Matthew 24| “But of that Day and Hour Knows No Man” – A Response to a Visitor #6

Spread the love

Matthew 24-- But of tha day and Hour

Matthew 24 – But of that Day And Hour – The Crux Interpretum

Let me make a few preliminary remarks before discussing the crux interpretum of our Responder’s position, and that is that  “no one ever knew the timing of the second advent, whatsoever”; and “but of that day’s (v. 29f) day and hour is completely unknown.”

Our Objector insists that since there are two (or three) questions in Matthew 24:3 that this necessitates that the disciples were asking about a literal, visible, bodily coming of Christ. This is presuppositional to the core, and no support has been given to prove the assumption. This claim totally ignores the metaphoric nature of the language of Matthew 24:29f. See my book The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat, for an in-depth discussion of this language, and a demonstration that it was never intended to be interpreted literally.

The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat

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

I noted that the disciples linked the parousia and the end of the age to the destruction of the temple, and I asked what age the temple represented. Amazingly, our Responder says that temple did not represent any age, but simply the earth. Again, no proof of any kind was offered, and to be honest (but no disrespect intended at all) this is an amazing claim! The idea that the temple did not symbolize Israel and Torah– the Law of Moses– may well be without precedent.

Our Objector continues to repeat the argument that eutheos allows for a period of time– now extending 2000 years– between AD 70 and the parousia. Once again, this is an unjustified extrapolation, and as I have noted repeatedly, the Objector is basing his claim, not on exegesis, but on drawing conclusions from another text or two totally unrelated to Jesus’ discussion of eschatology. Again, this is improper hermeneutic.

I noted that in Matthew 24 the disciples asked about the “end of the age” and that they undeniably connected the impending destruction of Jerusalem with that coming end of the age. I noted that in Matthew 13 Jesus taught on the end of the age, using the identical distinctive Greek term. He tied the end of the age to the fulfillment of Daniel 12:3 (which our Objector admits). In v. 50f, Jesus then asked the disciples: “Do you understand all of these things?” And the disciples said “Yes.”

Our Responder now argues that while “all these things of v. 51 does include reference to v. 43″, that it is “going well beyond what is written” to claim that the disciples understood the application to AD 70. But how so?

Our Responder argues that there really is not all that much eschatology in the parables. He claims,  “To say that, simply because Jesus referenced Daniel, and the disciples understood #1 that the wise would shine and that #2 it was reference to Daniel, is no where near the same as saying that they understood the whole of his eschatology.” He then claims that the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24 proves that they did not understand Jesus’ eschatology. This is false.

Notice that the end of the age in Matthew 13 would occur in fulfillment of Daniel 12, which posited that end at the time “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” (v. 7). In Matthew 24, Jesus is predicting that very event– the destruction of Israel. The disciples link the end of the age to that judgment. Their questions do not indicate confusion, or error, or misunderstanding of Jesus’ eschatology: the questions simply ask about the time when that would occur and signs of when it would be near!  Their questions reflect the understanding that they affirmed in Matthew 13.

But, our Responder claims that the main teaching of Wheat and the Tares is not really eschatology, but “let them grow together.” Well, grow together until when? Until the end of the age! It is clearly wrong, to say the least, to negate and downplay the eschatology of the text.

Finally, the Responder says that Jesus’ question: “Do you understand all of these things” can only apply to the verses before verse 51. But this does not help, for the parable of the Wheat and Tares is eschatological, the dragnet is eschatological (being the “gathering). But, our Responder does the same thing in chapter 13 as he does in Daniel and in Matthew 24: he denies that “all of these things” can be comprehensive. He demands that when Jesus applied the end of the age to the fulfillment of Daniel, that the disciples only understood that the Wheat and Tares would grow together, but they did not understand that they would grow together until the end of the age foretold by Daniel, to be fulfilled when the power of the holy people was shattered!

What proof did the Responder offer? None. What evidence is there that they only understood part of that application? Where is the dichotomy in the text that would justify such a delineation? There is not one word– in the text– to suggest that although Jesus asked if they understood “all of these things” — and they said “Yes”– that in fact, they only understood a little bit of those things. Once again, theological presupposition is at work.

While a great deal more could be said on this, I want now to turn my attention to the crux interpretum – the key- to our Objector’s entire argument. I should note that Matthew 24:36 is actually the key to most futurist views of Matthew 24. And again, that is that,  “no one ever knew the timing of the second advent, whatsoever”; and “but of that day’s (v. 29f) day and hour is completely unknown.”

Matthew 24: Of that Day and Hour– A Contrast of Time?

No one disputes whether Jesus affirmed that – at the time he spoke– no one knew the time of his parousia. Only the Father knew that time. However, please take note of the following:

1.) In John 16:7f, Jesus said it was necessary for him to return to the Father, so that the Father could send the Spirit. When the Spirit came, “he shall guide you into all truth, and shew you things to come.”

2.) Jesus returned to the Father, and on Pentecost, the Father sent the Spirit to Jesus’ disciples.

3.) From Pentecost onward, the disciples were speaking and writing by inspiration of the Spirit, sent directly from the Father– who knew the Day and the Hour of Jesus’ coming.

4.) In Luke 21:8 Jesus warned of false Messiahs and false prophets who would come saying “the end has drawn near, do not go after them.” So, Jesus warned against believing– and clearly, against making– premature declarations about the nearness of the end. Catch the power of this in light of what we are about to see!

5.) Those disciples, inspired by the Spirit sent by the Father who knew the time of Jesus’ parousia, wrote the following:

a.) James 5 – “The parousia has drawn near… the judge is standing right at the door.” Now, remember that James heard Jesus warn about making premature declarations of the nearness of the end, and yet, here he was, through the inspiration of the Spirit sent by the Father who knew the time of the parousia– saying the end had drawn near!

Clearly, James was not denying what was true in Matthew 24:36. No, he was now saying what the Father told him to say: “the parousia has drawn near…the judge is standing right at the door.” Where is the evidence that James was speaking of a parousia and judge standing at the door different from what Jesus discussed? There is not a syllable of such evidence.

As I noted in my previous article, James most assuredly believed and said that the parousia was near. I asked our Responder if James was wrong in his affirmation. His response is that we perhaps do not know if James was using parousia in the same context as in Matthew 24. This is really quite an evasive and obfuscatory answer– with no disrespect intended. To claim that James may have had something different in mind is not to prove that he had something different in mind. And the Responder offered not a word of textual support for his claim.

The context of James is the suffering of the saints– just as Jesus predicted in Matthew / Mark. The promise is the promise of imminent relief and vindication. That vindication and relief would be at the parousia. And James uses the very terminology used by Jesus in Matthew 24, when Jesus promised: “When you see all of these things come to pass, then know that it (or he) is near, even at the door.” James said, “The judge is standing right at the door” and yet, per the Responder, we should see no direct correlation!

b.) 1 Peter 4:7, 17 – Peter, who was with Jesus on the Mount, and heard him warn of premature declarations of the end, said “the end of all things has drawn near”… “the (appointed) time for (the) judgment has come.” This is an incredible text.

Like James, Peter was not denying that when Jesus uttered the words of Matthew 24:36 the time was unknown– at that time! But, the Father, who knew the time, and had given the Spirit to the apostles to “shew them things to come” was now inspiring Peter to say “the end of all things has drawn near.”

In 1 Peter, the apostle used almost the identical words that Jesus condemned in Luke 21, when he said false prophets would make premature declarations of the nearness of the end! Now, per our Responder, the “end of all things” has not yet come. That means that Peter– like James– said the very thing that Jesus said the false prophets would say!

Was Peter one of the very false prophets that Jesus warned about? Was Peter so “dense” as to write those words, knowing that Jesus had condemned such premature declarations? Or, is it the case that Peter, inspired by the Father who knew the time of the “end of all things” was now uttering the truth, and “the end of all things” truly was near when he wrote. After all, lets not forget that it was the Father, through the Spirit, leading him to write those words!

So, once again, the questions demand to be asked:
Was Peter wrong?
Did Peter make a premature declaration of the nearness of the parousia?
Did Peter become one of the very false teachers that Jesus warned him about?
Was Peter’s declaration of the nearness of the end in violation of the revelation of the Spirit, sent by the Father who knew the day and the hour?

Matthew 24 – The Day And Hour – The Father – And Revelation

Notice how Revelation begins:
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.” (1:1-3).

Notice that twice, John wrote that fulfillment of the Apocalypse was near, fulfillment was about to take place shortly. But, why did John write that?

The answer is profoundly important. John wrote that the end was near, because the Father, who knew the time of the end, told Jesus to tell John (through the Spirit) that fulfillment was at hand! Note that Jesus, informed by the Father, said “Behold, I come quickly” in 22:10-12!

Remember that like the other disciples, John heard Jesus warn against premature declarations of the nearness of the end. He knew that it was to be condemned to do so! So, why did he say the end was near, when he (supposedly) knew that “no man knows the day or the hour, but the Father only”?

The answer is that John said the end was near, that Jesus was coming quickly, because it was the Father informing Jesus to tell him the end was near! The days of Jesus’ “ignorance” of the time of his coming were now past, because the Father was telling him to inform John and the churches that the time was at hand! The days when “no man knows the day or the hour” was true were now past, because the Father, who knew the time, was undeniably revealing that the time had come for the parousia.

Matthew 24, The Tribulation and the Parousia

There is something very significant here. Remember that our Responder has insisted that the language of Matthew 24:29f demands an interval between the Great Tribulation and the parousia. (There are some issues here that I will not take the time to address). So, let’s examine that in light of Revelation.

Note that in Revelation 1:9 John said he was in the Tribulation (literally, ‘the tribulation”). In chapter 7 and 14 John speaks of the 144,000 (the righteous remnant of Israel), and specifically says that they “come out of the Great Tribulation” 7:14 (literally, “the tribulation, the great”– i.e. “the Great Tribulation). See my book, Blast From the Past: The Truth About Armageddon, for a full treatment of the Great Tribulation, showing definitively that it occurred in the first century.

[high_impact_btn_add_to_cart_silver link= + target=”_self”] [/high_impact_btn_add_to_cart_silver]blast_from_the_past_armageddon_don_k_preston_com

Keep in mind that our Responder has agreed repeatedly that the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24 occurred in the first century. This means that the Great Tribulation of Revelation occurred in the first century. Our Responder says the parousia of Christ was– or is– to follow that Tribulation at some interval after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The question is, in what framework does Revelation posit the parousia, in connection to the first century Tribulation? Does Revelation allow for an indeterminate “gap” of so far 2000 years between that Tribulation and the parousia? This is what our Responder is insisting must be true.

In fact, our Responder has based his entire position on the idea that the parousia of Matthew 24:29f was unknown as to timing, and, that it had to be sometime (i.e. 2000 years and counting) “after” the fall of Jerusalem (i.e. the Tribulation). So, take note of the argument:

The parousia would take place “immediately after” the Great Tribulation.

John, who wrote during the Great Tribulation, was told by the Father, who knew the day and the hour of Christ’s coming, that Christ’s coming was near, at hand, and He told Jesus to declare: “Behold, I come quickly.”

Therefore, the coming of Christ– to occur “immediately after” the Tribulation, was truly at hand when John wrote Revelation.

Thus, the Objector’s claim that the parousia has now been 2000 years removed from the Tribulation is falsified, for the Father Himself declared that the coming of Christ was near in the book of Revelation.

There is not, nor was there, a 2000 year gap in eutheos in Matthew 24:29.

This agrees perfectly well with Jesus’ comprehensive statement: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall by no means pass until all of these things are fulfilled.” Our Responder has attempted to divorce the parousia from that generation, based on an unwarranted and unjustified extrapolated definition of eutheos, and misguided application of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:36.

But, the Father, in Revelation, has put those claims away. The Tribulation was a first century event. The parousia was to follow “immediately” upon the Tribulation. Revelation was written in the context of the Great Tribulation, and the Father said that Christ’s parousia was at hand, coming quickly, the time had come!

This falsifies any attempt to define eutheos in such a way as to allow a 2000 year gap.

Jesus was asked for signs of the parousia and end of the age. The signs were the completion of the World Mission (and our Responder admits this was fulfilled in the first century) and the Great Tribulation (which our Responder agrees was in the first century.

Jesus said that when they saw the signs, they would know that the parousia was near, even at the door.

When Jesus spoke those things, he did not know the “day or the hour” of his coming. It must be noted that our Responder is arguing that because Jesus did not know the day and the hour that he could not know the generation of the parousia. This is a logical fallacy. To say that Christ did not know One can most assuredly know the generation of an event without knowing the “day and hour. ” The Responder has extrapolated from the specific to the generic, which is an illogical argument.

John, living in and during The Tribulation, was told by the Father, who knew the day and the hour of Christ coming, that the time had come, that Christ was coming quickly.

Therefore, once again, any attempt to extrapolate 2000 years from the Tribulation– which the Responder agrees was in the first century– to a yet future parousia, flies in the face of what the Father caused John– and Jesus!–  to say in Revelation.

Finally, to reiterate and conclude:

While Jesus did not know the day and the hour of his coming in Matthew 24, he said that he would return to the Father, who would send the Spirit to his apostles.

The Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth, and shew them “things to come.”

Jesus warned his apostles against believing or making premature declarations of the nearness of the end.

Those very disciples that Jesus warned against making premature declarations of the nearness of the end, inspired by the Spirit sent from the Father, wrote, repeatedly and emphatically, that “the parousia has drawn near”; “the end of all things has drawn near”; “these things must shortly come to pass…the time is at hand…and Jesus himself, instructed by the Father, said “Behold, I come quickly.”  (And of course, in Hebrews 10:37, that same Spirit caused the writer to say: “Now in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry!”)

If the parousia and the end was not truly near when the apostles wrote their epistles, then the Spirit, sent by the Father to guide them into all truth and shew them things to come, did not do His job—or the Father Himself did not tell the truth!

So, if those declarations of the apostles about the nearness of the end were not true, then they became some of the very false prophets Jesus warned them about, the Father lied, the Spirit lied, Jesus himself lied.

To suggest that the apostles had some other “the end,” some other “the parousia,” (which was to follow the Tribulation) in mind, different from that in Matthew 24, is without a shred of evidence.

The revelatory work of the Spirit, sent by the Father to guide the apostles into all truth and shew them things to come, and their repeated, emphatic, undeniable declarations that the end was near, is definitive, prima facie proof that the parousia was to be in the first century.

3 Replies to “Matthew 24| “But of that Day and Hour Knows No Man” – A Response to a Visitor #6”

  1. Don,

    Thanks for the read. 🙂

    The notion that neither knowing the nor day nor the hour is equivalent to not knowing within a few millennia, is, well, preposterous. As you’ve clearly stated, everything in the Olivet was presented as as short-term road map pointing to the season i.e. “this generation”. There is no ambiguity there. Don, even atheists can see through this objector’s illogical conclusions. If Christians similar to your objector, continue to argue in this manner, they’re going to send more and more folks into the land of agnosticism. They simply are ignorant to the credibility damage they do to the Bible.

    This man’s argument would be the same as a pregnant woman saying that because she doesn’t know the exact day or hour of her child’s birth, that she doesn’t even know the season. That would completely ignore the constraints of her pregnancy’s duration. Jesus plainly told them the term of the pregnancy (this generation) and then proceeded to teach them how to know when He was “right at the door.” Does it not occur to your friend that James said that the Judge was right at the door?

    This reminds me of my pastor’s first sermon on the Revelation. He made the same argument as your objector. Mind boggling to say the least. When the mind is clouded by presupposition, it fails to engage. Smart people turn dull.

    These fellows are apparently unaware that Jesus was in His preincarnate state, sitting at the right hand of the Father when the Revelation was given. At that time how can anyone argue with a straight face that, “things that MUST take place shortly”, means that Jesus still had no clue, even in His glorified state? But my pastor said the same thing. He still think Jesus has no clue when He will return.

    Don, I never cease to be amazed how many things people assert with no Biblical proof.

  2. I would primarily and mainly like to reiterate my final questions of the last two comments… How long is your “gap”

    in Matthew 24:29? And, how long is “too long”?

    I, too, of course, mean no disrespect, albeit my last comments were written more in haste and were more direct than prior.

    But, we seem to split on technicalities and miss the majors.

    In Matthew 24, the majority of my prior arguments were not insisting upon a literal return, although I do believe that. Further, you asked, in my opinion, a leading question. You asked what the Temple represents, but the age is not defined by the temple, as per Luke 18:30, and so the question is irrelevant. The Temple does indicate Moses, but Moses does not indicate the age. I am not a dispensationalist who sees the age of Law, Grace, and Kingdom. I’m a mild-preterist who sees an ‘everlasting kingdom’ (Psalm 145:13), the throne of which is ‘a glorious throne on high from the beginning’, Jeremiah 17:12. The question is wrong. Yes, we could debate this back and forth, but much better scholars than myself at least have argued a different case, and while I could offer some defense, I hold that this age ends, as per Jesus’ words, at the Second coming, the end of the world, in Revelation 20:11-15.

    Again, I refer to my opening questions, how long is your “gap”? Or, do not agree that the Parousia of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 must be “after”, and by implication, at least somewhat removed, from the tribulation, even if only ‘shortly’? I’m just wondering how you see it delineated, at this point. Even moderate commentators on this would see that “immediately” would have SOME gap, although they might agree with you that “immediately” does not indicate “2,000” years. But, I finally dug my lexicon out, by EW Bullinger, and under “immediately”, it lists “directly”. But, then, how long is too long?

    Your Matthew 13 argument just doesn’t hold, however. I do not minimize or deny the end times references, nor the Daniel reference. But, one verse in 50 makes reference to Daniel. You cannot, therefore, assume that by “all these things” that Jesus is indicating they understand that they therefore understand all of Daniel and its implications, simply by a passing reference, can you? He mentioned one prophetic quote, and they understand that one verse and that it is connected to Daniel. How can that be extrapolated to them understanding all of Daniel 12 along with its implications is beyond me.

    Perhaps them asking in Matthew 24 is too much of an assumption, but it is certainly just as much assumption to say they understand Daniel in the way that you understand Daniel simply because they said they understood the Matthew 13. All you can say is they understood that it is the righteous that will shine. Yes, it mentions the end, and is included, but going beyond that is simply, it seems, wanting the text to say something it doesn’t. They will grow together. And, yes, there is an end of the age coming. But, Jesus didn’t quote the rest of the passage, so the ‘all these things’ does not include the rest of Daniel 12, only what Jesus quoted. This is ‘all these things’.

    I’m intrigued by your Mt24.36 assessment of the day and hour unknown. I will give you this. The “apparent confusion” argument is of note, but is not inconclusive. Further, your statement that my remarks were elusive… Well, absolutely they were. I don’t claim to have perfect knowledge or great answers. It certainly seems, though, that the Bible was not written as a code book, and certain language was not as cemented as technical dogmatic langauge as sometimes we would like it. In that, I would say your arguments are interesting, but not conclusive, either way.

    But, you say that Jesus did not, indeed, understand the ‘day and hour’ in Mt24, but the disciples did later. At least I know the bent of your argument. However, I would have to conclude that it fails on fairly short analysis. John the Baptist said that Jesus had the Spirit without measure (John 3:34), and yet Jesus Himself in Mark 13:32 that He didn’t even know the hour at that time, to which you agreed.

    So, as I understand it, it is not a contradiction of facts to say that in 1 John 2:20 that ‘ye have an anointing…and ye know all thing’, and in 1Cor2.10, things are revealed by the the Spirit, even the deep things of God, and yet this does not contradict Acts 1:7 or Mark 13:32 which says some things are simply not revealed at this time. The fact that all things are revealed, not including the things expressly still hidden, is simply up to the deferrence of God, in the spirit of 1Cor15.27, where ‘all things’, Paul rightly interprets as not including the Father Himself.

    So, if you base your argument that they must have known because they had the Spirit, well, Jesus had the Spirit without measure, and He still didn’t know. If you base it on the word ‘all’, well, Paul interprets that there are certain things that “all” obviously didn’t include, which, in this case, are the things expressly hidden. There is no contradiction here. If, finally, you base your argument upon the words of James, as ‘evasive’ as it is, it stands to be proven that ‘parousia’ is as technical of a word as commentators desire it to be, or, as some like to claim, ‘confusion’. I don’t know how much I like either answer, but they do stand as viable alternatives. Even with the context of escape from suffering, the answer is the same. The same would follow for 1 Peter 4, where the only question is ‘context’. While you notably disagree, and will most likely continue to do so, this is also the claim of the futurist at this point.

    As for Revelation, I have no problem with Revelation 1:1-3. The events up to Chapter 11, the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, did happen quickly, within a few years. As I read it, however, there are two commissions, and two prophecies in the book, the second given in Revelation 10:11, and begun in Revelation 12-22:5, or there-abouts. The distinctive of this prophecy is it is no longer limited by the ‘soon’ of Rv1.1, which applied to the first prophecy, but stretches then out for the next few centuries. I see the bowls of wrath fulfilled ‘at-face-value’ in the ‘crisis of the third century’, c250AD, and a literal Millennium, as reflected historically in Foxxe’s book of Martyrs. The problem with a figurative millennium is that specific things happen after it, namely Gog Magog, Revelation 20:7-10. The Rev 22 reference ‘quickly’, then is primarily in reference to the near events, the first prophecy, whereas the specific events after the millennium obviously could not be included in ‘quickly’, because they are at least 1,000 years away!

    It is not a stretch to understand that the primary emphasis was the 70 AD destruction, but God, in his providence, foresaw the need to lay down a pattern for where the church would be headed.

    So, again, the case for the nearness based on the epistles is plain enough, as has been made by you and others. I’m sure other have made a better case than I have, but it depends solely upon context and definitions. Did the ‘coming’ of Revelation 22 apply to Him with His throne of glory and the glory of the Father and His angels, as you say? Or, was this merely a ‘coming’ for the destruction of Jerusalem, which is, agreed upon by both of us, the object in view by Peter, James, and whatnot? The debate continues. Obfuscatory as it may be, I cannot say that it was not that way on purpose, at the hand of the Author Himself.

    Finally, I would just again say that just about every commentator would agree that there is some, albeit to them short, interval between the tribulation and the parousia. We are in agreement that the Tribulation occurred in the past, as Matthew 24 indicates, and, I believe Daniel 12 does as well.

    And, as you indicate, you say the Responder, (myself), indicates that Revelation must allow for an intermediate gap of 2,000 years, or so, between the Tribulation and the Mt24 Parousia (so as to differentiate it from any possible other use of the term). This is, indeed, exactly what I posit! With a fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Revelation 11, I see a fairly clear progression through history of the next chapters, leading through the complete destruction of Babylon, Rome, in Revelation 17-19 (which I believe I can support). The breaking of that power, through the manifold ‘crisis of the third century’, the end of which broke Rome into three separate warring parts, later reunited under a soldier-emperor. This concludes with the destruction of Rome, spiritually, as the principate was never recovered from this time. Constantine’s conversion symbolized the breaking of the spiritual beast of Rome, and 1,000 years of lack of persecution were recorded by Foxxe. For 1,000 years, there were, therefore, no great beasts ruling over the Earth, as there had been for the prior 1,000 years. Western Civilization, then, it seems, is ‘dragon-spawn’, so to speak.

    That places the Second Coming, as defined by 1 Corinthians 15:26, at the place you would expect it, at the defeat of death and hell, as they are finally cast forever into the lake of fire as well, in Revelation 20:11-15. Thus, the ‘great white throne’ (Revelation) is the ‘throne of His glory’ (Matthew), and, as you see, is at least 1,500 years, plus the ‘short time’ of deceiving the nations, which, mind you, began with the divorce of ‘learning’ from the ‘Word of God’, “taking back truth from Moses”, and so forth, which was the work of the Rebellion of the “Renaissance” (the “re-birth” of the dragon from the pit).

    Thus, as you asked, does Revelation allow for an indetermine “gap” so far of 2,000 years between the Tribulation of Revelation 11, and the Second Coming of Revelation 20:11-15? Absolutely, and, in fact, it demands it. 1,300-1,500 years to get past the Millennium, depending on your exact definition, plus the short time, plus Gog Magog, plus however long the time is between Rev 20:10-11. So long as you take the Revelation 22 ‘come quickly’ as other than the Matthew 24 Parousia, that is… Which, I suppose is some other long and protracted debate already in existence somewhere else..

    But, again, your references to James and 1 Peter 4 are probably some of the best, however, not without counter, and that counter being the same one employed by a whole body of futurists (not that that makes it right). But, it simply comes down to how technical certain verbage is, even when inspired, based on the mind of God (mind you, the same inspired text also lists the three temptations of Jesus in different order in Luke than it does in the other Gospels, where the one says “and then”, and Luke’s account does not indicate sequence… perfectly perfect, and inspired, but not always according to the wisdom of man).

    But, other statements like, “It must be noted that our Responder is arguing that because Jesus did not know the day and the hour that he could not know the generation of the parousia. This is a logical fallacy.” are reflexive. While you cannot construe the statement to say that He did not know the generation, you cannot construe it to say He did, any more the same way. While, technically, it is possible, both are just as much supposition on the text as the other.

    And, as your statement goes, “John, living in and during The Tribulation, was told by the Father, who knew the day and the hour of Christ coming, that the time had come, that Christ was coming quickly.”, it, again, depends on context and intent of the passage.

    But, the body of the arguments presented are yet merely ‘superficial’, if I can use that term. As it seems, they attempt only to do what neither of us probably have the sum total wisdom to conclusively do, and that is to say whether ‘eutheos’, when used in the sense of ‘directly’ can be construed, in any sense of the Word, to be 2,000 years. You say “No”, and have attempted to upset the case on any number of related issues, which we have thus discussed. But, even the notion of what you have just presented, when it comes down to it, does have its counter arguments, no matter how ‘evasive’ or ‘obfuscutory’ they may seem, or actually be.

    But, the main body of the argument I presented, especially in the last post, was based upon nothing but Matthew 24, up until the last point, the possibility of ‘eutheos’. And, this last argument.. Perhaps your strongest, still bears upon certain assumptions, such that the as we have discussed. But, as I see it, the attempt to say that the v36 is known today is first of all in deficit, from what I have seen, but secondly, does not disqualify it from the Matthew 24 arguments already presented.

    We talk in big circles around the central issue, but the central issue can be largely disconnected from all the side-issues presented, despite their relevance and discussion as we have seen fit. The use of ‘eutheos’ matters at the time of the giving of the Olivet, not some time later, and since it was given at the time with the word ‘directly’ or ‘immediately’, the only question that still remains, so far anyway, are ‘how long is your gap?’ and, lexically, ‘How long is too long?’ I think these are valid questions, in consideration of Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24.

    Thank-you again for the discussion. It has been most informative.

  3. Just as an example of the discussion points, I present the following.

    The Commentator said:
    Our Responder argues that there really is not all that much eschatology in the parables. He claims, “To say that, simply because Jesus referenced Daniel, and the disciples understood #1 that the wise would shine and that #2 it was reference to Daniel, is no where near the same as saying that they understood the whole of his eschatology.” He then claims that the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24 proves that they did not understand Jesus’ eschatology. This is false.[ENDQUOTE]

    This paragraph leaves me in question about your overall treatment of what I said. You present three of my statements, and, the last one, perhaps over-stated, is declared ‘false’. Well, you are probably correct, the question alone in Matthew 24 is, indeed, not “proof”, but it could lend indication of the subject. However, the overall structure of the paragraph in general leaves in doubt your actual intent. Yes, it is true that ‘proves’ is too strong, although I still would differ that it could lend support to the argument. But, grouped with the previous two statements such as this, it would seem that the overstatement on the third is used as an an attempt to discredit the first two as well, which were not addressed. As we had already discussed point 1, and I clarified it with statement 2, it becomes difficult to understand what you are meaning with your grouping of it in between the other two.

Comments are closed.