Archive for matthew 24
Why I Love R.C. Sproul
In his book entitled, “The Last Days According to Jesus,” Dr. R.C. Sproul endorses a Preterist view of eschatology. One of the reasons I recommend this book, is that it teaches the reader what mistakes NOT to make when interpreting the Bible. In setting a framework for his hermeneutical principles, Sproul claims that the prophecies given by Christ concerning the end of the age and of His own “coming” in the clouds, ought not to be taken literally.
Sproul writes:
“Part of the confusion concerning biblical interpretation stems from contemporary usage of the term literal. Literal today usually refers, not to the technical sense in which Luther used it, but to the interpretation of poetic images and the like as straightforward didactic or indicative language. To take every text literally in this sense is not to interpret it according to the genre in which it is written, but to interpret it in a plain indicative sense. When the Olivet Discourse is subjected to such a wooden literalism, the crisis of parousia-delay is created. The cataclysmic events surrounding the parousia as predicted in the Olivet Discourse obviously did not occur “literally” in A.D. 70. Some elements of the discourse did take place “literally,” but others obviously did not.” (pg. 66).
When I read this, I almost fell out of my chair. Dr. Sproul, in his effort to support Preterist reasoning, trips himself up. He suggests that interpreting the discourse as straightforward and didactic is “not to interpret it according to the genre in which it is written.”
However, Sproul‘s error is obvious. The Olivet Discourse was not originally issued in a literary context! It was SPOKEN by Christ to His disciples! Bible-believing Christians need only ask for what reason was it spoken? In Matthew 24: 3-4, we are informed that the discourse was given as an answer to the questions put forward by the disciples. Therefore, it can only be didactic and indicative in nature.
In its primary sense, the Greek verb apokrinomai (Matt. 24: 4) means “to respond or reply to a question.” A study of its usage throughout the New Testament will verify this beyond any shadow of a doubt (see Matt. 3: 15; 4: 4; 8: 8; 11: 4; 12: 39; 14: 28; 16: 2, 16; 17: 11; 19: 4, 27; 20: 13, 22; 22: 29, 46; 24: 4; 25: 9, 12, 26, 37; 26: 23, 25, 33, 62; 27: 12, 14, 21, 25; 28: 5; etc.). If Christ was responding to questions, then unless He wished to mystify His audience, His words must be allowed a degree of literality — far greater than Preterists suppose.
Dr. Sproul’s hermeneutical basis is flawed. In chiding Christians for their plain interpretation of Bible prophecy, he treats a didactive and instructive discourse as if it were literature. Then Sproul claims that Christians, in taking the discourse literally, are not interpreting it in the genre in which it was written. But it was given orally, and wasn’t committed to writing until more than three decades later. Therefore, how is the reader to interpret it?
I submit that Dr. Sproul is not interpreting an oral discourse according to the genre in which it was first given. True, the discourse is literature to us today; but to its original audience it was not. Sproul fails to see that it was a response intended to address certain questions asked by Christ’s disciples. The entire discourse must be read with this in mind, and interpreted accordingly.
But it gets better. Sproul goes on to admit that some parts in the discourse were LITERALLY fulfilled in A.D. 70. But if some passages, why not others? Wouldn’t literal fulfillment of some parts set a precedent for literal fulfillment of others? If not, why not?
It is obvious that Dr. Sproul is trying to have his cake and eat it at the same time. His system insists on a clarity of those predictive elements which can be pinned down to an A.D. 70 fulfillment, but denies that the same clarity applies to other portions of the same prophecy. The reason? Well, because other portions were not fulfilled in A.D. 70!
Such thinking demonstrates, of course, that Sproul’s hermeneutic is based on “circular reasoning.” Sproul would be far more consistent in taking the entire discourse literally – even if he had to accept the idea of a “parousia delay” (which isn’t so bad, really, when you think about it) – than to resort to such heremeneutics as he endorses in his book. It’s bad grammar, I know. But when I read this stuff, I have to thank R.C. Sproul for making me not a Preterist.
Review Of “The End Times Controversy” (Chapter 1)
The first chapter of “The End Times Controversy” is entitled “What Is Preterism?“ Its author is Dr. Thomas Ice, executive director of the Pre-Trib Research Center, and writer of many books and study materials written from the Dispensational perspective. Several other articles in this book are also written by him.
Chapter 1 serves as a basic outline of what Preterism is, and what are some of its distinctive teachings. Ice begins by giving a broad overview of the various eschatological viewpoints, which include Preterism, Futurism, Historicism, and Idealism. He remarks that Preterism is sometimes confused with Historicism, the two systems being similar in approach, and looking for the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the events of history. The two schools see many details of the Apocalyptic narrative as having been fulfilled.
After giving an outline of the different views, and their relation to the eschatological debate, Dr. Ice shifts his focus on Preterism, breaking the movement into three groups, which he denominates as ”Mild Preterism,” “Moderate Preterism,” and “Extreme Preterism.” The author states that he is not aware of anyone on the contemporary scene who espouses Mild Preterism — even though this is, historically speaking, the most common form of Preterist doctrine. This means that modern-day Preterists fall into two groups: Moderate Preterism and Extreme Preterism.
Ice does not focus on the controversy between Moderate and Extreme Preterism, which is something that belongs mainly within the Reformed community. He does, however, turn his attention on Preterism as it relates to Dispensational theology. And he states at the outset that the book will be interacting primarily with the doctrines of Partial Preterism.
“In this book, our focus will be upon refuting partial preterism. If partial preterism is deemed untenable, then obviously the more extreme form will not be viable as well. What’s more, we believe that when one ventures into extreme or full preterism, then he has moved away from orthodoxy into false teaching. Because full preterism believes that Christ’s only coming (i.e. the second coming) occurred in A.D. 70, and because the translation and resurrection of believers are clearly connected with that event in Scripture (1 Cor. 15: 1; 1 Thess. 4: 13-17), then that means full preterism is heretical.” (pg. 24).
Ice then proceeds to demonstrate some of the major implications of Preterist theology on end-time prophecy, by citing comments mainly culled from David Chilton’s books. Chilton is a good representative of what may be called “Modern Preterism,” his writings having had great impact on the movement.
The author next points out that many Preterists (such as R.C. Sproul) feel that they are “helping to save Christianity from liberal skeptics like Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweitzer, by adopting a Preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy.” Since a chief bone of contention with the skeptics is that Jesus did not return during the time-frame he predicted, Sproul and others have suggested Preterism as a viable solution. They say that Christ DID return, but that His coming was fulfilled in a non-literal manner.
Regarding this approach, however, Dr. Ice writes:
“…When it comes to the Bible, we cannot fight liberalism with liberalism. Dr. Sproul believes that he is defending the integrity of Scripture by adopting the preterist viewpoint. However, in reality, I believe he is adopting a naturalistic interpretation that too many liberals feel at home with. While Dr. Sproul sees Matthew 24 as a prophecy that was fulfilled in the first century, liberal preterists join him in giving a naturalistic explanation, though they do so from a different framework. Ultimately, they both deny that our Lord prophesied a supernatural, bodily, visible return of Christ in fulfillment of Matthew 24.” (pg. 27).
By “liberal preterists,” Ice ostensibly refers to the German critical school represented by such men as Eichhorn, De Wette, and Delitzsch. These German critics often espoused Preterism as a means to avoid the supernatural elements of predictive prophecy. Although Sproul can hardly be classed with this group, Ice’s observation that his preterism is really another form of the same liberalism, is doubtless correct.
Ice then moves on to cover the Preterist view regarding Christ’s Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/Mark 13). Selecting the significant words and phrases from that discourse, he adds running commentaries by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, which serve to give an overall view of how Preterists deal with prophetic texts. This is the most interesting section of the chapter, as it helps to exemplify the liberal element inherent in Preterist interpretation.
One example of Dr. Gentry’s modus operandi may be seen in Matthew 24: 29, where Christ says: “The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars shall fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”
Gentry writes:
“How then should we understand verse 29? Rather than interpreting it literally, we must interpret it covenantally!… By the very requirement of the context, this passage speaks of the collapse of political Israel in A.D. 70… When a national government collapses in war and upheaval, it is often portrayed as a cosmic catastrophe – an undoing of creation… Consequently, we may see how easy it is to apply Matthew 24: 29 to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” (pg. 32).
I might argue that the author’s view involves a mis-application of eschatological terminology. But Ice’s selection of Gentry’s quotations is sufficient to demonstrate how Preterists mishandle the Word of God. The error is not confined to Gentry, but is common to any teaching which seeks to make Christ’s parousia a past event.
Before wrapping up the article, Dr. Ice briefly discusses the Preterist views of the Book of Revelation. He observes that Preterists base their idea of first-century fulfillment on what are called “timing texts.” These include words and phrases such as: “The time is near;” “I am coming quickly,” and “things which must shortly take place.”
Since I myself hold to a grammatical/historical reading of these texts, I will refrain from commenting on the received mode of interpretation, until I get to chapter 4, in which Dr. Ice deals with these Preterist time indicators. I will say, though, that Preterists make a mistake in falsely applying an “inerrantist” principle to many passages which are conditional in nature.
In closing, Dr. Ice makes an observation with which I entirely agree. He writes:
“The timing of a passage is determined by taking into account all factors in a given passage.” (pg. 34).
Yes, it seems that is what Preterists have missed. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is to be approached according to consistent, orderly hermeneutical principles. To take the time-texts literally, and yet to spiritualize passages which indicate how a prophecy will be fulfilled, displays a logical bias which can never lead one to the attainment of objective truth.
To sum it up, then, I think that Dr. Ice does an excellent job in bringing to light the main elements involved in a Preterist interpretation of Scripture. It is my wish that readers purchase this book (if they haven’t already), in order to gain a better understanding of the issues at stake in the ongoing eschatological battle.
Dr. J. Randall Price– “Be Not Deceived”
There has been considerable discussion as to whether these verses [Matthew 24: 1-14], as well as the whole of the Olivet Discourse, was fulfilled in the past or is yet to be fulfilled in the future. Historicists have held that most of these events (except the advent of Christ) have been fulfilled in the past, though Preterists contend all events (including the advent of Christ) were specifically fulfilled in A.D. 70. The disciples had also presumed a connection between the destruction of the Temple and the messianic advent. Jesus’ Olivet Discourse was given to correct this misunderstanding, otherwise the disciples might be subject to deception as a result of the events that would take place in their generation, since Jesus would not bodily return to restore Israel and begin the messianic kingdom following the Roman’s razing of the Temple. Therefore, Jesus began His discourse with the warning, “Be on your guard lest anyone deceive you” (verse 4). Preterists, failing to understand this warning, have been led astray in their interpretation, being forced to spiritualize prophecy in an attempt to force a first-century fulfillment. Therefore, what the disciples saw as connected events, Jesus explained were chronological and sequential, but would not all occur within the same time frame.
http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/Matthew%2024.1-14.pdf
Studies In The Apocalypse (Part 20)
(6: 3) “And when He had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.”
This second seal is intimately connected with the first. As already stated, Antichrist will be on the scene until the very end. While the successive seals are broken, he is still riding forward on his grisly career of carnage and world conquest. But now we are ready to view the contents disclosed by the breaking of the second seal. What comes next? When the white horse rider goes forward, many will be tempted to think that peace has finally come. The whole world will accept Antichrist’s flatteries and welcome him with open arms. Laodicean Christians will believe that the long-awaited Millennium will begin if once this man is placed at the head of world politics. But what is the follow-up to his receipt of power? We shall soon see.
(6: 4) “And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.”
The breaking of the second seal results in the unloosing of the second horse of judgment. We do not not need to interpret this vision, for the interpretation is already given us by John himself. The red horse is war; and its riding forth will issue in a period of tumult and devastation among the nations, such as we have never seen. The period of false peace ushered in by Antichrist will soon be shattered, and a declaration of war issued. Whether the war will be universal, or to an extent localized, we are not given to know. Other portions of the prophetic record must help us out.
Going back to Christ’s Olivet Prophecy, we read of what shall occur after the rise of false Messiahs. “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matt. 24: 6). When Christ says “the end is not yet,” He means that these signs which had given must precede the telos, or Great Tribulation. The sign of the telos will be the “abomination of desolation” which shall occur precisely in the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week, as the Scriptures declare (Dan. 9: 27; 11:31; 12: 11).
From the commencement of the sunteleia onward, we are to expect “wars and rumors of wars” as well as a rising of “nation against nation.” The kingdoms of the world will be absorbed into Antichrist’s universal empire, and the Roman empire revived. This must happen before the Great Tribulation can occur. In Revelation 17 John saw a vision of a whore arrayed in purple and scarlet, riding a beast with seven heads and ten horns. These heads represent kings whose empires will be subdued and consolidated into the conglomerate beast of Revelation 13. It was revealed to John that five of the heads had (at that stage of the vision) already fallen, whilst a sixth was in control. The seventh (Antichrist) had not yet come. We’ll later find that this vision, which gave John a glimpse into the end of this age, will have its fulfillment immediately before the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week. Therefore, it must correspond to this same period played out under the second seal.
Now we see that when the red horse goes forward, “peace is taken from the earth” and many will be killed with the sword. This denotes bloodshed, which is why the horse is described as red. But let us understand that, unlike other wars we’ve witnessed throughout history, which trace their cause to the lusts that war in our members (James 4: 1), these will proceed directly from the throne of God. Recall the words of Christ: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10: 34). The succeeding context, in which our Lord quotes from Micah 7: 6, reveals that these perilous times will be characterized by familial disputes and internecine divisions. These are connected with a foregoing decline in moral character. See Micah 7: 2-5. Verses 7 and 9 of Micah’s prophecy, however, make it obvious that they will immediately precede the time when Christ will bring salvation to His people. Therefore, Matthew 10: 34 refers to the “end of the age.”
It will sometimes be asked, what age Christ was referring to when he gave us these signs of what would come to pass? It is generally believed, and on indisputable evidence, that the age is none other than the “present evil age” which began after the flood and has continued ever since. Some (especially Preterists) claim that the age was the “Mosaic Age.” However, the loose way in which the term “age” is sometimes used leads many into error of believing that “all these things” are “past fulfillment.” Many, through failure to study the Scriptures, do not know that there is a marked difference between an “age” and a “dispensation.”
An “age” (Gr. aion) is always defined in regard to its particular mode or manner of living–its physical characteristics, if you will. Whereas a “dispensation” has respect to a prevailing principle of Divine administration–whether it be innocence, conscience, law, or grace. When the term “this age” is used in the New Testament, it will be seen in all cases to refer to “this life,” or the present natural order of things (see Luke 16: 8; 2 Tim. 4: 10). Because of its moral characteristics, it is evil (Gal. 1: 4); and the Gospel (even this word which we preach) promises deliverance therefrom. So when Christ speaks of the “end of the age,” He is pointing to the close of this present world-period, elsewhere called “man’s day” (1 Cor. 4: 3).
The period during which the ceremonial law remained in force, however, was not an age, but a Dispensation. This is vitally important to keep in mind. The “present evil age” was just as much current when the Sinaitic Covenant was ratified as it was when the Jews were dispersed in A.D. 70, and as it still is today. The Mosaic economy was marked by an administration of law; whereas the Ecclesiastical economy is marked by that of grace. When the principle of administration altered in A.D. 30, there was a change of Dispensations, but not of ages. There is no such thing as a “Mosaic Age.” And the failure to discern this simple but all-essential principle has led not a few to dash themselves to pieces on the rocks of Preterism, Historicism, and other theologies which fail to “rightly divide the word of truth.”
Now we’ve already seen that the breaking of the seals have to do with that same time-period of which Christ spoke in His Olivet Discourse; a time which would begin with the rise of false Messiahs and close with His own second coming in glory. The period embraced by these two end-markers is termed the “consummation of the age.” And the prophecies relative to this period will all have their fulfillment during the close of this present order of human existence. Because our Lord’s predictions do not pertain to principles of administration, but to the culmination of the present mode or character of human life, we must be cautious in forcing passages to fall in with a theory of past fulfillment. Since the Olivet Prophecy relates to the end of the age, and not to the close of a Dispensation, it is therefore entirely future.
That said, we proceed to look at the effects of this “great sword.” As in our last study, we found a “key” in Jeremiah 27 relating to the “first seal,” so in Jeremiah 25 we’ll find another key pertaining to this one. In Jeremiah 25: 15-33 we have a vivid description of this second seal. We can’t help but believe that when Antichrist steps on the scene, the troubles will begin in Jerusalem and gradually work their way outward throughout the entire earth. In Jeremiah’s prophecy, the wine cup of Jehovah’s fury is sent to all nations, starting with Judah, and then passing on to those of the entire habitable earth. The last to drink of this cup of fury will be the “king of Shesach” (Jer. 25: 26)–that is, the king of Babylon–otherwise known as Antichrist (cf. Isaiah 14: 4).
The result of this passing of the wine-cup of Jehovah’s fury is then outlined in verses 31-33: “A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth; for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations, He will plead with all flesh; He will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth. And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.”
This hellish scenario will issue directly from the throne as a punishment of the inhabitants of the world for their wickedness. Read Isaiah 13: 11: “And I wil punish the world (tebel= inhabited world) for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.” As the age progresses in moral corruption and unbelief, we find ourselves hurtling forward toward an eventual fulfillment of these prophecies. We have already seen the rise of Messianic figures. And although wars and rumors of wars have been a characteristic mark of this dispensation, we know that the rise of a personal Antichrist will issue in a war the likes of which mankind has never yet seen. What must we do, but pray that calamity be averted, or the judgments postponed, that men may seek the Lord their God and obtain mercy and forgiveness? As we see the age drawing to a close, let us continue to preach the Gospel of grace to all nations, and remain fervent in our endeavors, while we wait for the “salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1: 5).
Terry James- Time of The Signs
This generation of passengers on Planet Earth is passing through a corridor John the apostle and prophet called “the last time” (1 John 2:18). More to the point, we are somewhere near the very end of that corridor, and signs the size of billboards are on either side of the broad way that leads the world’s inhabitants toward Armageddon. The only way to miss those gargantuan signs, for the true child of God, is to deliberately ignore them, choosing instead to focus on things of this world that perspective hides in the distant blackness.
We are, as my good friend Chuck Missler says, in the time of the signs. They are signs so dramatic, so blatant, that the whinnying and violent snorting of the four horses of the apocalypse can almost be heard as they angrily paw the earth with rage, straining to burst to full gallop, determined to carry their death-dealing riders on their missions of globe-shattering devastation.
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.– On The Errors of Preterism
(from “No Millennium Without Christ,” 1887)
Those who think that in St. Matt. and Mark the Saviour refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, are compelled to “interpret” Matt. xxiv. 30, of Titus and his armies:— “They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” They call this “prophetic language,” as though “prophetic language” were a totally different language from all other language. And so it must be if the coming of Titus was indeed the “lightning” of Matt. xxiv. 27, which “cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west“! But surely this very interpretation condemns itself, and the whole system which is built upon it! For if verse 30 “then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,” means the coming of Titus with his armies, then in Matt. xxvi. 64, Jesus must have meant the same when He said to His judges, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” And He must have “spoken blasphemy” and been “guilty of death,” because He made Himself equal to Titus!
Such treatment of Scripture stands self-condemned; for it leaves no room at all for any future advent of Christ, in a prophecy which was an express answer to the Question, “What shall be the sign of THY coming?”
Again, Jesus said (Luke xxi. 28) “Lift up your heads for your redemption draweth nigh.” But in what way was the coming of Titus a ground for such a lifting up the head, or for such a looking for redemption!
And, note further, that this lifting up of their heads is caused by no spread of gospel light and peace amongst the nations. On the contrary, there is the greatest “distress of nations with perplexity,” “and then” — the very next thing is (verse 27) “THEN shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.”
Even when Jesus does speak about the preaching the Gospel, He particularly informs us that it is only “for a witness to all nations” (Matt. xxiv. 14, and Mark xiii. 10), and not for the conversion of all nations.
And when He speaks of the setting up of “the Abomination of Desolation” (Matt. xxiv. 15, and Mark xiii. 14), He refers to the Prophet Daniel. But it is clear from Daniel xii. that this must be still future, for speaking of that same time of trouble the interpreting Angel says to Daniel (xii. 1) “At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: AND AT THAT TIME THY PEOPLE SHALL BE DELIVERED.” Well, at the time when Titus came, Daniel’s people were destroyed! and if that can be interpreted to mean “delivered” then language may mean anything and nothing, and there is an end of the whole matter!
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.- On Christ’s Two Eschatological Discourses
(from No Millennium Without Christ, 1887)
Now the first three or four verses of both discourses, and of all the three records are almost identical:— Matt. xxiv. 4-8, Mark xiii. 5-7, Luke xxi. 8-11. But here a remarkable change occurs which gives us the key to the right understanding of these prophecies. In Matt. and Mark the Lord goes on to speak of the sorrows of which those verses were “the beginning” and continues, and develops what He had begun to describe. But in St. Luke he stops short here; He does not go forward, but goes back to tell us what shall be before all these things,” and for thirteen verses (Luke xxi. 12-24) He speaks of what shall be “BEFORE” “the beginning of sorrows,” and to speak of the then impending destruction of Jerusalem, concluding at verse 24 with the words “and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” It is the concluding days of these “times of the Gentiles,” which in Matt. and Mark the Lord enlarges on, and describes the events which lead up to His appearing (Matt. xxiv. 8-28, and Mark xiii. 9-23): and then all three records again coincide, and culminate in the grand and final “sign” about which the disciples had enquired.
To attempt to harmonize these prophecies without noticing the great diverging point of Luke xxi. 12, is to attempt the impossible; and the best proof that it is so is the fact that no commentator who treats all three records as referring to one and the same subject, succeeds in satisfying his own mind, still less the minds of his readers.
But observing these notes of time, and this key to the change of subject in Luke xxi. 12, we learn that in Matt. xxiv. and Mark xiii., Jesus does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem at all, but begins long after that event, and gives an epitome of the closing in of the last days of the “times of the Gentiles,” the days immediately preceding His coming in glory with all His saints: while in St. Luke xxi. He devotes only four verses to those events, (8-11) and at verse 12 goes back to tell us what shall be “before all these things.”
In fact, these two discourses, taken together, are occupied with three great subjects, 1. The Destruction of Jerusalem: 2. The Coming of Christ in Glory: and 3. The events immediately preceding that coming. In Matt. and Mark, Jesus enlarges on the events that shall immediately lead up to His coming in glory. He foretells the four great characteristics of the beginning of these last events:— “Wars” (the Red horse of the second seal, Rev. vi. 4), “Pestilences” (the Black horse of the third seal, Rev. vi. 5, 6), “Famines” (the Pale horse of the fourth seal, Rev. vi. 7, 8), and “Earthquakes” (the sixth seal, Rev. vi. 12). He speaks of the witnessing gospel (Rev. vi. 2), and refers to a great event foretold by Daniel as a sure sign of the approaching end. The tribulation then rapidly deepens until it reaches its culminating point, and then (Matt. xxiv. 29, 30) “IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation of those days… they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.”
Now in St. Luke, as I have said, there is little or nothing about these awful and final events. In Luke xxi. 8, 9, the Lord refers to them, but pointedly says “the end is not by and by” (R.V. “the end is not immediately.”) Then in verse 10 and 11, He bears us rapidly forward to the end, and almost anticipates verse 25. Thus, having thrust the whole of those closing events into these fours verses, the Lord suddenly turns back, saying (verse 12) “But, BEFORE all these things,” and enlarges on the nearer, and then impending woe of the city of Jerusalem. And when He says in verse 24 “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” the events which shall be the fulfilling of these very times form the chief subject of the discourse in Matt. xxiv. and Mark xiii., which refers to that future siege.*
* The word “immediately” marks off the prophecy in Matt. from that recorded in Luke, where we have instead long “times of the Gentiles” following on the siege of Jerusalem.
Thus of these two prophecies, part has been already literally fulfilled (Luke xxi. 12-24); and part remains to be also as literally fulfilled.
The great fact, however, which stands out most prominently in these prophecies, the evidence of which is absolutely overwhelming, is this:— that our Lord leaves no room for any Millenium of happiness and peace before He comes.
