Broadus, John Albert
(On Matthew 24:14)
"'And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come' could be regarded as a hyperbolical prediction of what was fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem, even as Paul wrote to the Colossians (about A.D. 63), concerning 'the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven.' (Col. 1:23, Rev. Ver.) It will evidently be fulfilled much more thoroughly before the second coming of Christ; yet Paul's phrase, and the primary reference here to A.D.70 as 'the end,' should restrain theorizers from insisting that the second coming of Christ cannot take place until this has been fulfilled with literal completeness." (Broadus, vol. 1, p. 485)
(On Matthew 24:15)
"It is evident that our Lord interprets the prediction in Daniel as referring to the Messiah, and to that destruction of the city and temple which he is now foretelling; and his interpretation is authoritative for us." (ibid., vol. 1, p.486)
"We cannot say that v. 15-22 does not at all refer to the times just preceding our Lord's final coming; but no such reference shows itself." (idib. p. 488)
(On Matthew 24:28)
"The meaning of the saying as here applied seems to be, that things will come to pass when the occasion for them exists. When Jerusalem is ready for destruction, the Roman armies will gather and destroy it." (ibid, p. 489)
(On Matthew 24:30; Nature of Christ's Return)
"Six months earlier (in 16:27 f.) he had declared that would come again in the glory of his Father, as the sovereign Judge of mankind; and that some of them then present would live to see him 'coming in his kingdom.' We there found it necessary to understand that the particular coming to which this last phrase especially refers took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, which made Christianity completely and manifestly distinct from Judaism, and established the Messianic kingdom in its permanent present state. The prediction then briefly made by our Lord is now (as a result of Matthew 24:30) more fully unfolded} (vol 1, Matthew, p. 479).
"It is practically impossible to suppose that v. 30f. relates simply to the destruction of Jerusalem. As the latter part of the discourse (25:31-36) clearly refers to the second coming of our Lord, it seems unavoidable to suppose a similar reference here; see also the corresponding passage, 13:41. But v. 34 will presently declare that "all" the foregoing matter will occur during the existing generation. Then we cannot believe (with Meyer and others) that the Saviour mistakenly expected his parousia to be within that generation, it follows that v. 29-31 must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem." (vol. 1, p. 491)
(On Matthew 24:34)
"The emphasis is on 'all.' All the things predicted in v. 4-31 would occur before or in immediate connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. (p. 492)
(On "Transition Text Theory" of Matthew 24)
"Every attempt to assign a definite point between the two topics has proved a failure." (p. 480)
[ Go Back ]
Planetpreterist.com Copyright © by Planet Preterist - (538 Reads) |
