The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse)

[CWH]

Richard said: I agree that the fig tree can represent Israel in certain contexts, but I see no justification for the idea that to "put forth leaves" means "become a nation again." Consider what the text actually states:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "when the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." There is nothing in the text that suggests anything having to do with Israel becoming a nation again. This is confirmed in Luke's record of this parable:
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
If the fig tree represents Israel becoming a nation again, what would "all the trees" represent? Was Jesus telling us that "all the nations" would "become nations again" in 1948? No, that would make no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense to me.; fits like a glove. After WW2 i.e.1945, nations began to realize that their colonial powers were not invincible and may not defend them during time of war and therefore they declared their independence.

"Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth....know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." means that when Israel and other nations started to gain their independence... know that the kingdom of God is near.

This is the list of nations that gained their independence after WW2 till 1960:

India/Pakistan
Bangaladesh
The Philippines
Malaya
Singapore: In the '60s these two were going to merge
Burma
Formosa (Taiwan)
Viet nam
Cambodia
Laos
Algeria
Hong Kong
Macau
Ghana
Cyprus
Congo
Fiji
Vanuatu
Niger
Nigeria
Israel (technically it is a creation)

This list is not exhaustive, but also does not include those nations subjugated by Japan or germany during WW2 and liberated at the end.

many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent thoughts RAM...

One tiny clarification, IMO, if you will permit...

The "coming" does not mean the "second coming." They were asking when Christ would "come" in power and glory as Ruling Messiah. This happened when He poured out the judgment that He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. It proved that He was Who He said He was, namely, God incarnate - the Lord YHVH who "comes with the clouds" throughout the Old Testament. That's why the High Priest said it was blasphemy when Christ said they would see Him "coming on clouds" - He was telling them that He was God.

Was it not "the sign of thy coming" as opposed to just the coming? And I would definitely say that the coming was His Parousia that did occur at the end of the age.

Excellent point! When Jerusalem was destroyed, it proved that Jesus was who He said He was, and that He had "come in clouds" to judge Jerusalem, just as He (YHVH) "came in clouds" in judgments in the OT. And what was the sign that He was reigning as King of Kings in Heaven? It was the destruction of Jerusalem!

This was the sign of the fact that the Son of Man was seated on His Throne in heaven.

Look at the bold underlined words. They form the phrase "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven."

And now more general thoughts...

I think the disciples were well-versed in the OT Scriptures. They would be quite familiar with other "comings" and other "days of the Lord" in judgment. They also knew that the ACTUAL, physical presence of deity was not required for the judgment to take place. The events would be "seen" as the carried out judgment by what transpired. In Babylon's case it was the Medes who were God's divine instruments (Isaiah 13:17). In the Olivets, it would be the Roman armies who would come upon apostate Jerusalem - those who held to the old covenant economy despite Christ's constant teachings against it...

Exactly correct. This becomes more clear when we understand the God often uses parallelisms in which He states the same thing two or three times using different words. This appears to be what the disciples were asking:

When will these things happen?
What will be the sign of your coming?
When will be the the end of the age?

Those three questions are all asking about the singular event marked by the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem which was the "coming" of Christ and the end of the Jewish age.

Christ detailed the signs for those 4 disciples who had asked the question. To say that he answered a different question than the one they asked is just speculating in order to hold on to an already devised system of theology...and to say that Christ answered to a different generation as well is also speculating...

Exactly correct. There is nothing in the text that justifies ripping it apart into two pieces that are separated by two millennia! On the contrary, there are many things in the Olivet Discourse that indicate it is a total unity. For example, is bracketed between statements that "all these things" will be fulfilled in "this generation" -

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

<The Olivet Discourse>

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Is there any doubt that "this generation" in Matt 23:36 refers to the first century Jews upon whom the judgment came? Why then should we say that the second "this generation" applies to a generation that would exist some 2000 years in the future?

I think the disciples knew full well that Christ was talking about the destruction of the temple. This literally meant the end of Judaism, all they had ever known and had ever been taught. 1600 years of history would come crashing down, never to be re instituted again...

Well stated. The primary error of the futurist point of view seems to be a failure to appreciate the kind of impact the destruction of the Temple had on the Jews. If that was not the "Great Tribulation" and the "time of Jacob's Trouble" what then could be?

The NT was about an exchange of covenants - old to the new. The new had come and the old was "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) pass away. It was not "about to" pass away 2,000 years in the future to a generation who had nothing to do with Christ's crucifixion. That would be EXACTLY like punishing all the Japanese who were citizens of the United States in the year 3942 - 2,000 years after Pearl Harbour!

Look how the other two Olivets describe the timing of their question. The Greek word "mello" (Strong's 3195) is used...

Mark 13:4 (YLT) - "Tell us when these things shall be? and what is the sign when all these may be about to be fulfilled?"

Luke 21:7 (YLT) - And they questioned him, saying, "Teacher, when, then, shall these things be? and what is the sign when these things may be about to happen?"

The "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) emphasis has a lot to say regarding their question! Unless, of course, one believes that "about to" happen means 2,000 years in the future...

Do you see now how this all ties in with Christ's "this generation"? The generation who had persecuted the church, who had been responsible for crucifying the Lord Jesus.

That is a most excellent point. The use of the Greek "mello" is usually overlooked by futurist exegesis. It is extremely important. Words have meaning. The NT is saturated with statements that the end was "about to happen" very "soon" for the "time was at hand" and the "Lord was standing at the door" and "it IS the last hour" etc., etc., etc. Any eschatological system that ignores the time texts fails before it starts.

Thanks for the excellent insights TS,

Richard

[CWH]

The use of the Greek "mello" is usually overlooked by futurist exegesis. It is extremely important. Words have meaning. The NT is saturated with statements that the end was "about to happen" very "soon" for the "time was at hand" and the "Lord was standing at the door" and "it IS the last hour" etc., etc., etc. Any eschatological system that ignores the time texts fails before it starts.

I have said countless times before, Do not take all these underlined words at face value. Who or what is coming in the 1st century? Who or what is at the door? Who or what is at hand? Who or what is coming soon? Who or what is at the last hour. It was the Church; it was Christianity. Jesus Christ being the head of the Church, the founder of Christianity was bringing this Church and Christianity into this world and it started from AD 70 when the Jews and Christians were dispersed into Europe and other parts of the world thus launching and spreading the Good News, the Church and Christianity.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It makes perfect sense to me.; fits like a glove. After WW2 i.e.1945, nations began to realize that their colonial powers were not invincible and may not defend them during time of war and therefore they declared their independence.

Hi Cheow!

That is very interesting interpretation, but is there any justification for it in Scripture, or did you just make it up?

This question is very important to a proper understanding of Scripture. When we interpret the Bible, we should begin with what the text actually states, correct? We don't want to just make up stuff and pass it off as the "Word of God" do we?

Furthermore, what do you think of my explanation about what the text actually states? Let's look again:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. Do you disagree with this?

The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." If no one told you that it represented the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, where would you get that idea?

I would be very interested to know what you think of this interpretation. It seems to me exceedingly clear that the leaves represent the events Christ had just prophesied. Do you see this as obvious? If not, please explain - I think it would be very helpful if we could establish what the text actually means on this point. It doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me, so it will help a lot if you can explain to me where I have gone wrong.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have said countless times before, Do not take all these underlined words at face value. Who or what is coming in the 1st century? Who or what is at the door? Who or what is at hand? Who or what is coming soon? Who or what is at the last hour. It was the Church; it was Christianity. Jesus Christ being the head of the Church, the founder of Christianity was bringing this Church and Christianity into this world and it started from AD 70 when the Jews and Christians were dispersed into Europe and other parts of the world thus launching and spreading the Good News, the Church and Christianity.

Many Blessings.

Hummm .... that seems like a very large and broad set of verses that we are not supposed to "take at face value." Are you saying that you disagree with the futurist doctrine that states we must take the Bible "literally" whenever possible?

Is there anything in the Bible that suggests that Christ was talking about the coming of "Christianity" as opposed to His Coming? It seems that there are many verses that won't make any sense if we replace the coming of Christ with the coming of Christianity. Did not Christianity "come" at Pentecost? Was not Christianity already here at the time that Peter, Paul, James and John wrote about the coming of Christ? Why then should we think they were talking about the coming of Christianity?

Now in answer to your specific questions:

Who or what is coming in the 1st century?
Christ came, died, resurrected, and ascended to His Throne in Heaven. This was confirmed when He fulfilled His prophecies in His Coming in Judgment against apostate Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Who or what is at the door?
James 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

See that? James said it was the JUDGE, Jesus Christ, standing at the door, for the "coming of the Lord draweth nigh." This is a very helpful verse because it combines both the nearness of the coming of the Lord with the statement that He was the JUDGE standing at the door.

Who or what is at hand?
Christ said the TIME was "at hand." (Rev 1.:3)
Paul said the DAY was "at hand" (Rom 13:12)
Paul said the LORD was "at hand" (Phil 4:5)
Paul said the DAY OF THE LORD" was "at hand" (2Thess 2:2)
Peter said the END OF ALL THINGS was "at hand" (1Pet 4:7)

Is there anything in these verses that suggest they were talking about the "coming of Christianity" was "at hand"?

Who or what is at the last hour? It was the Church; it was Christianity. Jesus Christ being the head of the Church, the founder of Christianity was bringing this Church and Christianity into this world and it started from AD 70 when the Jews and Christians were dispersed into Europe and other parts of the world thus launching and spreading the Good News, the Church and Christianity.

Why do you say it started in 70 AD? The Church was established at Pentecost.

And perhaps the biggest question - are you saying that all the Christians who believe those verses are talking about the "second coming of Christ" are wrong? Are you saying you do not believe in the "second coming" at all? If you translate all the "coming" passages to the "coming of Christianity" what happens to the doctrine of the "second coming?"

There is much to discuss.

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

[CWH]

Hi Cheow!

That is very interesting interpretation, but is there any justification for it in Scripture, or did you just make it up?

This question is very important to a proper understanding of Scripture. When we interpret the Bible, we should begin with what the text actually states, correct? We don't want to just make up stuff and pass it off as the "Word of God" do we?

Furthermore, what do you think of my explanation about what the text actually states? Let's look again:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. Do you disagree with this?

The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." If no one told you that it represented the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, where would you get that idea?

I would be very interested to know what you think of this interpretation. It seems to me exceedingly clear that the leaves represent the events Christ had just prophesied. Do you see this as obvious? If not, please explain - I think it would be very helpful if we could establish what the text actually means on this point. It doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me, so it will help a lot if you can explain to me where I have gone wrong.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

Hi RAM,

This was my response to Joe in one of my post and that answer your request. My post is an inspired extention of what many futurist believe about the interpretations of the verses in Mathew 24 about the fig tree. It is definitely not my make up story. It's very late now on the other side. I respond your the other request later.

Is the fig tree not Israel? See for yourself:

The word "fig" is mentioned in the Scriptures sixty-four times. THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD-Jere 24:5. We see the word "figs," being used to represent the Jews that are carried away.

THE LORD SHOWED ME, AND, BEHOLD, TWO BASKETS OF FIGS...ONE BASKET HAD VERY GOOD FIGS, EVEN LIKE THE FIGS THAT ARE FIRST RIPE: AND THE OTHER BASKET HAD VERY NAUGHTY FIGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE EATEN, THEY WERE SO BAD. THEN SAID THE LORD UNTO ME, WHAT SEEST THOU, JEREMIAH? AND I SAID, FIGS; THE GOOD FIGS, VERY GOOD; AND THE EVIL, VERY EVIL, THAT CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL. AGAIN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD. FOR I WILL SET MINE EYES UPON THEM FOR GOOD, AND I WILL BRING THEM AGAIN TO THIS LAND: AND I WILL BUILD THEM, AND NOT PULL THEM DOWN; AND I WILL PLANT THEM, AND NOT PLUCK THEM UP. AND I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, THAT I AM THE LORD: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD: FOR THEY SHALL RETURN UNTO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART. AND AS THE EVIL FIGS, WHICH CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL-Jere 24:1-8. The word "figs" is used here eight times denoting the Jews.

NOW IN THE MORNING AS HE RETURNED INTO THE CITY, HE HUNGERED. AND WHEN HE SAW A FIG TREE IN THE WAY, HE CAME TO IT, AND FOUND NOTHING THEREON, BUT LEAVES ONLY, AND SAID UNTO IT, LET NO FRUIT GROW ON THEE HENCEFORWARD FOR EVER. AND PRESENTLY THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY-Mt 21:18,19; ref Mk 11:12-14,20,21. The fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation.

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.

See my post which I have discussed with Carrie a few months ago:

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RAM,

This was my response to Joe in one of my post and that answer your request. My post is an inspired extention of what many futurist believe about the interpretations of the verses in Mathew 24 about the fig tree. It is definitely not my make up story. It's very late now on the other side. I respond your the other request later.

Is the fig tree not Israel? See for yourself:

The word "fig" is mentioned in the Scriptures sixty-four times. THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD-Jere 24:5. We see the word "figs," being used to represent the Jews that are carried away.

THE LORD SHOWED ME, AND, BEHOLD, TWO BASKETS OF FIGS...ONE BASKET HAD VERY GOOD FIGS, EVEN LIKE THE FIGS THAT ARE FIRST RIPE: AND THE OTHER BASKET HAD VERY NAUGHTY FIGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE EATEN, THEY WERE SO BAD. THEN SAID THE LORD UNTO ME, WHAT SEEST THOU, JEREMIAH? AND I SAID, FIGS; THE GOOD FIGS, VERY GOOD; AND THE EVIL, VERY EVIL, THAT CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL. AGAIN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD. FOR I WILL SET MINE EYES UPON THEM FOR GOOD, AND I WILL BRING THEM AGAIN TO THIS LAND: AND I WILL BUILD THEM, AND NOT PULL THEM DOWN; AND I WILL PLANT THEM, AND NOT PLUCK THEM UP. AND I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, THAT I AM THE LORD: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD: FOR THEY SHALL RETURN UNTO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART. AND AS THE EVIL FIGS, WHICH CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL-Jere 24:1-8. The word "figs" is used here eight times denoting the Jews.

NOW IN THE MORNING AS HE RETURNED INTO THE CITY, HE HUNGERED. AND WHEN HE SAW A FIG TREE IN THE WAY, HE CAME TO IT, AND FOUND NOTHING THEREON, BUT LEAVES ONLY, AND SAID UNTO IT, LET NO FRUIT GROW ON THEE HENCEFORWARD FOR EVER. AND PRESENTLY THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY-Mt 21:18,19; ref Mk 11:12-14,20,21. The fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation.

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.

See my post which I have discussed with Carrie a few months ago:

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Many Blessings.

Hey there my friend,

In my first post to you on this topic, I acknowledged that the fig tree is used in some contexts in Scripture as a symbol of Israel. So we agree up to that point.

The disagreement comes from the assertion that "putting forth of leaves" means "Israel restored as a nation." That's not what Jesus said, and it's nowhere in the text of the Bible. We all agree that Jesus used the fig tree, and all the trees, as a symbol that means something. And what does that symbol mean? Christ defined the meaning for us:

Jesus said that a tree "putting forth leaves" MEANS "summer is nigh."

But you say that a tree "putting forth leaves" MEANS "the nation represented by the tree is restored as a nation"

See that? You have introduced an idea that is not in the text. Basically, you said that the appearance of leaves was itself another sign in addition to the signs Christ already had prophesied. But that's not what He said. Christ said that the appearance of the signs are like the appearance of leaves that indicate the time/season is near. The appearance of the signs are not themselves another "sign."

And what does "summer" represent? It is the season of harvest. Christ identified it as the time when "all these things shall be fulfilled." Therefore, the meaning of the parable seems clear:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh [everyone knows that this is true, as stated. It needs no further explanation]: 33 So likewise [Christ tells us to use the same common sense knowledge as with trees and seasons] ye, when ye shall see all these things [the signs prophesied in previous verses], know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

There is a perfect parallel between "appearance of leaves = summer is near" and "appearance of signs = the time of the end is near."

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Brother Cheow. We've discussed the "Fig Tree" a few times before, and once again, I simply do not see any logic in usurping the idea that Christ was referring to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation.

Matthew 24 is a discussion about the temple's destruction. The Apostles wanted to know when this would happen, and what signs would let them know the destruction would be near. Thus, Christ answers their question and gives them a list of signs.

Then we get to the conclusion of the Fig Tree and for some odd reason, the Futurist's believe Christ was changing the subject from the temples destruction, to the rebuilding of Israel. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see the subject disagreement with that idea.

If Christ focused 90% percent of of his answers towards to the signs involving the temple's destruction, how can you justify a single verse as a prophetic picture of Israel's rebirth? That would have been a "supporting detail" outside of the subject line.

In short, this is what you're saying:

1. Answers to the temples destruction
2. Signs of the temple's destruction
3. Rebudding of the Fig Tree means Israel rebuilt.

And then some Futurist skew off into an even wilder tangent and insist that the temple to be destroyed WAS NOT the first century temple, but a temple beyond their scope. Of course scripture would not complement that idea very well, considering Jesus Himself asked, "DO YOU NOT SEE ALL THESE THINGS?" How could they "SEE" what does not yet exist, even today?

The facts are plain. The temple was to be destroyed, and the Apostles wanted to know HOW and WHEN this would take place. This is very important because the MESSIAH could only come with a Kingdom. And Jesus concludes that the temple would be destroyed, but HE would come in his New Kingdom, with an eternal temple not made of hands, but of hearts.

What would you prefer? A temple made of hands, or of hearts? The answer to that question, in truth, defines your idea of Christianity.

This British teaching about a rebudding Israel is not based on New Testament teaching. Furthermore, the temple that Christ promised was us, not bricks.

Joe

[Rose]

Brother Cheow. We've discussed the "Fig Tree" a few times before, and once again, I simply do not see any logic in usurping the idea that Christ was referring to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation.

Matthew 24 is a discussion about the temple's destruction. The Apostles wanted to know when this would happen, and what signs would let them know the destruction would be near. Thus, Christ answers their question and gives them a list of signs.

Then we get to the conclusion of the Fig Tree and for some odd reason, the Futurist's believe Christ was changing the subject from the temples destruction, to the rebuilding of Israel. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see the subject disagreement with that idea.

If Christ focused 90% percent of of his answers towards to the signs involving the temple's destruction, how can you justify a single verse as a prophetic picture of Israel's rebirth? That would have been a "supporting detail" outside of the subject line.

In short, this is what you're saying:

1. Answers to the temples destruction
2. Signs of the temple's destruction
3. Rebudding of the Fig Tree means Israel rebuilt.

And then some Futurist skew off into an even wilder tangent and insist that the temple to be destroyed WAS NOT the first century temple, but a temple beyond their scope. Of course scripture would not complement that idea very well, considering Jesus Himself asked, "DO YOU NOT SEE ALL THESE THINGS?" How could they "SEE" what does not yet exist, even today?

The facts are plain. The temple was to be destroyed, and the Apostles wanted to know HOW and WHEN this would take place. This is very important because the MESSIAH could only come with a Kingdom. And Jesus concludes that the temple would be destroyed, but HE would come in his New Kingdom, with an eternal temple not made of hands, but of hearts.

What would you prefer? A temple made of hands, or of hearts? The answer to that question, in truth, defines your idea of Christianity.

This British teaching about a rebudding Israel is not based on New Testament teaching. Furthermore, the temple that Christ promised was us, not bricks.

Joe

You bring up a very good point Joe. What is the justification of introducing the rebirth of the nation of Israel into the context of the Olivet Discourse. There is nothing in the text that in anyway suggests a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding. The focus is on the destruction of the Temple that is standing before them.

The example Jesus uses of the "Fig Tree" in no way suggests a withered fig tree coming back to life, but rather a vibrant tree that is waiting to spring forth into growth at the first sign of Spring, declaring that summer is near.

The buds that leaf out on this tree are the signs that Jesus tells His disciples must come first, before the stones of the Temple come down (which was the reason they asked Jesus the question in the first place). There is not one sign in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of, or points to a rebirth of Israel.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

You bring up a very good point Joe. What is the justification of introducing the rebirth of the nation of Israel into the context of the Olivet Discourse. There is nothing in the text that in anyway suggests a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding. The focus is on the destruction of the Temple that is standing before them.

The example Jesus uses of the "Fig Tree" in no way suggests a withered fig tree coming back to life, but rather a vibrant tree that is waiting to spring forth into growth at the first sign of Spring, declaring that summer is near.

The buds that leaf out on this tree are the signs that Jesus tells His disciples must come first, before the stones of the Temple come down (which was the reason they asked Jesus the question in the first place). There is not one sign in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of, or points to a rebirth of Israel.

Rose

Precisely sister Rose. I've read the Olivet Discourse about a thousand time (exaggeration actually ) but not a single one has led me to believe that Jesus changed the main idea/topic from the Temple's destruction, to the rebirth of Israel. This idea is based on an external belief that God will one day regather Israel (supposedly in 1948), and restore the Kingdom to them, as though that were His purpose in the first place.

I don't think some understand the seriousness of what many Futurist's are proposing. By stating that Israel has to be reborn (or was reborn in 1948) suggests that Israel has been non-existent between the first century, until 1948; almost 2000 years of "NO ISRAEL". What does this mean? It means to the Futurist's Israel and the Church are two separate things.

How can they justify this? If the "NATURAL" branches were Israel, and the Gentile branches were grafted in, then that must mean that Israel never stopped existing. Yet they treat Israel as a cut-off nation for more than 2000 years (until 1948), and the Church as if it's solely Gentile. That idea is easily proven false because this presumes a non-biblical opinion that the Church is entirely Gentile, and that Israel was never part of the Church.

1. Jesus said, "For salvation is of the Jews" - This means that Israel and the Church are one and the same

2. Paul said, "A Jew is a Jew inwardly, and NOT outwardly" - This means that Israel and the Church are the same

3. Paul said, "circumcision (practiced religiously by Jews) means nothing; what matters is a new creation - This means that Israel and the Church are the same.

4. Jesus said, "A time is coming, and NOW IS, when you shall neither travel to this mountain or abroad to worship God; God is Spirit, and He seeks for those who worship in SPIRIT and in TRUTH - This means that Israel and the Church "worship" as one and the same, in Spirit and in Truth.

I could go on and on. The Futurist's seem to ignore the Biblical facts. They read the old testament and fail to realize that Israel is all about the Messiah, Jesus was born from the blood-line of David. God promised David that his throne would not be without a true King. And Jesus is the King, born from the lineage of David. Peter insists that God set Jesus upon His righteous throne (Davids Throne) to rule forever and ever. This can only mean that Jesus is not ruling a Gentile Church as King (or head), but as the King of all Israel. And the Church is Israel, or else Jesus is not a King. And if not a king, then who's ruling the Church? Actually, who's ruling the Gentile Church?

Conclusion? Those who separate the Church and Israel are not stating Biblical fact, but humanistic opinion, as though God deals with man on the basis of race, skin color, blood type, and circumcision.

So, we can now answer the question. Was Israel reborn in 1948? Absolutely not! Israel was reborn in the first century, when the wild branches were grafted in with the natural branches. The end result is what has transpired for more than 2000 years in Church History. God's kingdom would no longer be racially divided, but spiritually divided (good and bad).

I feel I've presented a fair post. But as usual, I'm certain it will go in one ear, and out the other.

God bless.

Joe