the timing of the Second event, whatsoever!

    The rebuttal, of course, will come down to your treatment of these two verses. In particular, I would argue that v36 can only refer to the vv29-31 portion, the ‘day known only to the Lord’ of Zechariah 14:7, and that the structure of Mt24:34,36 does explicitly exclude the vv29-31 from the ‘all these things’ of v34. “All of these things will happen within a generation … but that day’s [vv29-31] day and hour is completely unknown.”

    Eutheos provides for the passage of time, so long as it is ‘directly’, or ‘in a straight course’, as in John’s use of it in his 3rd epistle. He hoped to see them ‘soon’, or ‘straigthway’, or ‘directly’, not ‘immediately’. But, even ‘soon’ doesn’t necessarily capture what John was saying. He wants to see them without delay, but it may take a while to get there. He wants to see them as directly as possible, when circumstances and events allow, but even if that takes six months, that is still ‘eutheos’ in this verse. This does come down to a matter of definition, but the definition of the word allows for the use of words which may or may not directly indicate timing. The case for the ‘directly’ is supported by its use in the first place. As I indicated in my paper of seven reasons to divide the discourse, there were certainly two (or three) questions asked, whether there was confusion or not. This, then, is the logical division of the two, and main purpose of the language at this point is to separate the answers to the two questions.

    One must conclude, regardless of the interpretation of ‘eutheos’, that ‘eutheos’ here does indeed differentiate the answers to the two questions, as this is its linguistic purpose in the passage. Whether you contend they happen subsequently, or with little or large gap, the insertion here of “Eutheos” “but after” (de meta) positively divides the first group of events, the subject of the first question, from the second group, vv29-31, regardless of their timing. Even if they are both one after another, this conclusion is evident by the ‘after’ designation, and, this is the rub.

    “After” positively indicates the conclusion of one group, and the beginning of another, and this is confirmed by the opening questions. The grouping of the first elements, then, is under the heading of ‘the tribulation of those days’. The second group, clearly in response to the second question, or the second half of the question, again, regardless of their timing fulfillment, is the v29-31 events.

    But, then, that leaves us with the v36, “that day”. We also saw in v29, that the tribulation “those days” is plural here, and that, v30 is in reference to Zech 14:7, the day (singular) known only to the Lord. So, the v36 ‘that day’, with its most clear referrant, is, again, the v29-31 events, already divided by the Lord’s own words from the rest of the events, regardless of how you interpret Eutheos or when you see the fulfillment.

    This brings us, then, back to Eutheos. v34,36 shows the clear exclusion of whatever ‘that day’ is from the ‘all these things’, and the only thing in question is whether ‘eutheos’ can support a 1,900 or so year gap (starting at 70 AD)… But, once you establish that it can support a gap at all, which the lexicon, dictionaries, and other scriptures establish, and that an equally valid translation is ‘directly’, as in 3 John 14, combined with the fact that v36 already said that the timing of the 2nd event is absolutely and completely ‘unknown’ (except for the “after” from ‘de meta’), the argument against the employment fails. Once any allowance for a gap is established, which it is, the prolonged duration of the apparent gap is permitted on the grounds of the lack of knowledge, stemming from v36. It is not wrong to say ‘directly’, as that is not the same as ‘soon’, and the simple fact that it is still in a ‘direct line from here to there’, as ‘euthus’ would portray is simply a matter of deference to the mind of God. I believe, long or short, things are progressing ‘directly’ since the 70 AD fall to the forseen end, and whether long or short, though the vision tarry, wait for it, for it will surely come to pass.

    The problem is that, even as Mr. Boring noted (above), it is not the ‘exceptional’ cases that prohibit ‘immediately’, but there are several throughout, which, in the words of Ted Noel, indicate a wider semantic range of understanding. As I understand it, there is no indication elsewhere, surrounding Matthew 24:29, which would require the use of ‘immediately’ rather than ‘directly’ or ‘straightway’, and, while ‘immediately’ has probably been sufficient of a translation in most cases, here, a direct substitution from the lexicon appears to give another indication that another meaning is in view. It is not, then, only a few ‘exceptional’ cases where some kind of interval is in view with eutheos, but as Louw-Nida indicates, the “the actual interval of time differs appreciably”.

    So, again, the question is whether the translation would support the direct substitution of one word of translation for another, both out of the dictionary, both out of the lexicon. While “next” may, as Mr. Boring indicated, be a weaking of the word, replacing ‘immediately’ with ‘directly’ certainly would be no gross violation of linguistic principles.

    And, I am unfamiliar with Brant Pitre’s work. I may check it out. But, while many passages may make reference, only the Daniel 12 and the Matthew 24 make any direct ties to them in the intermediate passage of time, that is, temporally, and Daniel 12 only superficially. Matthew 24:29, it seems, then, is the primary justification for such reasoning, and, failing that, I am not aware other scriptural justification of the claim.

    I suppose we could go back and forth on the ‘eutheos’, but since your initial claims that neither dictionaries nor lexicons support it is false, and a direct substitution of one definition for another certainly seems plausible (“immediately” to “directly” or “straightway”), the basis of the objection is undermined. The rest is explained as described.

    I will do my best, in the future, to be as clear and succinct as possible, such as when I am describing Matthew 13. I merely got thinking about various other objections raised by others against Matthew 13 as wholly eschatalogical as a chapter, and got distracted from the main point of the discussion which you were raising.

    Thank-you for your time.

Comments are closed.