Transition Text Theories, The
John A. Broadus (1886)
"Every attempt to assign a definite point between the two topics has proved a failure." (p. 480)
David Chilton (1996)
"...any proposed division of Matthew 24 into two different "comings" is illegitimate, nugatory, and gossamer. Scripture foretells a Second Coming (Heb.9:28) - not a third! (Foreward to What Happened in AD70?)
Henry Cowles (1881)
"This passage is too closely connected with what immediately precedes and immediately follows, to be wrenched out of these connections and applied definitely to the final judgment" (p. 27)
House and Ice
"How can Jordan, after taking the references to ‘coming’ in verses 1-35 as referring to Christ’s coming in judgment in A. D. 70, turn around and say that starting at verse 36 through the end of the chapter, it refers to the second coming. Either he is wrong about the first 35 verses, and they do refer to the second coming, or he should take verse 36 and following as a reference to the A. D. 70 destruction." (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p. 298)
"“The Olivet discourse did predict the coming destruction of Jerusalem, which is today a past event, but at the same time the bulk of the passage deals with the yet future events of Christ’s coming and the end of the age." (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p. 271.)
“How can Jordan, after taking the references to ‘coming’ in verses I-35 as referring to Christ’s coming in judgment in A. D. 70, turn around and say that starting at verse 36 through the end of the chapter, it refers to the second coming. Either he is wrong about the first 35 verses, and they do refer to the second coming, or he should take verse 36 and following as a reference to the A. D. 70 destruction." (Ibid., p. 298.)
"The first question is answered in Luke 21:20-24, since Luke is the one who specializes in the A. D. 70 aspects. Luke records Jesus’ warning about the soon-to-come destruction of Jerusalem — the days of vengeance. The second and third questions are answered in Matthew 24." (Ibid., pp. 293-94.)
"If [Jordan] were to take the whole of the Olivet discourse as already fulfilled, as Chilton does the whole book of Revelation, then he is left with the problem of where does the Bible actually teach the second coming?" (House and Ice, Dominion Theoloy, p. 298.)
"Why, on the basis of the hermeneutics Jordan has used to this point in his interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, does he suddenly make an arbitrary leap to the second coming of Christ?" (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p. 268.)
Thomas Newton (1754)
"It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, "All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation." It seemeth as if our Saviour had been aware of some such misapplication of his words, by adding yet greater force and emphasis to his affirmation, v 35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away'" (Newton, p. 426)
N. Nisbett (1787)
"But though the time was hastening on for the completion of our Lord's prophecy of the ruin of the Jews; yet the exact time of this judgment, laid hid in the bosom of the Father. Verse 36. 'Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.' St. Mark has it: 'Neither the Son, but the Father;' but the sense is the same. Some men of great learning and eminence have thought that our Lord is here speaking, not of the destruction of Jerusalem, but of that more solemn and awful one of the day of judgment. But I can by no means think that the Evangelists are such loose, inaccurate writers, as to make so sudden and abrupt a transition, as they are here supposed to do; much less to break through the fundamental rules of good writing, by apparently referring to something which they had said before; when in reality they were beginning a new subject, and the absurdity of the supposition will appear more strongly, if it is recollected that the question of the disciples was, 'When shall these things be?' 'Why,' says our Saviour, 'of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only'" (pp. 38-39)
"To suppose, on the contrary, that these verses were intended to describe the final judgment of the world, is indeed violently to sever them from their manifest connection - not only with the preceding verses - but, as will presently appear, from the subsequent context; which, in the strongest terms which language can convey, asserts that all the things which he had before been describing, would be in that generation. It would be to violate all the rules of probability and just criticism and to charge the Evangelical Historians with such a confusion of ideas and such a perversion of language as would render them utterly unworthy of any regard; for, as the learned University Preacher has very justly observed - 'whenever the same word is used in the same sentence - or in different sentences, not far distant from each other; we ought to interpret it precisely, in the same sense, unless either that sense should involve a contradiction of ideas - or the Writer expressly inform us that he repeats the word in a fresh acceptation.'" (Triumphs, p. 112)
"...the whole of the xxivth of Matthew, and particularly the 36th and following verses, relate solely to the destruction of Jerusalem, exclusively of a second coming, and of the end of the world." (ibid., p.131)
Milton Terry (1898)
"When, however, the one school of interpreters attempt to point out the dividing line, there are as many differences of opinion as there are interpreters. In Matt. 24 and 25, for example, the transition from the one subject to the other is placed by Bengel and others at 24:29; by E.J. Meyer at verse 35; by Doddridge at verse 36; by Kuinoel at verse 33; by Eichorn at 25:14, and by Wetstein at 25:31." (Biblical Apocalyptics, p. 217)
[ Go Back ]
Planetpreterist.com Copyright © by Planet Preterist - (312 Reads) |
