THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

My brother-in-Christ, Mike Felker issued a challenge to defend a future fulfillment for Matthew 24. I wrote a response and he was kind enough to write a response to my post with a great deal of respect and tact. A link to it appears at the end of the this post. I want to respond to his post. His words will be in red and mine will be in black.

I want to thank Marcus for taking the time to write his blog and address my challenge. I think these conversations are important to have, as long as they are done with respect. I consider Marcus to be my brother in Christ and would never see an issue like this as a reason to divide from him and i'm sure he feels the same way. And if he, or anyone else, would like to respond, i'd be very interested in reading other views.

Ditto. I love ya, man.

It seems to me that Mike's response can be grouped into three areas: 1. the actual question the disciples asked Jesus; 2. the sign of that "abomination that causes desolation"; 3. the meaning of "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."

1. Mike wrote

The first problem I see is that I don't find "when will the end of the world happen" anywhere in the text. Instead, the verse reads, "what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" This is significant because the disciples did not say, "when will be the end of the world?" If they did, then kosmos would have been more appropriately used by Jesus. However, I will admit that "world" is used by some Bible translations to translate aion, but "age" seems to be more of a reasonable translation in light of the context. And since the context is what is in question, it would suffice to engage Marcus' primary point to establish whether "world" would be an appropriate translation. And this would inevitably lead to a future fulfillment of Matthew 24.

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

2. Mike Wrote

In addition, Jesus changed the subject from the worldwide preaching of the gospel to the abomination that will make the temple "desolate." In referring back to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, Jesus draws on these themes to speak of something that would be set up in the temple at the time of the destruction. Whatever this was, it would be the thing that makes the temple "desolate," as Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 explicitly affirm.

But what was this "abomination?" Clearly, Jesus is making a dual fulfillment application of the Daniel passages. That is, Daniel 12:11 seems to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a pagan altar in the temple in 168 B.C. And the fact that Jesus speaks of this type of abomination as a future thing implies that Daniel 12:11 had not been completely fulfilled. This is important in considering Marcus' view because whatever it was that "desolated" the temple, it had to be of the same type as the ancient context. That is, unless it can be demonstrated that Jesus was speaking of something of a different type, which is what Marcus seems to be implying, then my view seems to be more reasonable because every Jew knew the story: Antiochus Ephiphanes rendered the temple unclean with his erecting a pagan statue. And there is nothing in the Daniel account or the Olivet discourse that explicitly affirms that the "abomination" is some sort of "anti-Christ" figure. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. But whatever it is, we can only go by what the text is trying to describe; namely, that something is going to desecrate the temple in such as way that Antiochus' profanations will only pale in comparison. In other words, I don't see that Marcus' view is more reasonable than a 70 A.D. fulfillment.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

3. The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" breferes to judgement and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the langauge to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

As for

Here, Marcus describes Matthew 24:30-31 as something that could not have happened in 70 A.D. But unless i'm mistaken here, I believe that Matthew 24:34 provides me with justification in interpreting these verses within the context of the first century:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

What generation could Jesus have been speaking of other than the disciples? Therefore, "all these things," or everything that Jesus mentioned, including the "Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, etc." took place in the events leading up to the destruction in 70 A.D. And though I realize how unlikely it may seem to the modern, western mind, I believe this view is entirely justifiable and far more reasonable than the futurist view.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.
Mike, this is a lot fun and helps me a great deal! I hope youj will respond and specifically asnwer the question how you see Jesus' return on clouds with power and great glory as being fulfilled in 70 AD? Thanks again.


THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

Debate: James White vs Tim Staples - Debating Purgatory

Image via Wikipedia

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, James White debated Tim Staples on the Dividing Line web cast on the question "Does 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 support the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory?" Staples claims that it does. James White says no. The debate had the following format:

15 minute opening statements (Tim gets to go first)
8 minutes rebuttals
5 minutes cross examination each
8 minute closing statements
Then, they took phone calls for just under 20 minute

I think White did a great job showing that it does not work. Here is what 1st Corinthians 3:10-15:

¹⁰By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. ¹¹For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹²If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ¹³his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. ¹⁴If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. ¹⁵If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

I think the exchange tells us a lot. The thing that amazed me was Staples arguing that the teaching of Purgatory has not changed in 2000 years! I thought: WHAT???? Then he claimed that purgatory is not a place people go when they die it is the judgement of our lives and he read a quote from the current Pope to back him up. I know during the Reformation - 500 years ago - the Roman Catholic church taught that purgatory was a place where people go to get rid of sins they could not get rid of while they lived. They even taught that if you paid the church - indulgences - one could pay their way and loved ones out of purgatory! If Staples is correct as to what the Roman Catholics teachesd about what purgatory is - then it has changed. You can't claim a 2000-year unbroken tradition, and then ignore what used to be taught. Go ahead and follow the link below to hear the exchange.

I also think that I must comment that his discussion was vastly different than White's discussion with Michael Brown earlier in the week. Staples as mean and kept talking like any intelligent person could see that he was right and White was wrong.  I'm always amazed at how patient James White can be. 

1 Corinthians 3 and Tim Staples on Today's Dividing Line

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Image via Wikipedia

I just read a post on Mariano's blog about atheists like Dan Barker trying to block the circulation of a postage stamp bearing the image of Mother Teresa on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state because she was a Roman Catholic Nun. They argue that it doesn't matter that she did such great humanitarian work, or that she was an honorary US citizen. The bottom line is the government should not endorse any religion.  Okay. What about Santa Claus? He is based off a real man, named Saint Nicholas. He was not an American citizen. He was a Saint recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.  And he regularly appears on our postage stamps every year!  Why isn't Barker protesting that?

I see nothing wrong with honoring Mother Teresa with a postage stamp. She deserves the honor for the work she did helping those our governments would not touch.

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Okay, I would have expected this from Fox News, but MSNBC?! Watch the video below to hear commentator Chris Matthews make some of the most racist remarks I've heard in a long time! The sad thing is that he can't even see how what he said was racist! Sad! Follow the link at the end, to read Danielle's Belton's insightful remark about just how stupid Matthews' remarks really are.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Biblical Evidence: Solomon's Temple

Dr. Claude Mariottini has recently posted two very important posts on his blog regarding 10th Century BC Israel and Solomon's Temple. He provides a couple of resources from current archaeology showing that there was indeed a centralized kingdom of Israel and there really was a King Solomon. And King Solomon really did build a magnificent temple in honor of the God of Israel.Read Dr. Mariottini's posts below:


William G. Dever and the Existence of Solomon’s Kingdom 
The Location of Solomon’s Temple