The Literal Method of Interpreting Matthew 24:34

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, this is William Bell. I wanted to take a few minutes to do a very short video on a little excerpt from a book written by the late Grant R. Jeffrey called Triumphant Return, The Coming of the Kingdom of God. And if you have studied with us on this channel, you know that we discuss things that pertain to the time of the end, not the end of time, because the Bible doesn't say anything about it. So just before I decided to leave to get my hair trimmed, I decided to sit down, make this quick video. I haven't been on all week, and I know some are probably wondering what's going on, but I've been working on some projects, some interesting and very fun projects. But nevertheless, let me just take a few minutes and talk about this. Now, there's a lot to talk about in this book, and I'm going to be reviewing it at some time in the future. But let's go ahead and look at something that he has written regarding some historical statements, and one in particular by the British historian Edward Gibbon, who wrote his history on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Now, this is what he said about the universal belief of the early church in the doctrine of the literal and imminent return of Christ, meaning that the return of Christ was soon to occur, soon to take place. And so he writes this in his history about the belief of the early church. In other words, he's telling us what the early church believed about the imminent return of Christ. So let's what he has to say, and then I want you to compare what Edward Gibbon wrote in his history with what Grant Jeffrey commented and stated in his book. Now, the quote begins as follows. It was universally believed that the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven were at hand. The near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted by the apostles. The tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples, and those who understood in their literal sense the discourses of Christ himself were obliged to expect the second and glorious coming of the son of man in the clouds before that generation was totally extinguished, which had been his humble condition upon earth. Now that is a quote from Edward Gibbons, the book on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire concerning the universal belief of the early church. You know, I think I want to read that again. It was universally believed that the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven were at hand. The near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted by the apostles. The tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples, and those who understood in their literal sense the discourses of Christ himself were obliged to expect the second and glorious coming of the son of man in the clouds before that generation was totally extinguished, which had been his humble condition upon earth. Now, those statements are very, very clear. What's interesting in Grant Jeffrey's book is when he tries to establish the hermeneutic of the New Testament and of the writings about the time of the end, he argues that he takes the literal sense, the literal approach. And much of his writing in the beginning, and I believe even before when he talks about prophetic interpretation, and he has a chapter on how shall we understand prophecy, and that's the first one. And one of the paragraphs on page 29, he says and argues for the literal or normal method. Well, that's exactly and precisely what Edward Gibbon stated in his history because he commented on the literal sense of the discourses of Christ obliged them to expect his second and glorious coming in the clouds before that generation was totally extinguished. Now, that is the literal statement mentioned in the text. So when you think about that being the literal statement, and I'll read it to you from the scriptures, many of you know it. Jesus said very clearly, assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Now that is the literal rendering of the text. So why would anyone come back who argues that we must take the literal rendering of the text and say that it doesn't mean what it says? It literally stated that that generation that beheld the humility of Christ, that is, when Jesus was on earth, would not pass away until all the things that are recorded in Matthew 24 that he had talked about would be fulfilled. Now, listen to what Grant Jeffrey says. He said, while Gibbon acknowledged the historical truth that the first Christians longed for the speedy return of Christ, he is quite wrong in his conclusion that the primitive church believed or was obligated to believe that the Bible's prophecies demanded, and he puts that in italics, that Christ would return in the generation that first heard his prophecies. Well, isn't that literally what Christ said? If you opened your Bibles right now to Matthew 24 and verse 34 and read the text literally, what would it say? Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Now he says the prophecies taught that Christ could come at any moment, but they did not place any time limit on how long they would tarry until he returned. Well, what is a generation? What did Jesus mean when he said this generation would by no means pass away till all these things take place? Did he not know the generation in which he was living? Did he not understand what he had said in the previous chapter about the generation? Just a few verses earlier, which by the way, Grant Jeffrey and pretty much all the dispensationalists and rapture rousers acknowledge was the first century. For example, Matthew 23 and verse 36, the Bible says, Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. And then he defined it by saying, Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who stones the prophets or kills the prophets and stones, those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing. Those are the people who were right there in his presence. Those are the people that he referred to as the scribes and Pharisees, the people who would compass land and sea to make one proselyte and made them more of a child of the devil than they were themselves. How is it? They can understand the literal rendering of Matthew 23, 36, and then get amnesia when it comes down to the literal rendering of Matthew 24 and verse 34. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a huge problem that some just don't want to face head on. And so they do all of these gymnastic backflips in the scriptures, trying to force fit something that was never stated in the first place. Now he tries to mitigate this more by saying, making a statement concerning the scoffers. Now let's take a look. He says, in fact, many, many prophecies warned that some critics in the last days would deny his second event because of the long delay in time. The apostle Peter warned about the danger of losing faith, but instructed us that the reason for the apparent delay was God's compassion to sinners. And he quotes a second Peter three, uh, where he talks about the scoffers who came saying, where is the promise of his coming for? Since the father's fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. Now, uh, Jeffrey says this rejection of the biblical prophecies regarding the second coming and the kingdom of God is clearly a fulfillment of the new Testament prophecies of the last days in which the apostle Peter warned. There shall come scoffers walking after their own lust. Now let's think about this for a moment. And by the way, I have an entire video series on the scoffers, second Peter three, and, um, and the statements made even about a thousand years. And I recommend, and I'm going to put that video, um, in the, um, clips at the end. So you can just click on it and go watch it. But I want you to think about this one thing about second Peter three. Now, first question is why would the scoffers come in the first century asking where is the promise of his coming? If the apostles in fact taught that the coming would not occur for generations to come, if they meant what grant Jeffrey said, that they would not come for generations to come. How stupid, how ignorant and how utterly ridiculous would it be for the scoffers to come asking the apostles? Well, where is that coming that you said would not come until 2000 years away? Hello? Is anybody listening? Do you understand the magnitude of that problem? In other words, the scoffers were there to scoff against the coming that the apostles taught, but they were coming. They were there in the first century saying, where is it? Well now, why would they be looking for something that the apostles never taught was going to occur for another 2000 years? Have you even thought about it? Do you know what that means? It would mean that the scoffers were actually teaching an imminent coming. Whereas the apostles were teaching one afar off. That's just the opposite. You see what these guys have done. They have actually twisted the Bible. And that's what Peter said. They rest the scriptures, twist them and make them say things they never said and never say and never will say all because they won't take the literal meaning of Matthew 24 34 that says assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Now let's see how much sense that makes. Here comes scoffers in that same generation because Peter was there when Jesus made the statement. So he comes, the scoffers come in the lifetime of Peter and ask, where's that coming that the Lord talked about was going to happen in this generation. Now, doesn't that make more sense? I'll tell you what, it makes a lot more sense than to have the scoffers looking for something that wouldn't even occur in their general. They should have been walking around, jumping up and down. See, we told you it's not coming. Didn't we tell you? Why didn't you listen to us? That's absolutely insane. It makes no sense. Do you know that played right into the hands of the scoffers? See, we told you all there was no coming. Why didn't you listen? And then to raise the objection in second Peter three and verse eight and nine, that a day is with the Lord is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day. Do you think Peter was saying, yeah, scoffers, you know, you're right. Cause a thousand years a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. So you're right. Jesus is not coming. We never taught it. So then why are they scoffers? And why wouldn't Peter just go and give the scoffers the right hand of fellowship and say, welcome aboard. Now you teach what we teach. Jesus is not coming soon. He's not coming in this generation. So let us just sit down and sing Kumbaya my Lord. Well, not that song. Cause that says come by here. So don't sing that one, but at least we can sit down and break bread together because we're on the same team. Neither one of us believes or teaches that Jesus was coming in the first century, man. I tell you, these guys are brilliant. This is some brilliant stuff. If you've been drinking Kool-Aid, you see when you raise the objection of a day is that is with the Lord as a thousand years, you actually make an argument on behalf of the scoffers who said it wasn't near, but that's not what Peter taught. Go back and read his first epistle. He said, the end of all things has drawn near. Why? Because Jesus said that generation would not pass till all these things take place. He said the time for the judgment to begin at the house of God or the time has come for the judgment to begin at the house of God. First Peter four 17. The other verse was first three to four seven. And he told them before that, that God was ready to judge the living and the dead quoting Daniel 12 in verse two. So Peter said just in his first epistle, it still is at hand, just like the Lord taught. It still is coming in this generation. And that's what the scoffers were scoffing against. They were saying, well, if it's coming, where is it? You see, it doesn't make sense for them to come in the first century, looking for something that would not occur until 2000 plus years later. When are we going to stop drinking the Kool-Aid? I'm William Bell. If you haven't subscribed to this channel, subscribe, and you'll get all of our videos. We also encourage you to visit our website for more information, blogs, articles, audios, et cetera. If you have questions, leave them below. We will address those questions until next time. Have a great day and we'll see you soon.