Archive for Olivet Discourse
Review Of Fred DeRuvo’s “The Anti-Supernatural Bias Of Ex-Christians”
For the past week or so, I’ve been reading an excellent book by Fred DeRuvo, M.Div., entitled “The Anti-Supernatural Bias of Ex-Christians and other Important Topics.” DeRuvo was kind enough to graciously send me a copy of this recently-released work which exposes the roots of the growing number of “ex Christian” atheists. As a Dispensationalist, DeRuvo believes we are nearing the end of the age. In this book he offers insightful and well-researched input on why so many are turning away from Christ.
As the author points out in Chapter 2, a genuine Christian is one in whom a spiritual transaction must have taken place. In order to be a true Christian, one must be “born again” (John 3: 3). To many of us this goes without saying. To others, however, it appears that a mere intellectual assent to this or that doctrine is enough. Unfortunately, that mental assent is no proof that the individual has been regenerated and has Christ dwelling within him. One who mentally assents to a theoretical statement of Christian doctrine may just as easily fall away in time. Today’s highly secular culture makes such apostasy all the more likely.
Expounding on Christ’s parable of the sower (Matt. 13: 3-9), DeRuvo talks about the different kinds of soil upon which the seed of the word falls. Only some sowing turns out fruitful. Much is unfruitful. In the case of the ex-Christian atheist, it more often than not comes to pass that the word never took root in soil conducive to real Christian growth. This is the most common cause of ex-Christian atheism.
I appreciate DeRuvo’s stance on this issue, as far too many apologists these days war with intellectual weapons alone. They fail to see that salvation involves much more than the intellect. It involves a spiritual transaction which takes place between Christ and each believer. Unless the apologist tackles the underlying spiritual elements of Christian faith and discipleship, his/her work is simply another product of human reasoning.
The highlight of DeRuvo’s book is a careful refutation of the arguments put forth by John W. Loftus in his 2008 work, “Why I Became An Atheist.” DeRuvo explores the reasons put forth by John as to why he became an atheist, showcasing the contradictions and inconsistencies of his reasoning. This takes up a large portion of the book, and is impressive in its clearness of thought and systematic approach. Although DeRuvo sometimes employs gentle sarcasm to get his point across (as he tells the reader in his forward, pg. 3), this only adds to the enjoyability of the book.
One of the things I really liked about this is the detailed exposition which DeRuvo gives of Christ’s Olivet Discourse. This much-misunderstood discourse has been used as a launching pad for all kinds of false and errant teaching, and so it’s good to see the author lay out key details which are necessary to understanding what Christ meant regarding His personal return to earth, and when it will take place. As futurists, our position is that the second coming is yet to occur.
The book can be purchased at the above link. You may also visit DeRuvo’s website, www.studygrowknow.com, which carries all of his work. I would highly recommend getting this book, even if as a gift. But make sure you read it first! DeRuvo himself told me that he recently had some interaction with John Loftus, who tried to dismiss the work as “lame.” I didn’t think the book is lame at all. In fact, DeRuvo and I have a podcast project in the offing, which should reach fruition within a couple weeks. Meanwhile, I am now reading another of his books entitled “Interpreting The Bible Literally: It’s Not As Confusing As It Sounds.” Review will be posted shortly!
How To Refute Preterism: Part 2: “A-N Spells Conditional”
Brian Simmons has launched a brand new audio series entitled “How To Refute Preterism.” In this second episode, he talks about the use of conditional clauses in Preterist time-texts — placing particular emphasis on Matthew 10: 23, 16: 28, 23: 39, and 24: 34. This podcast will be found essential to a right understanding of what Christ and His inspired apostles meant when they placed the parousia in a first-century context.
Listen now: http://antipreterist.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/fouruntils.mp3
How To Refute Preterism: Part 1: “Smash Preterism Now”
Brian Simmons has launched a new audio series entitled “How To Refute Preterism,” in which he showcases the inconsistency and foolishness of Preterist eschatology. In this first episode of the series, Brian shows that an A.D. 70 parousia means an A.D. 70 resurrection — proving that Partial Preterism is wrong on timing, while Hyper-Preterism is wrong on nature. As these two systems of Preterism cancel each other out, the obvious conclusion is that the Futurist view of Christ’s coming is correct!
Listen now: http://antipreterist.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/smashpreterismnow.mp3
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.
Interview With The Orange Mailman
In this 53-minute podcast, Brian Simmons interviews Darrin (The Orange Mailman) on Preterism, the Great Tribulation, and the endtimes. Various topics are discussed including the applicability of the Olivet Discourse to A.D. 70, the literal fulfillment of prophecy, and the futuricity of events surrounding Jesus Christ’s second advent. Darrin also gives valuable insight on the Gog and Magog invasion (Ezekiel 38-39), which most prophecy teachers place before the commencement of the tribulation. The Orange Mailman advocates a pre-wrath rapture view.
Listen now: Interview With The Orange Mailman
Visit The Orange Mailman’s blog: http://theorangemailman.spaces.live.com/
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
The Slipshod “Exegesis” of Hyper-Preterism
MillennialSaint: Luke is NOT talking about the Great Tribulation, Noble. There is not a single reference to the “Abomination of Desolation” or “Tribulation.” He’s talking about “surrounding of Jerusalem with armies” and “days of vengeance.” Luke 21: 12-24 is a parenthetical passage that takes place “BEFORE ALL THESE” beginnings of sorrows–that is, before the Great Tribulation. This is also corroborated by Dan. 9: 26, where the desolation of the CITY precedes the 70th week mentioned in Da. 9: 27, which speaks of the desolation of the TEMPLE. The prophecy is in chronological order. So Dan. 9: 27 ISNT’t talking about Luke 21: 12-24, that already happened by the time the events of Dan. 9: 27 come to pass. You’re saying they happened in A.D. 67-70. OK. So I want to know WHO the desolator of Dan. 9: 27 & 11: 31 is. In order to prove that the Great Trib was fulfilled in the first century, YOU have to identify him.
Noble: Luke is talking about the great trib, MilleniumSaint.
Here is why Luke is talking about the great tribulation.
Let us compare the biblical story between Matthew and Luke. You are in agreement that the Great tribulation is talked about in Matthew 24, at least your study guide should say that the great trib is in Matthew 24.
Matthew 24 says:
They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
Luke 21 says exactly the same words:
27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Both Luke and Matthew refer to this being happening when Jesus Christ show up on the clouds.
29″Immediately after the distress of those days
” ‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
Luke says:
25″There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. ……… for the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
The fact is MS is that the coming of the son of man on the clouds is IMMEDIATELY after the great trib. Both Matthew and Luke tell us the son of man comes so for that to happen the great trib has had to happen as well. I know that doesn’t fit your study guide, but it is the guide that is wrong, not the bible.
On the other side of th great trib there is a flight of the people from Judea. Both Matthew and Mark record that in the exact same words.
The difference is that Matthew describes the armies as an abomination that causes desolation and Luke just tells it like it is.
| There is not a single reference to the “Abomination of Desolation” or “Tribulation.” He’s talking about “surrounding of Jerusalem with armies” and “days of vengeance.” Luke 21: 12-24 is a parenthetical passage that takes place |
See above.
What you have here is just a desperate attempt to confuse the issue so the false issue of a future great trib can be slipped in to the doctrine “
| BEFORE ALL THESE” beginnings of sorrows–that is, before the Great Tribulation. |
Yes, before the great trib thee will be a flight of the people which also eliminates the pre trib rapture. What do you need to fly the Christians out of the war zone for if Christ has already told them to flee?
| This is also corroborated by Dan. 9: 26, where the desolation of the CITY precedes the 70th week mentioned in Da. 9: 27, which speaks of the desolation of the TEMPLE. |
If Daniel 9 doesn’t correlate what Jesus said in the Olivet, the prophecy of Daniel 9 has to be re-interpreted so it does fit in because Jesus Christ is the one that has the true story.
| The prophecy is in chronological order. So Dan. 9: 27 ISNT”t talking about Luke 21: 12-24, that already happened by the time the events of Dan. 9: 27 come to pass. |
Then re work Daniel’s prophecy!
| You’re saying they happened in A.D. 67-70. OK. So I want to know WHO the desolator of Dan. 9: 27 & 11: 31 is. In order to prove that the Great Trib was fulfilled in the first century, YOU have to identify him. |
I have told you many times.
It was a wonderful thing when some wizard figured out that this man would have be be identified if it happened 2000 years ago. BUT the identification of the man talked about ISN’T given. That makes perfect sense, it was just army officers that showed up around the temple, who cares if it was Billy Bob, Joe Blow or whoever. It was the Roman armies.
So I don’t have to identify anybody because the information is not available. The Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, the Roman armies entered that temple and were in places allowed only for the high priests. When the followers of Christ saw this they were supposed to flee from Judea.
The simple thing here that has to be accepted is this….
The coming of the son of man is immediately after the great trib. Matthew Mark and Luke all mention the coming so they all have to include the great tribulation. Luke does, it is the time of vengeance and punishment.
22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.
MillennialSaint: No, Jesus isn’t talking about the Great Tribulation in Luke, because the destruction of Jerusalem precedes the “beginning of sorrows.” Instead of saying “these are the beginnings of sorrows” in verse 11, He stops short, and goes back to tell of what will happen “Before all these” things! The disciples only saw the preliminary signs mentioned in 8-9. There is no record in Scripture that the events of 10-11 took place in the first century. They couldn’t, because they belong to the “sunteleia” or last 7 years of the age, which Israel forfeited when they rejected the kingdom in A.D. 63. That’s why the “wars, famines, earthquakes,” etc. are made the subject of prophecy (Rev. 6) and not Scriptural history. Read Acts 28 very carefully. Once the Jewish nation rejected Christ’s kingdom in A.D. 63, they rejected the coming of the king. Luke 21 follows the chronology of Dan. 9, where the city is destroyed and trampled by Gentiles BEFORE the 70th week takes place. The book of Revelation contains the events of the 70th week.
Christ’s coming could have happened in the first century. But 144,000 Israelites were needed as a first-fruits offering to God, in order for the Lord of the Harvest to send His Son. That number was never met, because “that generation” fell away. Therefore, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the second coming placed at the end of the church-age. That is what Luke 21 reveals. You have to harmonize the two discourses in order to see what they are about.
Noble: MS, did you read the sentence which says that all three reports of the conversation tell us that “They will see the son of man coming on the clouds?”
Is that true, do all three reports say that?
I’ll answer for you, yes, all three reports say that and what comes immediately before the coming? The great tribulation.
What is BEFORE the great tribulation” Well the flight of the people. Is that spoken of in BOTH Matthew and Luke? Again I’ll answer for you YES IT IS!
The great trib is in Luke as sure as God made little green apples and the flight of the people to avoid that great tribulation was prompted , in Luke, by the armies surrounding Jerusal, which is exactly the same thing as the abomination oin Mattthew and Mark and none of that is an arguable point. It is written!
Now let’s go thru your stuff which you consider proves Jesus’ word to be null and void.
| No, Jesus isn’t talking about the Great Tribulation in Luke, because the destruction of Jerusalem precedes the “beginning of sorrows.” Instead of saying “these are the beginnings of sorrows” in verse 11, He stops short, and goes back to tell of what will happen “Before all these” things! |
12″But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name.
BUT before all this….before all what?
10Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.
Before nation rises against nation,!!!! What do you think happened in the Judean rebellion, every nation of Jew was in Jerusalem at that time and they fought against each other at the same time that the Romans were attacking them. There was a battle within for what little food was available etc.
And don’t you remember what happened to Paul early on in this time? The perscecution and murder of the promoters of this new Christian thing.
| The disciples only saw the preliminary signs mentioned in 8-9. There is no record in Scripture that the events of 10-11 took place in the first century. |
8He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”
10Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.
What are you talking about? Of course, this was at that time. That is what yourt Daniel 11 is leading up to!!!!!!!
| They couldn’t, because they belong to the “sunteleia” or last 7 years of the age, which Israel forfeited when they rejected the kingdom in A.D. 63. |
What the people of Judea forfeited is their chance to be lifted to the heavenly realm because they rejected the son of God.
| That’s why the “wars, famines, earthquakes,” etc. are made the subject of prophecy (Rev. 6) and not Scriptural history. |
17For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”
Are you sure you want to continue down this road of scriptural anything?
| Read Acts 28 very carefully. Once the Jewish nation rejected Christ’s kingdom in A.D. 63, they rejected the coming of the king. |
They rejected that Christ was Christ!
31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.
| Luke 21 follows the chronology of Dan. 9, where the city is destroyed and trampled by Gentiles BEFORE the 70th week takes place. The book of Revelation contains the events of the 70th week. |
I couldn’t care less what Daniel says to you and yours. The reports by Matthew, Mark, and Luke are direct details of a conversation by Jesus Christ and four of His followers. If your understanding of Daniel somehow contradicts what Jesus said , then you are wrong about what Daniel said, simple as that.
| Christ’s coming could have happened in the first century. But 144,000 Israelites were needed as a first-fruits offering to God, in order for the Lord of the Harvest to send His Son. That number was never met, because “that generation” fell away. |
What are you talking about?
| Therefore, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the second coming placed at the end of the church-age. That is what Luke 21 reveals. You have to harmonize the two discourses in order to see what they are about. |
Is the coming of the son of man mentioned in all three accounts, yes or no?
IT IS!
If the great trib is before the coming of the son of man and after the flight of the people in Matthew 24, you show me how that sequence can change knowing that there is only one great tribulation in all of history. The coming and the flight of the people are in Luke…I defy you or anybody else to get the great trib out of Luke, it can not be done!
MillennialSaint: Daniel makes a clear distinction between the destruction of the city and sanctuary (Dan. 9: 26) and the later defilement of the temple (Dan. 9: 27). The whole prophecy of the 70 weeks is in chronological sequence, and this is what you’re not seeing. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are following the sequence already laid out by Daniel. So let’s break it down. Matthew 24: 4-6, Mark 13: 5-7, and Luke 21: 8-9 are all parallel, and took place in the lifetime of Christ’s first-century audience. The appearance of “many antichrists” told them that it was the “last hour.”
Matthew 24: 7-8, Mark 13: 8, and Luke 10: 11 are parallel, but belong to the SUNTELEIA (first half of the 70th week). These events are not the subject of inspired history, because the Jews rejected the kingdom in A.D. 63 (see Acts 28). Therefore, they are the subject of PROPHECY. Which is why they are found in Revelation 6, as the “seals.”
Now, in Luke 21: 12 Christ doesn’t go on to talk about the tribulation as in the Olivet Discourse, but He stops, goes back, and tells what will take place “BEFORE ALL THESE” things mentioned in Luke 10: 11 (and identified in Matthew 24/Mark 13 as the “beginnings of sorrows”). Then in Luke 21: 12-24 Christ talks of the “destruction of the city and sanctuary” mentioned in Daniel 9: 26. Are you following me? The two prophecies don’t converge again until Luke 21: 25-27, where Christ places His coming at the close of the “Great Tribulation” mentioned by Mark and Matthew. But since this is triggered by the “defilement of the temple” mentioned in Dan. 9: 27, and not the “destruction of the city and sanctuary” (Dan. 9: 26) then yes, they are separate events.
Incidentally, the two terms “abomination of desolation” and “Great Tribulation” do not occur once in the Temple Discourse. This proves my whole point. It’s a case of “apples and oranges.”
Noble: Look! I asked you if the coming of the son of man is in all three reports. I asked you if the three reports include the flight of the people?
Do they or don’t they?
MillennialSaint: Yes, all three reports include the coming of the Son of Man and the flight of the people. However, the “abomination of desolation” is the sign for flight in the Olivet Discourse. This places it at Dan. 9: 27. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary in Luke 21 refers back to Dan. 9: 26, and this takes place BEFORE the 70th week. As I’ve said, Luke 21: 12-24 is a parenthetical passage that occurs prior to the Great Tribulation. You’d see this, if only you’d stop forcing the evidence.
Hyper-Preterists: are you forcing the evidence?
