VIEWS ON MATTHEW 24

We were at church last Sabbath and the sermon was on Matthew 24...although I heard something I havent heard yet...maybe its just that we havent studied this out completely. We were told that Matt. 24 is NOT about the end times, but abou the fall of Jerusalem only. this was from the pastor. I can understand part of it being about that, but somewhere along the line I would think this pertained also to the end times. Any comments? Somebody set me straight!
Thanks
Robin B.

Was Ron Rodgers the sermon giver? He preached that at Patmos about 2 months ago and everyone was shocked and in disbelief. I went home and studied it for myself and agreed that what he was saying was correct.

Everyone else waited for Mr. Ashford to confirm for them the next week that infact it was true, but stated that Mr. Rodgers could have done a better job explaining it than he did.

If you read straight through Matt 24 it's actually covers both events cronilogically (sp?). And Ellen White's notes, (if you have a study Bible with her notes in it) while they may seem confusing, state that destruction will come upon the world the same way it did upon Jerusalem. (note on Luck 21) Who was in Jerusalem when it was destroyed??? Not the Christians, they had already fled. (And the disciples asked for signs of the desctruction of Jerusalem and signs of the end and Jesus gave them both).

I would say more but our family has ground the topic into the ground. Maybe someone else would like to chime in?

Lee and I went over this when Jesse mentioned it to us. Our conclusion was that according to the SOP that prophecy has a dual application, so yes, it was for the fall of Jersulem, but also for the end times. If you look it up in the GC it is really clear, she plainly states that it is a dual prophecy. Here's a couple: "The Saviours prophecy concerning the visitation of judgements upon Jerusalem is to have another fulfillment, of which that terrible desolation was but a faint shadow." (GC 36)

"As He warned His disciples of Jerusalem's destruction, giving them a sign of the approaching ruin, that they may make their escape; so He has warned the of the day of final destruction and has given them tokens of its approach, that all who will may flee the wrath that is to come." (GC 37)

Those are a couple, Lee and I found some more in other books.

I'm not sure of the purpose of telling people that it was only for Jerusalem. But it ALWAYS helps to go home and study things out for yourself..........

The reasoning for the clearer understanding is that the false teachings of other churches are starting to permeate (sp?) our beliefs.

"They" are using Matth 24 and Jesus' description of the destruction of Jerusalem as a future event that is going to take place again when Jesus actually comes back and walks through the city gates again. Those that don't study scripture are believing the main events are going to take place in Jerusalem.

I agree totally with the dual application. I think we can expect the same type of horrific trials and sufferings, but not necessarily identical to what happened to the Jews, and it will happen to Sabbath keepers all over the world, not just in Jerusalem.

24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

I believe that "no, nor ever shall be" means a tribulation like that will never happen again. What kind of tribulation am I talking about?? I'm talking about the one that lasted 1260 years. Of course I still think there is going to be tribulation in the last days. But when verse 29 says "after the tribulation of those days", and then follows with the signs of things that we already know have happened, I see the chronological description of earth's history being told.

If there would be no more horrific "tribulation" then what was the holocost, or the carnage in the Sudan, or what about the hutu's and tsu tsu's? Is the Bible just talking about it being worse than it ever could be because of the body count? I don't think so. There seems to be in our denomination (I'm sure it is in other's but I can't speak for them) to be an all or nothing mentality. I'm sure that there are those even in our midst that are teaching the Jerusalem doctrine. And every so often there are those that come up with "new light." But if you read that first quote that I had included in my last post, it say's "... of which that desolation was but a faint shadow." The next one will be much worse, it will be worldwide, and it will be eternal. How could the first be worse than that and given the verbage of that quote how can vs. 24 be taken as there won't be anything as bad as the initial fall of Jerusalem? I have always taken that to mean, for those folks left in Jerusalem, it will be far worse than anything they have or will have to experience.

There are lots of people that stand in our pulpits and preach their understanding of the Bible and SOP. Please study and pray for yourselves. Satan's deceptions are very subtle, thats why we are encoraged to live "By the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is NO (not a little) light in them." If the SOP says that it will be worse than the fall of Jerusalem, then it will be........

I'm talking about two different events. And I think this is why everyone gets mad a me and thinks I spouting incorrect theology.

1st: Ellen White compares the final destruction of the world to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course the destruction of the world is going to be worse and in a far greater scale than the destruction of Jerusalem. How ever while the great destruction is going to be taking place (I'm talking 7 last plages to the end) God's people will not be harmed. Just as the Christian's that fled Jerusalem at the appointed time were not harmed when Jerusalem was destroyed.

End of point... now on to "tribulation", seperate event... seperate subject...

2nd: Will there be tribulation for God's people prior to the destruction of the world, yes, of course. However I take the statement, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" literally. Why would God say "no, nor ever shall be" but then change his mind??

Mrs. White says in DA
From the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ passed on rapidly to the greater event, the last link in the chain of this earth's history,--the coming of the Son of God in majesty and glory. Between these two events, there lay open to Christ's view long centuries of darkness, centuries for His church marked with blood and tears and agony. Upon these scenes His disciples could not then endure to look, and Jesus passed them by with a brief mention. "Then shall be great tribulation," He said, "such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." For more than a thousand years such persecution as the world had never before known was to come upon Christ's followers. Millions upon millions of His faithful witnesses were to be slain. Had not God's hand been stretched out to preserve His people, all would have perished. "But for the elect's sake," He said, "those days shall be shortened." pg 630-631

"The Saviour gives signs of His coming, and more than this, He fixes the time when the first of these signs shall appear: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." {DA 631.2}
At the close of the great papal persecution, Christ declared, the sun should be darkened, and the moon should not give her light. Next, the stars should fall from heaven. And He says, "Learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: so likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that He is near, even at the doors." Matt. 24:32, 33, margin. {DA 632.1}

I'm still seaching out, establishing, and confirming my beliefs using the Bible & SOP. I think it is a mistake to lead people to believe that in the future lies a time of more blood shed than we have ever seen (blood of Christians that is). A misunderstanding of future events is what got the Jews in trouble when Jesus came the first time. I believe that the "dark ages" was the worst the world had ever or will ever see b/c that's what God's word says. If I find anything that shows me otherwise I'll share it, just like I hope anyone else would do.

None but the hundred and forty-four thousand can learn that song; for it is the song of their experience--an experience such as no other company have ever had. "These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth." These, having been translated from the earth, from among the living, are counted as "the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb." Revelation 15:2, 3; 14:1-5. "These are they which came out of great tribulation;" they have passed through the time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation; they have endured the anguish of the time of Jacob's trouble; they have stood without an intercessor through the final outpouring of God's judgments. But they have been delivered, for they have "washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." "In their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault" before God. "Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them." They have seen the earth wasted with famine and pestilence, the sun having power to scorch men with great heat, and they themselves have endured suffering, hunger, and thirst. But "they shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." Revelation 7:14-17. {GC 648.3}

Of course there is a tribulation; of course those that survive have suffered. I'm trying to figure out in my mind why I'm not making sense to others b/c I've already been accused of saying it's a "time of inconvenience.

Okay.... there is suffering b/c God's people are actually living through the worst events of earth's history.... they themselves are not suffering from those events (ie the plagues)... they are suffering from false accusations, separation from loved ones, hunger & thirst, imprisonment, possibly torture.... just to name A FEW! Whatever you can imagine you would suffer b/c the entire world is blaming YOU for the terrible things that are happening to them.

There comes a time when no more of God's people will die... and that happens BEFORE the plagues fall.

Just in case you're wondering... how do the numbers dwindle to only 144,000.... the day before 10-22-1844 there were 50,000 "adventist"... the day after there were 50. What percentage of that "fell away"?? 99.9%. There's going to be another falling away. Yes, people will die, they are dying now, everyday, in the mission fields... but the majority are going to "fall away" or be "shaken" when the final test and tribulation come.

Do I sound less crazy yet?

I think the point that is being the most overlooked in this debate is the fact that during this time of trouble such has never been since there was a nation is that there will be no Mediator in the heavenly sanctuary for us.

It has been overstated that there will be killings and martyrs across the globe. There will be famines, and disease falling from the plagues, and yes, God's people will be spared from this, however Christ will have stepped out of the most holy place and we will have to stand without Him interceding for us. Never and I repeat never in the world's history, after Adam's fall, has man had to stand alone without an intercessor. We cannot imagine what this time will be like.

Will this be worse than the fall of Jerusalem? Yes it will be, because they still had Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. During this time of probation, we have Christ in the sanctuary, but there is coming a day when we will not, and even with our fertile imaginations, it will not compare to what will actually take place.

Lee wrote:

I think the point that is being the most overlooked in this debate is the fact that during this time of trouble such has never been since there was a nation is that there will be no Mediator in the heavenly sanctuary for us.

It has been overstated that there will be killings and martyrs across the globe. There will be famines, and disease falling from the plagues, and yes, God's people will be spared from this, however Christ will have stepped out of the most holy place and we will have to stand without Him interceding for us. Never and I repeat never in the world's history, after Adam's fall, has man had to stand alone without an intercessor. We cannot imagine what this time will be like.

Will this be worse than the fall of Jerusalem? Yes it will be, because they still had Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. During this time of probation, we have Christ in the sanctuary, but there is coming a day when we will not, and even with our fertile imaginations, it will not compare to what will actually take place.

That's exactly what Ron Rodgers said. That will be what is the most terrible part of the "time of trouble". Not fleeing, or living in the wilderness, or being jailed, or dying. We want to compare the future time of trouble to what we've seen in the past and consider terrible, but we can't comprehend what living without an intercessor will be like. Thankfully it is only for a short period of time.

You have to have Christ dwelling in you to be able to endure to the end. Whether your end is when you die or when you see Christ coming in the clouds.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Thanks for all the input!!
We went home and read the Desire of Ages, chapter on the Mt of Olives after hearing Ron Rogers speak at Chase City.. his words were that its evangellicals that believe that matt 24 has anything to do with end times when in fact it does NOT - it has ALL to do with ONLY the fall of Jersusalem....so, Chris and I went home and "discussed" that issue. After looking at the Bible Commentary and comparing with DA, we concluded he was not exactly correct...it does have a dual purpose. There are 2 questions asked...he only adressed one. And yes, I believe things will be much worse than they ever were before (isnt that what the Bible says?)...I just worry that something as plain as this can be so misconstrued by a pastor...but then, we're not perfect.
Robin

I just want to add..that when we heard Ron Rogers speak - he NEVER applied Matt 24 to end times AT ALL. He said that only Evangellicals believe it has anything to do with end times, when in fact it only has to do with the fall of Jerusalem. When asked about it later, he stood his ground. We've been to a couple of his evangelistic meetings, and he does have his own philosphy on different topics...which confuses people.
Just thought I'd add that. So, when we heard his theory on Matt 24, we were a little puzzled, which is why I figured I ask the group.
Thanks a bunch!
Robin

I just want to add..that when we heard Ron Rogers speak - he NEVER applied Matt 24 to end times AT ALL. He said that only Evangellicals believe it has anything to do with end times, when in fact it only has to do with the fall of Jerusalem. When asked about it later, he stood his ground. We've been to a couple of his evangelistic meetings, and he does have his own philosphy on different topics...which confuses people.
Just thought I'd add that. So, when we heard his theory on Matt 24, we were a little puzzled, which is why I figured I ask the group.
Thanks a bunch!
Robin

Hey Robin... glad that you went home and studied it out yourselves. We do have to be so very careful about accepting what others tell us at face value. All we ever heard about the Ron Rogers teaching was that Matt. 24 applied only to the fall of Jerusalem, so that's what my comments were based on.

Good to see you posting!

Maybe I didn't listen well enough when he was at Patmos in November, but if that's what he said at Chase City then watch out! (I understand Matt 24 to be talking about both past & future.)

A church member called me last night to discuss this same topic that he listen to from Ron Rodgers. And he also told me that Mr. Rodgers was saying it has nothing to do with the future. And during a Q&A period with him (Mr. Rodgers) later, he basically said if SOP says something that doesn't agree or fit with scripture then you should believe scripture....

Well of course this is true, but what does SOP say that doesn't agree with scripture??????

He sounds like a conference person that doesn't like or agree with or use SOP... which is becoming a popular thing lately.

I heard he's the one doing the Evangelistic series for Patmos.... Ginny or Jig, is that true??

Not particularly... I think he's just helping the church work towards better evangelism, without necessarily being the ringleader of any evangelistic efforts.

Linda and I both listened to his "method" of evangelism & bible studies the first Sabbath afternoon he was there and it's not exactly on the up and up.

The "hey guess what I just found out when I was reading my Bible the other day" line when you've known and studied the subject for years seems like lying.

Ginnifer wrote:

Not particularly... I think he's just helping the church work towards better evangelism, without necessarily being the ringleader of any evangelistic efforts.

Not what I heard from pearl... he's doing the meetings.......

Hrm. I don't know anything about it because I've been evangelizing in my own way. Regardless, if we pray about it, the right thing should happen. The last time he spoke he did a really nice message.