Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom
December 13th, 2010 by Mark C.
In my last post, Steve Taylor put forth the challenge to examine what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of God in order to unlock a deeper understanding of the Bible. This article, by Anthony Buzzard, presents a foundational look at that crucial subject.
One of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of human thought is the way in which the obvious can be hidden from both scholar and layman. The history of Christian thought demonstrates a signal example. Jesus Himself constantly taught that His Gospel Message would be hidden from the masses, whose minds were blinded by the counter-interests which would preoccupy them and prevent complete devotion to Him (Matt. 13:11-17).
The distinguished German exegete E. Haenchen (Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia, 1971, p. 141) stated in regard to the preaching of the early apostolic church: “The preaching of the Kingdom of God obviously refers to the Kingdom of God which will begin with the Parousia [Second Coming of Jesus].” Elsewhere in the same commentary he remarks that “Kingdom of God itself describes the entire Christian proclamation” (on Acts 28:23).
While the Gospel of the Kingdom is the central concept in the preaching of Jesus and the apostles, and Kingdom of God refers to the apocalyptic Kingdom to be inaugurated at the Second Coming, the general public have been fed a very different idea. For liberals the Kingdom of God is a social program or a spiritual fellowship enjoyed now by the believer. For the fundamentalist the Kingdom is either an improved American society or bliss in heaven at the moment of death. None of these definitions of the Kingdom can possibly be squared with the evidence of the New Testament. The faith as Jesus preached it is therefore misrepresented at its very heart. The Gospel as Jesus taught it has been stifled.
Such injustice to the historical records of the Christian faith calls for an urgent public investigation. It is a documentable fact that leading contemporary spokesmen for the Christian faith confess that they do not preach the Gospel about the Kingdom (See Anthony Buzzard, Our Fathers Who Aren’t in Heaven, pp. 29-34), though they recognize that Jesus always did. This astonishing discrepancy between what passes for the teaching of Jesus and what Jesus actually taught deserves the widest exposure. Restoration Fellowship hopes to make a small contribution to the righting of a historical and spiritual injustice to the man claimed by many to be the Messiah and Savior. To others at present unsympathetic to the claims of Jesus, the discovery that His Message has been significantly misrepresented since the second century will be a matter of intriguing interest.
Thanks to the labors of church historians we can be certain that Jesus not only proclaimed the Kingdom as the raison d’être of His mission (Luke 4:43), but that by Kingdom He meant what any who belonged to His Jewish heritage meant, namely “the world-empire of God – the divine reign in place of every earthly monarchy. This will be perfectly realized, fully established – here upon earth” (F.C. Grant, Ancient Judaism and New Testament Christianity, pp. 114, 115). Such a vision of a divine world empire had been indeed the vision of all the prophets of Israel. Their Message Jesus merely confirmed, amplified and made the subject of His urgent call to repentance in view of the Great Event coming.
It is a matter of simple honesty that Christians claiming to follow Christ embrace in faith the Message which He and the apostles after Him proclaimed. It is evidently not the case that contemporary evangelists relay the Gospel about the Kingdom. They have reduced the Message of salvation to belief in the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of Jesus. But they omit the foundation of salvation which lies in repentance and acceptance in faith of the Gospel about the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14, 15; Acts 8:12, 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31, etc., and under different terminology as “the Word,” “the Gospel,” “the Mystery,” “the Truth,” etc. in the remainder of the NT documents).
The cause of the extraordinary anomaly presented by the dissimilarity between what the NT presents as the faith and what is commonly understood is traceable, as many distinguished theologians and historians have documented, to the fatal mixing of Greek paganism with the early Hebrew faith, which began in the second century, after the death of the apostles and as foreseen by them (Acts 20:29-31; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). We have documented from numerous sources the fact that just such a hellenization of the pristine faith did overtake the original Gospel Message of the Kingdom (See Our Fathers Who Aren’t in Heaven, pp. 259-267). That this is not known to millions of unsuspecting churchgoers points to the need for widespread exposure.
The results of this original departure from Truth are evident in the fragmentation of contemporary Christianity into multitudes of differing denominations. Nothing could be more salutary than the recognition of the unsatisfactory status quo and a return to the pure Gospel of Jesus in regard to the Kingdom of God.
hi
A. Buzzard indicated in the article above about Jesus
I doubt, that what is claimed in the quote by F.C. Grant, and what is then directly said by A. Buzzard in the statement following the quote is a correct representation of what the gospel records tell us about Jesus and his descriptions of what he understood the rule of God to mean, nor do I think that a “world-empire” is what the prophets of Israel had in mind and proclaimed!
Even the idea of a millenial world-empire (a political kingdom on earth with a king, like “as all the heathen nations have”) is just as foreign to and not in harmony with the Biblical Scriptures as the various “churchy ideas” and “philosophical theories” about “the kingdom of God” mentioned in the article.
I think it’s rather odd that the idea of a political Jewish world-empire is proclaimed as being the gospel that Jesus taught, when in truth this was the false concept, which the Jewish folks had in mind which led them to reject Jesus as the Messiah and ruler in God’s reign
Yes, indeed, his gospel message was hidden in his day due to wrong pre-conceived Jewish ideas of the Messiah being a political king and liberator who would liberate them and re-establish the earthly nation of Israel and expand it to a world empire spanning the whole globe … why then would exactly that very same idea now (2000 years later) be the “enlightenment” and be the true understanding of his gospel message?
Did Jesus’ message somehow mysteriously change over the last 2 millenniums in that it was not about a political empire then but is about a political world-empire now?
I would say that Jesus never once taught that he would be a king in a political sense over an earthly Israel empire or world empire. Jesus rather clearly established in his teaching that GOD’s realm is SPIRITUAL in nature and that God’s rule (“kingdom”) has always been SPIRITUAL (rather than political), and even when He exercised his reign and intervened in matters and events on earth the purpose and goals were of a spiritual and heavenly nature.
Sure, I agree with various things which are pointed out in the article about other non-biblical and wrong ideas and concepts seen throughout church history from early days on even until today …. however, I don’t think that an earthly world-empire in a political sense is what the Scriptures teach to be the hope of “the kingdom of God”.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
What does it involve then? The people of God going to heaven?
Xavier,
how about receiving eternal life in the presence of God and His Son Jesus Christ …
Jesus has been “in heaven” for 2 millenials, do you think being there is sort of bad? or only “second best” and not quite satisfactory, despite being in the presence of God Almighty?
My point above was that Jesus did NOT teach anything about being a political king and ruler of a world empire in a political sense … or would you have scripture where we can read that Jesus did in fact make such claims? What are your answers to the questions I asked in my post above?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang, Would you please provide scriptural references that support your position? Thank you.
Frank
Wolfgang
When and where though?
Didn’t know you were asking questions since it seemed you were answering your own.
Where exactly did Jesus say the kingdom of God is not a political entity established on earth?
Obviously God’s Kingdom is not to be associated with any earthly kingdom but spiritual in terms of its provenance.
Frank D.,
as far as Jesus being in heaven for the last 2 millenniums, I would point you to the various scriptures which tell you that he was taken up, received up, is seated at the right hand of God, etc … are you in disagreement with what we read in those passages?
As far as Jesus not once teaching that he would be the king or ruler of a world-empire, I can only point you to all of the gospels .. you will NOT find one place where he did. Since Jesus did NOT teach such, there is not scriptural reference to be found …. the burden to provide scriptural reference is on those who claim that he did teach a view of God’s rule as being a world-empire on earth with him ruling as a king in a political sense!
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
hmn … I would have thought you would certainly be able to recognize what are questions and what are answers???
I asked some questions in reference to what was stated in the article, and was hoping that someone would have some answers …
I then stated in a somewhat general and brief manner what I believe concerning aspects of the topic being covered … You were not able to recognize that? ….
you are asking the wrong question 😉 sort of like the trinitarian would ask: “Xavier, where does Scripture say that Jesus is not the 2nd person of the Godhead?” Of course, the Scripture NOWHERE says that … so what? Does that mean that Jesus IS the 2nd person of the Godhead? No!
Jesus NOT ONCE said that the kingdom of God is a political Israel nation nor a political world-empire established on earth! Now, by rather simple logic, from what he did teach overall about God, about God’s rule, about the nation of Israel, etc. it is evident that Jesus “did say” that God’s rule IS NOT a political entity established on earth!
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
What about the whole of the Holy Scriptures, prophets, etc., to which Jesus and his apostles point to time and time again?
If not an earthly Kingdom, in what sense then? And how does any other view apart from the standard interpretation of an earthly Kingdom have to do with Jesus’ Second Coming? In other words, if you believe in a Second Coming, what’s it for then if not to come back and do or establish something?
Wolfgang
By definition the Shema by itself does away with any “plurality within the one Godhead”!
Then he clearly would not have been in line with the Abrahamic/Davidic notion of the gospel as being all about who get the land!
Wolfgang
Just to clear something up…it seems our view of the Gospel message and biblical unitarianism are not compatible with yours.
Could I ask then why your involvement in organizing the conference in Germany?
Xavier,
well, that’s exactly the place to look at and see that God is NOT about establishing a world-empire on earth …. that is exactly the place where one should recognize that it would be a good idea not to be taken in by the English word “kingdom” and its definition when reading about God’s RULE …. God is NOT a politician or political king, nor is Jesus !
In the biblical sense … recognizing that the Scriptures are about God’s RULE …. and that HIS rule is SPIRITUAL and heavenly (and not “political and earthly”) in nature.
Here, you reveal the real underlying dilemma => a certain view and understanding of what you call “the second coming” is linked to and actually the determining factor for your understanding the kingdom. Why not look at it “the other way around”? Why not recognize the overall Scriptural perspective of “earthly, temporal, physical, natural, visible” representing the type or shadow of the antitype or reality which is “heavenly, eternal, spiritual, invisible”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
?? so you think that Jesus was not aware of what is stated by Joshua, that God fulfilled the land promise already in those days to “Abraham and his descendants�
Jesus however was in line with what the previous earthly, temporal and physical types were pointing to in terms of heavenly, eternal and spiritual reality
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
perhaps because I am not sectarian in my Christian walk as others are who only get involved when they can meet with “like minded” folks who “have to follow what the top prechers say”?
perhaps because I think for myself and take personal responsibility for what I believe, and still can work together with other Christians who are of a different understanding and opinion on certain topics or aspects of topics?
perhaps because I am just a little older than you and have experienced a little more of life than you over the last 3 decades of being involved with Christians and their various groups, sects, churches, cults and whatever else you want to call it?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
I am guessing you are familiar with Daniel’s vision of “world dominions/empires”? Guess we would disagree with what it all means and in the way the NT writers cite them.
Of course. Not in the way we know human rulers to be. Which are filled with bias/errors etc.
Because no where is it said in clear and uncertain terms that the humanity of God will reign in some “heavenly” or spiritually “ethereal” other world [sphere]. It talks about this present Earth being renewed etc. [Rev 5-7; 20-22].
I guess we would disagree on what Hebrews 11 has to say about the fulfillment of the Gospel promise?
Wolfgang
I see. Didn’t know the ‘business’ we’re in was about seniority like everything else. 🙂
Xavier,
I was not talking about seniority, as you however seem to think? there are a few other things which seem to come with age (over 3 decades I have experienced some of it first hand) … and I can assure you, they have nothing to do with seniority.
Xavier
I’ve become quite familiar with those sections of the book of Daniel over the last 10-12 years of study … taking into consideration the overall scope of the Biblical Scriptures and the time frame of the biblical ages mentioned in the Scriptures (so you don’t get off on the wrong track … I am NOT talking about various models of dispensationalism and their arrangements of “ages/dispensations”)
Guess we would disagree with what it all means and in the way the NT writers cite them. your guess is most likely true
Looks like you don’t like the idea of life in a spiritual sphere, it doesn’t quite seem to suit your fancy … which is sort of odd, since God Himself apparently is doing quite well living in the heavenly / spiritual realm, and the man Christ Jesus doesn’t seem to be all that dissatisfied either being seated at the right hand of God on His throne in heaven … (cp. various scriptures about God and His throne, also scriptures about the risen and ascended Jesus, including what John was shown in revelatory visions concerning these matters).
Wolfgang
We all have to run the race Wolf.
Does not fit with the Jewish worldview of “restoration/regeneration” of this present world. Which seems to indicate the destruction or purifying renewal of heaven and earth, common in Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
As per the prophet’s description of Jerusalem’s restoration in paradise language (Isa 51:3), a picture of the end time as the restoration or amplification of the original paradise. Implying not only the restoration but complete removal of the ‘Adamic curse’ [Gen 3:16–19].
Hence “the meek shall inherit the earth/land”!
The Kingdom of God is very much a world empire in the minds of the prophets of Israel, and I am surprised that those who oppose the idea do not give us a definition of the Kingdom! The Kingdom of God is future in 95% of the Kingdom texts in the synoptics. The Kingdom of God involves restored sovereignty to Israel (Acts 1:6) and it points to the time described by Matt. 19:28: the apostles are to going to administer a new order on earth.
If the view is taken that the Parousia, which introduces the Kingdom at the 7th trumpet (Rev. 11) happened in AD 70, then the NT has been derailed and words cease to have intelligible meanings!
Anthony,
so then where did Jesus explain that the “kingdom” was a world-empire to which he was looking forward as being the king?
My rather simple definition of the “Kingdom” is what is found in any good dictionary => RULE! (and not an “empire”/”nation” with a “king” as “president”)
As I read the gospels and the words of Jesus about the matter, I would say that it is rather plain that Jesus is NOT speaking about “a national kingdom of Israel” nor about a “world-empire” when he speaks about “God’s rule” or “heaven’s [God’s] rule”.
Have you noticed that you almost every place imply/insert “on earth” where those scriptures actually do not define “on earth” as the place or sphere of God’s rule? E.g. Mt 19:28 … where does this verse speak about the apostles “are going to administer a new order on earth” (where you apparently mean a political empire/political administration in which the apostles had important positions)?
As for derailing the NT and words ceasing to have intelligible meanings, I am wondering if you think that a reader should read the Scriptures from the viewpoint and perspective of the writer or from the viewpoint and perspective of the reader? In other words, is what is written in the present, present tense to the reader or the writer? Is what is written in future tense future to the reader or to the writer? Is it possible that what is written in the present tense can be past tense to a reader? Is it possible that what is written in the future tense can be past tense to a reader?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Anthony,
oops, forgot to ask a question at the end of my recent post:
Considering the tenses and viewpoints of writer and reader, who would be actually derailing the NT and cause words to cease to have intelligible meanings… the one who understands the words from the correct viewpoint or the one who reads them with the wrong timing on the viewpoint from which he/she is reading and interpreting a passage?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
Is this like the Sabbath debate, where we’re only supposed to focus on the Gospels and not the NT in its entirety?
If it is not, then how do you define “the commonwealth of Israel” [Eph 2.12]?
Wolfgang,
There is no question, then, that the Jews in Jesus’ day looked for a literal, earthly kingdom. Can you provide any Scripture reference in which Jesus corrects that notion and says that it is a spiritual or figurative kingdom rather than a physical one? The only places in the NT where the spiritual aspect of the kingdom is mentioned have to do with the gospel and/or the children of the kingdom not being recognized now. But Jesus always spoke of the future nature of a literal kingdom, which is in accord with all of the Prophets.
No. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The original message of the kingdom was about a political empire then, but was gradually replaced by a “spiritual kingdom” and “going to heaven” – a process that can be seen in the writings of the Church Fathers. In the last 150 – 200 years, however, different individuals and groups have been rediscovering the simple truths that are still to be found in the Bible.
Jesus sitting at the right hand of God in heaven is clearly stated to be a temporary condition.
Ps 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Acts 3:
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
I Cor. 15:
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
The many scriptures that reference the kingdom of God are numerous, however they have been referenced in the articles on my website. I have referred you to them on several occasions, and asked you to respond to them. Yet you continue to post here with nothing but contradiction. I answered your questions. Now please answer mine. Where do you read anywhere in the Bible that the idea of an earthly kingdom ruled by God’s Messiah is a false one? Where do you read that Jesus corrected such an idea when he encountered it?
Sorry, but your logic is faulty here. Even if it were true that Jesus didn’t say that the kingdom is a future political world-empire, there is no question that the Jews believed it, and yet he never once corrected them or told them that they were in error.
In the OT, the nature of God’s plan is only referred to with the word “kingdom” in a few verses in Daniel. So we are not “taken in” by the word. But the ideas on which the kingdom message is based are found throughout the Old Testament, from the land promise to Abraham, to the promise to David that his offspring shall rule forever, to the many specific prophecies concerning the establishment of Messiah’s kingdom on earth, found throughout the Prophets.
You are assuming, as so many do, that “spiritual” of necessity means “not physical.” When the Bible speaks of a spiritual or heavenly kingdom, it is referring to its origin not its location. There are way too many clear descriptions of Messiah’s coming world rule to ignore.
On the contrary, it is Jesus who referred to his coming in glory to judge and rule on earth. It is the OT Prophets who provide the details. Then, based on that, we understand that the second coming will be the beginning of the fulfillment of those prophecies.
Physical types which represent greater spiritual truths are not “the overall Scriptural perspective.” First, there were a number of types that foreshadowed physical things like Jesus’ sacrificial work. There were also a number of types in the Old Covenant that pointed to greater spiritual truths, and Paul outlines them in detail in his epistles. But not EVERYTHING physical and visible is a type of something spiritual. Paul himself speaks of the coming kingdom and an inheritance, and also mentions things that we enjoy now as a foretaste of what is to come. But NOWHERE does he ever say or even imply that the kingdom promised in the Prophets is not to be a literal kingdom on earth.
We’ve dealt with that. The land divided among the children of Israel was not the final fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, since the promise was that his descendants would possess the land FOREVER. The Prophets deal with this extensively.
If life in the “spiritual sphere” were God’s primary desire for us, why did He create us with physical bodies on a physical earth? As I said, Jesus being in heaven is repeatedly described as a temporary condition, especially in John’s revelation to which you refer. John describes in detail Jesus’ coming to earth to reign for a thousand years, and then the final state of all things, in which God dwells with man on earth.
As I have said, the specific Scriptural references can be found in my articles. If you really want to understand our viewpoint, at least look at what we believe and why, and then if you have specific issues regarding specific Scriptures, address them. For you to keep coming on here and saying “You’re wrong” and not providing Scriptural evidence is just arguing for argument’s sake, and is a waste of time.
Mark C.
Reminds me of the Mormon belief which states that what we will “go back” to being “spirit children” in some “spirit world” where we will all be “gods” with our own little “physical earth/globe” to play with.
😛
They don’t always have to use the phrase “on earth” since it was understood by those addressed. But he did say, “The meek shall inherit the earth” and, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
The Scriptures should definitely be understood from the perspective of the writer. And the writer, as well as the speakers at the time of Jesus, all understood that the kingdom of God referred to in the Prophets was a literal, physical kingdom on earth. If I am correct, it is your contention that they were mistaken in this belief. If so, please provide some Scriptural reference to where Jesus taught that they were mistaken in the idea.
If the Prophets clearly describe a literal kingdom, and the NT teaches it was meant to be understood figuratively or spiritually, then somewhere there must be, in no uncertain terms, an announcement of that change, as there was with Gentiles being included, and with the spiritualizing of many aspects of the Old Covenant. But we read of no such change.
All,
As I read through the Bible anew focused on the ‘kingdom of God’ passages, I find this one at odds with a ‘physical kingdom’.
Luke 17: (20) “Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, (21) nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.â€
In the NIV, the last phrase is also interpreted “within you”.
I’m not here to pick sides in this discussion, just interested in hearing the interpretation of this passage?
Thanks,
Antioch
Antioch
Note a couple of things in reference to Luke 17, quotes from the NET Bible Online:
* Jesus is talking to his enemies, the Pharisees.
* If you continue reading, v. 24 says that you will see a sign of lighting flash when the Son of Man comes.
Thanks Xavier. So would you equate ‘kingdom of God’ with ‘days of the Son of Man’?
Mark C.,
Sure, the Jews certainly were looking for a literal, earthly kingdom in a political sense … BUT – were they correct? or was exactly such an expectations a WRONG understanding, which actually even was instrumental in rejecting their Messiah since he did not live up to those expectations?
one need not look far …. read the gospels and you should notice that Jesus – for example at the time, when they tried to install him as king in a political sense after he had fed a multitude – refused to be a political king. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus teach that he would either “now” (at that time) or “eventually” (in the then or now still future) establish an earthly kingdom!!
As I mentioned in my note to Anthony, it seems to me that you and others are led in the directoin of “earthly kingdom” by the use and definition of the English term “kingdom” (you even stated before that by definition “kingdom” means an earthly political kingdom), whereas the term used in would be much better translated as “rule” (God’s rule, heaven’s [God’s] rule).
Btw, I have looked at your articles … and I do rather clearly understand your viewpoint (you know, I used to have that viewpoint for years and also tried to explain and interpret many scriptures in light of that viewpoint!). The point is, that this viewpoint is not in harmony with the real overall scope of the Scriptures.
I am reminded of the time when I read several trinitarians’ articles who would explain in detail (as they thought and believed) many, many scriptures which “clearly” (from their viewpoint) proved that there is One God as a trinity of 3 persons (or however else they described it). Of course, as a non-trinitarian / unitarian fellow, I did not have any other scriptures to point out their error, only those very same scriptures they were using … both parties were claiming opposite viewpoints based on their understanding of the same scriptural basis .. yet obviously, both understandings could not both be true.
Some folks I knew remained “trinitarian” … basically because they were affiliated in some way with a “trinitarian background” or they “had leaned too far out of the window” with their teaching and apparently felt there was no way to change their theological position.
You and others go to great length to prove your viewpoint and understanding of a “future earthly world empire” as being “the kingdom of God”, and interpret any scripture which speaks of the kingdom in that light. I used to do the same ….
BUT, as was the case when I realized the error with the trinity interpretations of scriptures, so it was when I realized that there is obviously also an error with the re-establishment of a supposedly biblical “earthly nation of Israel” and/or “earthly world empire” with Jesus as political king (president/chief/or whatever) interpretations.
The very same scriptures you interpret in a manner to support an earthly political world empire to be the kingdom of God, are the scriptures which – understood differently – show that God’s rule is NOT about an earthly world empire … it is a matter of which interpretation takes really the overall scope of the Scriptures with related topics and aspects into proper consideration.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
That’s what I’m asking YOU. What proof do you have that they were incorrect? The Scriptures in the Prophets are quite clear, and nowhere in the NT does Jesus, Paul, or anyone else teach that the Prophets’ words were not meant to be taken literally.
Jesus didn’t allow those men to make him king in that incident because it wasn’t his time yet, as he says twice in the following chapter. That is also why he didn’t conquer Rome and set up the promised kingdom when he was here the first time. He first had to complete his sacrificial work and inaugurate the New Covenant.
But it is completely inaccurate to say that he never taught that he would “eventually” establish an earthly kingdom. He frequently spoke of the time when the Son of Man would appear in glory to judge the world, as well as promising his disciples that they would rule with him.
In addition, the very first thing said about Jesus to his mother was, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” And there are many other references (see http://godskingdomfirst.org/near.htm). They are clearly in alignment with the many clear prophecies, and nowhere does Jesus teach that it was not meant to be understood literally.
I responded to that in my last comment. The word “kingdom” is only used to describe God’s ultimate rule a few times in Daniel. However the concept of God sending His Messiah to reign over a renewed earth is described with many different terms throughout the Bible. You can’t dismiss them all based on the one word.
I have not seen a great deal of understanding of our viewpoint in your questions (for example, your question of what the land promise of Abraham had to do with it, in another thread.) Still, you keep claiming it is not in harmony with the Scriptures, but I have yet to see any demonstration of this. What Scriptural evidence changed your mind?
On the contrary, most of what I wrote on my web site is simply presenting the Scriptures. I didn’t have to go very far at all. The Prophecies are very straightforward, and one would have to go to great lengths to prove that the simple words do not mean what they say.
If you have SCRIPTURAL evidence to prove your point, and/or to prove that the Scriptures we have provided do not mean what they seem to, then please provide examples.
Mark C.,
in regards to my comment about the Jews’ expectation of a literal political kingdom with the Messiah as a political king (leader), you wrote
I read the gospels and the rest of the NT scriptures and do NOT find anywhere even an indication that Jesus did establish a Jewish nation as a literal political kingdom! Thus, the NT scriptures are my proof …
For (a) either the Jews were correct in their understanding and expectations of OT prophecies, and then Jesus failed to fulfill those prophecies and was not really the Messiah, or (b) Jesus was indeed the Messiah and did fulfill what the OT scriptures foretold of him, and the Jews were incorrect in their understanding and expectations .
I take (b) to be the correct understanding, you are taking (a) … well, lket everyone be convinced by their own considerations and conscience.
Antioch,
You asked, “So would you equate ‘kingdom of God’ with ‘days of the Son of Man’?”
Luke 17:22-23 “And he said to the disciples, The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the DAYS OF THE SON OF MAN, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them.”So would you equate ‘kingdom of God’ with ‘days of the Son of Man’?
Luke 17:26-27, “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the DAYS OF THE SON OF MAN. (27) They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
It would seem from the 2 above quotes from Luke that the ‘days of the son of man’ could be equated with the phrase ‘kingdom of God’. I would say they appear to be one and the same thing…
Antioch
I would say so. If we interpret the Daniel visions in light of what Jesus says at his trial to the Sanhedrin.
Wolfgang
You keep harping on that definition of “rule”, what does that even mean? How does it deviate from the clear message of the Gospel regarding the future/coming “rule of God” to come?!
Try using the Shema or just the simple fact that God in the Bible is described over and over again with the language pertaining to a personal, singular Being.
Like two ships in the night. 😛
Of course you won’t “find anywhere even an indication that Jesus did establish a Jewish nation as a literal political kingdom”. Simply because it has not happened yet!
Wolf, how do you deal with what Peter has to say at Pentecost regarding the dead King David and all those other patriarchs and prophets of Hebrews 11 who, “though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”?!
Have the dead been raised? Have we seen “the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds”? To anyone else reading these exchanges heed this warning…
Xavier,
Indeed, “it has not happened yet”, and neither will it happen … because Jesus also did not teach that he would in the future be the king of an earthly political nation of Israel or king/president/chief of an earthly world-empire.
As for how I deal with what Peter said on Pentecost or with what we read anywhere else in the Scriptures, I understand it in harmony with the overall scope of the Scriptures. AND – please note – I DO recognize that the correct way of reading and understanding the Scriptures is to understand them from the viewpoint of the writer at the time of writing, rather than from the viewpoint of a reader reading it hundreds or even thousands of years later. I do NOT read the Scriptures as if they had been written just yesterday and as if they had been written and addressed to us here and now.
I have come to learn the very hard way that reading the Scriptures (especially NT scriptures) as if they had been written in our day and time and if they were directly addressed to us now is perhaps the major cause for the errors regarding eschatological topics. Not recognizing or observing in which time frame on the scale of the biblical ages something happened and was written, is a major cause for error (cp. the Jews who see themselves somewhere in the Mosaic Law age/time frame prior to the birth of the promised Messiah … of course, to them all the NT writings are “non-sense”)
Wolfgang
You better be sure then. Somehow I don’t think if we are wrong on this it will be as bad for us as it will be if we thought otherwise.
Simple fact is all these people are still dead. I do not see nor hear of them having received what was promised to them regardless of whichever time frame you look through!
Xavier,
look up the terms “kingdom” and “rule” in a dictionary and see the difference in meaning. You will notice how “kingdom” relates to a sphere of influence, usually with borders, a physical land, etc. The word “rule” however emphasizes an entirely different aspect.
There is no deviation from the clear message of the Gospel regarding the “rule of God” … BUT there is a huge deviation from the nowadays often preached and rather popular message of a future/coming revived earthly nation of Israel, or as some expand it, a world-empire with Jesus being the king/president/chief/or whatever folks would then want to call it/ etc. residing at earthly Jerusalem.
Wolfgang
If by this your suggesting “God’s rule” has been in effect for 2 000+ years then…”well, slap my head and call me silly!” 😛
Xavier,
are you trying to tell us that God hasn’t been on the throne ruling during the last 2000 (or more) years ??
Wolfgang,
Please do not put words in my mouth. I do NOT take (a) – I do not believe Jesus failed, nor do I believe he wasn’t the Messiah. The problem with your proposal is that you only present two choices. But there is a third choice (which you would know had you really read my web site). It is: (c) the Jews were correct in their understanding and expectations of OT prophecies, and Jesus was indeed that promised Messiah, but also came to fulfill what the OT scriptures foretold of a Suffering Servant, and inaugurated an intermediate phase between his first coming and his return.
When he came the first time it was to announce the kingdom and to complete his sacrificial work so that we could have access to the coming kingdom. But rather than inaugurate the kingdom immediately as most of his followers expected, he taught that there would be a period of time in the interim when the gospel would be preached, the terms of the New Covenant offered, and the Church would enjoy a foretaste of what was to come. For further details, see the Kingdom Come section of my site (especially Mysteries of the Kingdom, The New Covenant, and In Anticipation).
You keep saying you understand certain records “in harmony with the overall scope of the Scriptures.” I am still waiting for concrete examples. I show on my site what the Prophets said, what Jesus said about the Prophecies and about himself, and what was said about Jesus by others. You keep repeating “he never claimed he would be a king.” Please deal with the Scriptural proof I have presented.
You say, “There is no deviation from the clear message of the Gospel regarding the ‘rule of God.’†What do you consider to be the clear message regarding God’s rule?
As for “rule” vs. “kingdom” – I see both used in prophecy to describe what Messiah would do. I have mentioned that the word kingdom is only used in Daniel in the OT. Here are a couple of references to Messiah ruling:
Ps 110:
1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
2 The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”
Zech. 6:
12 “Then say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD.
13 “Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”’
Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”
And there are many other references using different words to describe a ruler sent from God to reign on earth in His behalf. It is more than just the word “kingdom” that gives us this idea.
Glancing through your comments, I see virtually no references to Scripture. You keep saying you can’t quote Scripture because it doesn’t say what we claim it says. Here, once again, is the challenge:
1. Provide Scripture in which Jesus (or anyone else in authority) teaches that what is plainly foretold in the Prophets is not meant to be understood literally.
2. Respond to the Scriptures we have presented which refer to Jesus ruling or reigning on earth in the future.
Wolfgang
Your equivocating. I am sure you know who “the god of this world” presently is.
Xavier
now, who is equivocating here? Seems rather clear, that it is you !
I know who the Lord God Almighty is and that He has always been on the throne, in past. present and future … You seem to not believe that truth ?
The reference to “the god of this age” is certainly interesting … for one, it is important to first understand which “age” was present at the time of writing and therefore is in view; secondly, the question is whether or not we now even live in this very same biblical age that is in view (seeing that an integral part of it, the existence of the biblical nation of Israel hasn’t been in existence and doesn’t currently exist, and that a major evil – apostate Judaism – is also currently not dominating the age as was the case at the time when Paul wrote and used this statement)
When scriptures are read — as you do — from the viewpoint of today’s reader rather than taking into proper consideration the historical context and perspective of the writer, an incorrect interpretation is bound to follow … And, to point out the error, one can’t point to scriptures (as Mark C. constantly insists, “show me scriptures, etc …â€) because the error is not about setting scriptures against scriptures but rather the error is in man’s logic and man’s lack of observance of the proper scriptural and historic context of the passages in question.
Xavier & Wolfgang,
Just for the sake of clarification, the Bible does speak of God’s rule and His throne in heaven, but it also speaks of rule on earth not necessarily being subject to God’s heavenly rule. That’s why we are to pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” God is ultimately in control, but as witnessed by history, man has free will whether to conform to God’s ultimate rule. The sorry state of man throughout history attests to this. But God has promised that ultimately His Messiah, His King, will rule on earth and bring to pass unprecedented peace and righteousness.
It is interesting that the phrase “throne of the Lord” only appears twice in the Bible. The first refers to David’s son reigning in Israel in the past:
1Ch 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
The second refers to a future reign:
Jer 3:17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
In the meantime, the devil is called the god of this age. Not that he replaces the Lord God Almighty, of course, but that he reigns over the world in this age. In the Age to Come, Messiah Jesus will be in that position.
[PS – Wolfgang, I corrected your last post according to your addition.]
Wolfgang
If you think God is presenting ruling over this world from His throne…like I said, smack me silly!
Mark C.
Rom 9.5: “the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever,†or “the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever!†or “the Messiah who is over all. God be blessed forever!â€
You pick your poison! 🙂
Mark C.,
you mention above concerning God’s rule, etc.
Have you not noticed that the 2 expressions “thy rule come” and “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” are parallel and sort of explain each other?
God’s rule is in effect, when His will is done ….! It is that simple! This has nothing to do with a political national kingdom or world empire! Or do you mean to tell us that also “as it is in heaven” God’s kingdom is a “political” empire or nation ?
When God rules, His will is being done .. The prayer of Jesus has nothing whatever to do with praying for a re-establishment of the nation of Israel or a world empire under Jesus as king residing at earthly Jerusalem … it has to do with individuals turning to God and allowing God to rule their lives in that they let God’s will be done in their walk, etc.
Here you have an example of scripture as proof … but, as I have mentioned previously, it is the same scripture which you already are using to prove your interpretation.
I don’t know why you keep insisting that we are reading Scriptures from the viewpoint of today’s reader. Many Bible scholars also understand that the Jews of Jesus’ day believed in and expected a literal kingdom to be set up. Why did they expect that? Because it is what the Prophets clearly foretold. So in the context of what they believed then, if they were understanding it incorrectly, Jesus would surely have told them.
Or if not Jesus, Paul or one of the other NT writers. But the fact is, while Paul speaks of changes in the New Covenant, and spiritual understanding of certain things, he never says that the expectation of a future literal kingdom was incorrect or somehow changed. He continues to preach the same gospel of the kingdom throughout Acts.
Plus, you keep saying you understand certain passages in light of the “overall scope” of Scripture. How do you get such a scope? We have presented many Scriptures that establish what we consider the overall scope. From where do you derive yours?
Wolfgang
So how do you explain the resurrection and judgment of the dead? Or is that just some figurative teaching?
Sure, if you take this one verse by itself, it doesn’t mention a world empire. But throughout the Bible God has spoken of a time when His righteousness will be the rule in all the world, by means of His King ruling on earth.
I wasn’t using that verse as a proof of my interpretation. I was quoting the verse in light of my interpretation. The foundation for why I hold that interpretation is the many verses of the Scripture that clearly speak of a worldwide reign of Messiah on earth (which you have yet to deal with).
Xavier,
The resurrection and judgment in the last day are realites … not just some figurative teaching.
Now, your use of the term “figurative teaching” does cause me to wonder a bit about what you understand about figures of speech and their use in the Scriptures …
In the various Scripture records speaking about the resurrection of the dead and the judgment in the last day, etc., as in other Scripture records about other topics, language is used and information written both literally as well as employing the use of figures of speech.
Mark C.,
well, the point is that you should not quote and understand this one verse in the light of your interpretation of the many verses … instead, you should realize that this one verse “shoots down” your interpretation of the many verses and requires a re-think of your interpretation of the many verses in light of these words of Jesus in that one verse!
Wolfgang
So let me get this straight. Your a preterist yet you believe in Christ’s Second Coming, also called “the Lord’s Day”, which brings about the resurrection of the dead and final judgment?
If that is so, what is the point if God has always “reigned” as you said? And all the OT prophecies concerning it have been fulfilled?
Somehow that does not sound like proper exegesis to me Wolf. 🙂
Wolfgang,
I have to agree with Xavier. That would not be good exegesis. We have one verse – “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Depending on the viewpoint of the reader it could either be taken to mean the rule of God in one’s heart or a literal kingdom where God’s will is done. It could fit with either viewpoint and doesn’t “shoot down” either one. So to determine which viewpoint is correct we can’t use this verse but must go back to see what the overall majority of the Bible is talking about. This brings us back to that multitude of Scriptures in the OT (referenced in the OT Foundation section of my site) which you still have yet to deal with. 🙂
Mark C.,
as for one verse vs many … ever experienced that one verse already is sufficient to show that a particular idea (even though claimed to be based on many verses) is incorrect? Are you of the opinion that one very clear verse should be overturned, just because someone has a differing idea from many other verses?
Would it really be good exegesis, to take once idea which one has arrived at by looking at perhaps many verses, and overturn the clear teaching of one verses which is plain contradictory to one’s idea? I don’t think so!
You are the one to re-consider the many OT scriptures and to take a different look at them, a look which would endeavour to learn how they can be understood in a way that would be in agreement with the words of Jesus in our above mentioned one verse …
Xavier,
it would be good for you to not throw too many things in the pot when you try to really understand something …. or, to put it in a different way, muddying the waters is not a good idea if you would like to see or find something at the bottom.
Wolfgang
Your losing me buddy. Stop your equivocation and answer our questions clearly and scripturally instead of doing a “Back to the Future” monologue on time-frame-paradoxes; the what ifs or what nots; etc. etc. Getting real taxing now!
No, I am not suggesting overturning the verse. You have not shown how “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” contradicts the idea of a literal kingdom. All you have shown is that it could also be understood as the rule of God in the heart.
If many verses are clear, and one verse seems to contradict, I would have to have very strong evidence that the one verse is right and the many are wrong. But that’s not what we’re dealing with here. As I said, the one verse could be understood either way, so it isn’t “plain contradictory” to the idea of an earthly kingdom.
Since the many OT Scriptures are not contradicted by Jesus’ words, I would have no reason to do so. However, if you have some evidence of an alternative understanding of the many OT verses I have referenced, I am still waiting to hear it.
Mark C
It is clear that your going round and round with this thing. Just a suggestion but until Wolfgang clearly deals with this challenge give it a rest eh? Even though he might think he has answered your challenge we, and everybody else reading I hope, know he has not.
Mark C.,
See, it’s rather simple, isn’t it?
Jesus is NOT talking about a political nation or world empire coming to earth in his prayer instruction … he is also NOT talking about giving an additional meaning/definition of “God’s rule / reign” … as you suggest that this verse is something as which it “could also” be understood. Your interpretation of the many verses DOES contradict how Jesus understands God’s reign which he expresses here …
You are the one who comes up with the “could also” because you do not want to admit that your interpretation of an earthly national kingdom or world empire is contradictory to what Jesus understood and taught. On the other hand, even you admit that there is the meaning I understood and showed from Jesus’ words … but you don’t like the idea that this meaning is actually the one true meaning to which the OT prophecies point.
There is no further evidence needed nor possible … the evidence is right in front of your eyes in that very verse … but it looks as if you don’t (want to) see it that way.
Wolfgang
When I asked you back in post #10 basically why waste your time with people who disagree with you on this issue, you said:
How exactly are you able to “work together with other Christians” who clearly disagree with you on this fundamental of all issues?
I would say this is a topic that clearly sets out who is or is not a Christian in the truest sense of the message about the Kingdom of God and the things pertaining to Messiah Jesus [Acts 8.12].
Xavier,
I am not sectarian … and you, of all here, should know by first hand experience since you were at a conference where I worked quite hard over the course of a weekend to accomodate people of various kinds of backgrounds and various levels of knowledge of the Scriptures and various beliefs regarding different topics …
I suppose then you should just write me off as a Christian to stay true to your idea of what a Christian in the truest sense is all about ?
Wolfgang
It is not up to me who should or should not be “written off” Wolfgang. Just trying to ascertain what your true motives are because to tell you the truth, if it were me, I’d be wasting my time and energy “working” with a group of people who I have a fundamental disagreement with.
But that’s just me. Like the saying goes, “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. 🙂
Wolfgang
In case you did not notice, some of those people at the conference who we all tried to “work with” and “accommodate” we will probably never see again due to those “various differences” you allude to.
Wolfgang,
For the last time, show me HOW.
As I said, the words of the verse in question, taken by themselves could be interpreted either way. Thus by themselves they don’t prove your viewpoint or mine. Why do you keep beating on one verse that proves nothing, while refusing to deal with hundreds of others that are clear? And why do you continue to ignore direct questions and challenges? I had hoped this would be a meaningful exchange of ideas. So far it has not. Unless you deal with those questions and challenges I’m done.
Wolfgang,
I’m not sold on the kingdom being a literal, earthly reign either. Not that there won’t be a literal, earthly reign, but that it may not be all that Jesus referred to as the ‘kingdom of God’. I posted earlier about Luke 17:20 where Jesus states that the ‘kingdom of God is not something that can be observed’. That seems in conflict with what would be an earthly reign.
On the other hand, I am interested in hearing more of what you do think it is with scriptural support as Mark and Xavier have requested. Just saying ‘the whole Bible points to it’ leaves me wanting.
This whole question about ‘what is the gospel’ should be crystal clear but it is not. I’ve had this question since I was a young kid growing up in the Catholic Church but was too embarrassed to ask because I assumed it was something I should already know. Recently in my Bible study group, a long time Christian, well respected in our church, confessed he wasn’t sure what it meant. How can this be?
Antioch
If we believe the NT documents, even during the time of Jesus and the Apostles there was wide disagreement on these teachings. Add 2000+ years of stuff and there’s your answer.
I would recommend Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew by Bart D. Ehrman. A former fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic who has dedicated the better part of his scholarly life into such questions.
Antioch,
You are correct that the literal, earthly reign is not all that Jesus referred to, but it is the primary meaning, in line with the Hebrew Prophets. The other ways he uses “kingdom of God” are used much less frequently and in a different, particular sense.
I believe the biggest reason for the confusion over what should be crystal clear is that there is an adversary whose main goal is to obscure the Gospel. He systematically did so in the early centuries of the Church, and continues to do so with confusion even today. But I believe the simple truth can be found in the Bible if we jusst read it without preconceived notions.
I invite you to read what I have written on my web site, God’s Kingdom First. Not because I am any great scholar, but I have endeavored to present the Scriptures in a clear, orderly fashion, which would be difficult to recreate in a forum such as this; I think you’ll get a lot out of it. The “Kingdom Come” section in particular deals with your questions.
Xavier,
You make it sound as if nobody can tell what’s true from the Scriptures God gave us. A number of different opinions about the Kingdom of God arose in post-Biblical times, but any misconceptions about it in Jesus’ time were handled by Jesus himself, as recorded in the Gospels, or by his apostles in the rest of the NT.
Rather than the writings of an admitted agnostic, I would rather recommend some books by Christian Writers. First, I would recommend Anthony Buzzard’s writings (available on his site) as well as They never Told Me THIS in Church! by Greg Deuble (also available from Anthony’s site). Also George Ladd’s Gospel of the Kingdom, Joel W. Hemphill’s To God be the Glory, and several others are worth looking into. But the first thing I would recommend to a novice would be the resources available right on this site and on Anthony’s and mine. You can read them right on line without having to buy a book.
Antioch,
You said, “I posted earlier about Luke 17:20 where Jesus states that the ‘kingdom of God is not something that can be observed’.”
I’m not an expert, but that translation appears to be of a minority opinion.
NET Bible, “Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed.”
NIV Bible, “Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation.”
NASB Bible, “Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed.”
NLT Bible, “One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God isn’t ushered in with visible signs.”
MSG Bible, “Jesus, grilled by the Pharisees on when the kingdom of God would come, answered, “The kingdom of God doesn’t come by counting the days on the calendar.”
BBE Bible, “And when the Pharisees put questions to him about when the kingdom of God would come, he gave them an answer and said, The kingdom of God will not come through observation.”
NRSV Bible, “Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed.”
NKJV Bible, “Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation.”
This scripture just seems to be backing up what Yeshua repeatedly said about his return being completely unexpected, with most people being caught off guard, ‘like a thief coming in the night’, or ‘like at the time of Noah and the flood’, or ‘like the time of Sodom and Gomorrah just before they were destroyed’, etc…
At least that’s the way it seems to me anywaze…
Mark C
Not everyone can Mark. Hence the “remnant” metaphor throughout scripture. Its a historical fact that “God’s gospel”, as given to the patriarchs [Gal 3.8] and preached by the people of God all the way down to Apostolic times, encountered resistance throughout. As Jesus [Mat 11.12; Luke 16.16] and later Paul clearly attest [2Cor 3.14; 4.3].
Lost Christianities is available for preview on Google books. Goes without saying those other excellent books you mentioned Mark, but Ehrman has some good historical stuff on how and why “proto-orthodoxy” [as he calls it] came about.
DT
I think the “like a thief” saying is applicable to non-Christians since Paul makes it clear that Christians, those “who belong to the day and not the night” [i.e. are sleeping], will know!
Right, they will know because they – 1st century thessalonians – will experience it: “so that this day should surprise YOU like a thief. The same idea comes out of the previous verses, in chapter 4, and it seems only Wolfgang realizes this. Jesus was supposed to come during their lifetimes, just as Jesus himself has told his apostles.
JohnE
He obviously did not. If he did well, like Paul says, “then all our preaching and faith is useless” and Jesus and the apostles were big fat liars!
Sure, he obviously did not come, just as obviously as they were waiting for him to come during their lifetimes, and as obviously as he said he would come during their lifetimes. As Alfred Loisy once said, “the first Christians expected the return of Christ, but it was the church that arrived instead” 🙂 Or at least this is how he is paraphrased by Geza Vermes, a well-known ex-Christian Jew scholar in his book “The Changing Faces of Jesus”, while talking about how “apocalyptic fervour gave way to institutional certainty”.
And I agree, Paul was right to say “then all our preaching and faith is uselessâ€, but that doesn’t make Jesus and the apostles liars, it just makes them wrong.
Hello…? You’re forgetting the THIRD CHOICE. See comment #39.
Yes hello Mark. Your third choice is that Jesus “inaugurated an intermediate phase between his first coming and his return”? Where did I say there wasn’t to be such a period? What I said based on what I read in the NT, was that this period will be ending during their lifetimes, in the 1st century.
The “Hello?” was directed at both of you. The point was that you were talking about two choices: either (a) the idea of Jesus returning to inaugurate a literal kingdom was correctly understood, but they were all wrong since it obviously did not happen; or (b) the idea of a literal kingdom must not be the correct understanding, and something else must have been the fulfillment of it. But there is a third alternative, as I pointed out. The intermediate period is one of anticipation and preparation for what is still to come in the future, which will be a literal kingdom, in direct fulfillment of the OT Prophecies.
Also, if the intermediate period ended during their lifetimes, it was pretty much pointless, since what was foretold in the OT Prophecies still didn’t come to pass, and you’re still left with a choice between (a) and (b). What I wrote about in detail on my site (linked in comment #39 above) explains what I believe is the solution to this problem.
John E.,
well, seems like someone else is actually reading what Jesus did teach concerning his return coming as the Son of man …
now, it seems, the only problem left is that some who do read it do not quite believe it and think Jesus – and the apostles who continued to propagate Jesus’ teaching – were wrong 🙁
Mark C.,
BUT this intermediate period of anticipation and preparation would be ending with the coming of the Lord, yes? And it is this end point of the intermediate period (the coming of the Lord !), which both Jesus and his apostles taught would be happening still during the lifetime of some of those who heard them!
The right choice is that what was prophesied – both by OT prophets and Jesus and his apostles DID come to pass !!
However, quite obviously it did not come to pass in accordance with your and others’ (and even the Jewish leadership’s at the time of Jesus!) understanding of the OT prophecies concerning God’s reign and the Messiah’s mission and coming. What is therefore incorrect, is that type of understanding of the kingdom of God being a literal political earthly national kingdom of Israel or political world empire with Jesus as a king, president, chief or whatever in a political sense residing in earthly Jerusalem.
Or that third option again!
No. Read the articles.
Or that third option again! Again, read the articles.
I’m repeating myself, as is so often the case with these arguments. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Provide Scriptural proof that there is another valid understanding of the many Prophecies (not just “It must be understood different because it didn’t happen the way you said it would”). I’m still waiting.
Mark C.,
find a copy of the book by Glenn Hill entitled “Christianity’s Great Dilemma.” an read it.
Your continued request for “provide scriptural proof” has already been answered even by yourself … It is not a matter of showing you scriptural proof, it is solely a matter of you seeing the scriptural proof you yourself have already provided.
?? I rather read the scriptures than the article … and they are very clear that the intermediate period of time in view is the time between Jesus’ so-called “first coming” ending with him being received up into heaven (the ascension) and the so-called “second coming”, that is, the prophesied coming of the Lord, coming of the Son of man … this coming (return) of the Lord marks the end of the intermediate period of time.
Can you really not see? Or do you just not want to see?
Wolfgang,
First, a clarification is in order. My response of “No” was not meant to be just to your statement of “BUT this intermediate period of anticipation and preparation would be ending with the coming of the Lord, yes?” but also to your further statement, “And it is this end point … which both Jesus and his apostles taught would be happening still during the lifetime of some of those who heard them!” I didn’t include your entire statement in the quote, so what I was disagreeing with was not clear. Sorry about that.
But my exhortation to read the article still stands. For you to conclude that the entire point of the Hebrew Scriptures was either misunderstood or changed in the NT, it would have to be verified somewhere in the Bible. I have challenged you repeatedly, for literally years (this is not a new argument with you) and you are not able to come up with anything but “it must be different because it didn’t happen the way you said it should.” If such a major change in understanding took place, we would see it, like we see the changes in the New Covenant and the inclusion of the Gentiles in Paul’s writing. There is not one hint that the words of the Prophets are meant to mean something other than what they say.
IN ADDITION, the solution to the apparent dilemma between the idea of a literal kingdom and the fact that it did not happen can be clearly explained in a way that does not require ignoring or reinterpreting the entire Old Testament. I present Scriptural proof of this in the articles on my site. If you would rather not read them, that’s your choice. But I would rather not waste my time discussing this if you’re not willing to consider what’s been presented. If I remember correctly, our debates on this subject ended the same way in the past.
Happy Holidays.
JohnE
Tell that to the Apostle Peter who writes, “I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires. 4 They will say, “What happened to the promise that Jesus is coming again? From before the times of our ancestors, everything has remained the same since the world was first created…
But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.” 2Peter 3
Wolfgang
Does it surprise anyone? Why do you think we have more than 30 000+ denominations? 🙂
Mark C.
Does this answer what you previously said about nobody being able to tell “what’s true from the Scriptures God gave us”? Sadly, I think it does.
Stop wasting your time with Wolfgang he still won’t provide a shred of scriptural evidence just keep babbling on!
Give me a break!!
Certainly many people have various opinions about the Kingdom of God, as they did in Jesus’ day. But I believe those who approach the Bible without preconceived ideas will see the simple message it contains. Sadly, there are few that do so. Reading back over this debate I am reminded of why I hate religion.
I didn’t expect him to provide any Scriptural evidence for his position, because I don’t believe he can, since I don’t believe there is any. However, I had hoped he would at least honestly deal with the Scriptures I have presented, or at the very least answer a few of the direct questions I asked. But unfortunately he doesn’t seem to be inclined to do so. So as I told him, I won’t waste my time.
Indeed!
Mark C.,
No, you don’t present Scriptural proof … you present an interpretation of those scriptures which seems to prove your idea of the nature of the kingdom of God and which tries to explain away the real clear scriptures concerning the time of God’s rule.
The fact that it did not happen in the way you interpret how it should have happened you can only “explain” in a way which ignores and contradicts the clear statements of Jesus and his apostles in the NT scriptures. The very obvious and true explanation — namely, that your interpretation and idea of the nature of the kingdom is incorrect — you seem to not want to take into consideration.
Mark C.
Like my father says, “everyone thinks their saved in their own believes”. 🙂
See what I mean?
Xavier,
I don’t quite see what you apparently mean …. what do you mean?
hi all,
to get back to the topic / article and its headline … “Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom”
None of the scriptures mentioned in this article prove that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the king (president, chief, or whatever) as a political leader of a political nation of Israel. As a matter of fact, Jesus quite clearly did NOT mean “political earthly national kingdom” or “political world empire” when he proclaimed the good news of God’s rule … for “scriptural proof” (as some of you call it) consider – for example – the sermon on the mount (Mt 5 – 8 )!
Also note, that Jesus did speak about having come to fulfill the OT Law … and yet, he still did NOT proclaim himself to be a political king over a political Israel nation or a world empire !! Thus, the sermon on the mount already clearly shows that Jesus’s gospel of God’s rule was NOT about a political rule, and it also clearly shows that Jesus did NOT understanding the fulfillment of OT prophetic statements about the coming rule of God to be earthly and political in nature.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
Finally some “scriptural proof” to contend with. 🙂
How about Matthew 5.5: “the meek [humble] shall inherit the earth”. Citing Psalm 37 and many other references:
This last quote from the prophet Isaiah mentions the often cited “holy Mountain of YHWH” in reference to “earth/land”. What is it?
Mark C.,
do you see how you go for one particular statement which seems to support your idea about an earthly future world empire, earthly nation of Israel with Jesus as king etc ….. when the passage itself does not even directly speak about a future kingdom nor is it worded as if it defined the future kingdom as being “the land”, etc …?
Take some time to read the sermon on the mount as a whole and notice that it is NOT about a political kingdom, nation or world-empire … and then endeavour to understand the one passage in light of the many clear verses of that sermon …
Wolfgang
Just quoted you parts of Psalms, Wisdom literature and prophets. How is this not representative of a pars pro toto?!
Xavier,
did you not notice that those passages from Psalms., Wisdom literature and prophets are NOT even part of the sermon of the mount which I am talking about?
It may be helpful to exercise some mental discipline to concentrate on what is being discussed rather than letting one’s mind “wander all over the place” …
Wolfgang,
Please refrain from the snide personal comments.
Wolfgang
I guess all of the NT writers are guilty of that when they start citing or referencing their Hebrew Scriptures. Or do you think their writing out of their ***?!
The article never claimed that the Scriptures quoted were proof of what the kingdom of God meant. The few references there are refer to the necessity of believing the message of the kingdom, in contrast to the message of many contemporary evangelists who have reduced the message of salvation to just belief in the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of Jesus.
Similarly, all of the references to the kingdom of God in the Sermon on the Mount are simply speaking of who would inherit it and how to enter it. They say nothing about the nature of the kingdom, so like the reference in the Lord’s prayer in previous comments, they neither prove nor disprove the literal nature of the kingdom.
The nature of the kingdom is clearly spelled out in the OT, especially the Prophets, and those to whom Jesus spoke knew the Hebrew Scriptures Prophets and understood what the kingdom was. Neither Jesus nor the apostles taught that the understanding of the kingdom derived from the Prophets had been misunderstood, or was to be understood in a new way. You can’t just separate the Gospel records from their OT foundation, including those verses that Xavier quoted.
Nevertheless, there are a number of references in the Gospels which do point to the nature of the kingdom being in line with the Hebrew Scriptures. They are all referenced in The Kingdom is Near.
MarkC (#65) – I’ve started going through your site. Thanks! One day, I’d like to do a website devoted to God. I’m envious – but not covetous 🙂
DT (#66) – yes I need to remember that NIV (my usual source because it is used at our church) is not ‘gospel’ so to speak 🙂
Mark,
No, actually *I* wasn’t talking about two choices, much less the ones you listed. What I say I’ve read in the NT was that Jesus would return during the lifetimes of the apostles and Christians of the 1st century. I am talking in no way about the nature of the “kingdom” or anything like that, nor about the absence of an intermediary period between his departure to “heaven” and his return from it.
Yes, the intermediate period ended after their existence ended, and it was pretty much pointless to wait for it. They hoped and believed they will see him return as he said he would, but they were simply wrong. Their hopes dashed by the cruel reality. Jesus hasn’t come then, and will not come, ever. I think being late a couple of a thousand years pretty much guarantees it.
And yes the OT prophecies didn’t come to pass, another failure in a string of other failures – because it’s all just wishful thinking.
Wolfgang,
Sorry buddy, I feel your pain. The reason I can see that the return of Jesus was meant for the 1st century is that I got rid of my assumed religious ideas, and read the NT writings *as they were written*, without feeling the need to constantly explain away embarrassing facts. If Jesus’ words show he will return in the lifetimes of the apostles, I simply take it as it is and that’s it. I don’t mind staring reality in the face, in fact I owe it to myself to do so.
Xavier
Well I try to avoid talking to dead people, so why don’t you tell Geza Vermes what the “Apostle Peter” says in 2 Peter? Here’s what he would answer you:
(pages 111-113)
To this I would add that the lack of eschatological impulse in 2 Peter is in direct contradiction with 1 Peter (whose Greek btw, is far too good to be the work of an ‘uneducated and common’ Galilean fisherman (Acts 4:13)), which says:
And then Luke has Peter in Acts 2 saying those were the last days. Go figure 🙂
So there you go. But anyway, regardless of what “2 Peter” has to say in this matter, it cannot erase the fact that Jesus told his apostles he will return in their lifetimes and people (and the Sanhedrin in particular) will see him coming with the clouds; that the writers of the NT – from Paul to James, to the author of Hebrews, to the epistles of “John” and to the Apocalypse – had eschatological expectations repeating again and again that Jesus is near, the end is near, the end is near and the end is near. “In just a little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay”. Nothing further from the truth.
Mark C.
In msg. #82 you said, “Reading back over this debate I am reminded of why I hate religion.”
I also hate religion. Especially when people say that if you don’t see things the way they see them, then you are not really a Christian. Whenever I tell people that I don’t believe that God/Yahweh took on a human form and came down to earth to dwell with us, the reaction is typically one of, “Then how can you call yourself a Christian?”
Just today I met a new Christian (extremely enthusiastic about God and his son Yeshua) who was telling me about how there is going to be a world government and everyone is going to be forced to wear the mark of the beast, and anyone that refuses will be killed or jailed. He went on to say that any Christian that puts the mark of the beast on their body will be condemned to hell.
I told him very respectfully that I didn’t believe any of that and the look he gave me was just incredible. From the look I got I’m sure he has doubts about whether I am even actually a Christian. I try to be respectful and humble, but there are so many Christians that think that if you don’t agree with them about this or that, then you can’t possibly be a real Christian.
I wish that people could be more tolerant of each others differences…
JohnE
What pray tell are you doing wasting your time on a Christian forum such as this?
And please do not tell me you like some of what Jesus has to say.
For any like-minded Christians…keep the faith, regardless!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-IdWYsjFOg
Xavier,
how is it your business what forums I frequent and how do I spend my time? Why don’t you rather stick to the subject?
JohnE.,
Reading the NT writings *as they were written* is a very good idea … not only for NT writings, but for any type of writing. What I do not quite understand, as I am reading what you wrote *as you wrote it*, how you mean the part “the return of Jesus was meant for the 1st century”? How was the return of Jesus (which you then say, did not happen) meant for the 1st century?
But you don’t take it as it is …. You actually say later on that Jesus was wrong and thus claim that in fact the things written were not as they were written.
Staring reality in the face is not bad either …
So then, what is the reality with these matters? was Jesus simply mistaken and taught ignorantly a false assumption on his part as a God inspired truth? was Jesus knowingly teaching falsely? did Jesus never even say any of these things and the writers of the gospel records were telling false stories?
Or is it that both Jesus and those who wrote his words were correct, and people who read it later on misunderstand, for example, because they take expressions and statements literally which use figurative apocalyptic language? Did Jesus mention certain events in direct connection with his return/coming, for example, regarding the city of Jerusalem and the temple? Did such events happen in the near future and toward the end of the life of some of those who did hear him and who did still live at that time in the 1st century?
I am trying to understand your view on these things, thus I have asked the above questions … I would very much appreciate if you would just go down the line and answer the questions, as that would certainly help me to understand what you are saying.
Thanks … cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
I have heard this for decades from various groups … but, pray tell, how can it be that keeping several kinds of different faiths (since each group seems to have their own faith, partly contradicting another group’s faith) is the thing to do, regardless?
Each one of those herolds the “like-minded Christian” tune … would it not be better, if they each realized that they might just be wrong in the first place with some of their statements of faith, and that it would be becoming to change and acknowledge one’s error ?
Just because one calls oneself by a certain name (even “Abrahamic faith”) doesn’t guarantee that one has it right, does it?
JohnE.,
Indeed, the many passages are rather clear, aren’t they?
Now, I would ask whether there are certain events mentioned by Jesus and the apostles which would happen at the time of and in connection with Jesus’ coming and which could be seen or documented? I would further ask, about what “end” was Jesus speaking … was it the end of planet earth? the end of a particular age in God’s dealings with man? the end of something else? did in fact a certain biblical age come to its end in the 1st century AD? did in fact some events Jesus spoke of come to pass which have been documented, for example, in secular history?
See above … I would not quite as easily as you write off those passages as being in the category of “nothing further from the truth”! It seems to me rather that common assumptions about “Jesus’ coming at the end of the world” and about what people usually have in mind will happen are the reason for making the above scriptural statements look as if they were in error, when in reality, those assumptions could very well be in error and therefore the conclusion that the biblical statements are in error is wrong.
JohnE
Because you obviously have nothing edifying to share with us and I do not take too kindly to mocking or ridicule by the likes of you.
If you really do not like the faith just leave!
Wolfgang
I referred to the faith most of us in the forum, and many others around the world who see things as we do, share. We obviously do not! To each his own though like I said, “everyone is saved in their own faith”.
Sure and pigs will fly one day. 😛
Not exactly but someone has to be. Your choice and hopefully you’ll get it right.
Mark C.,
since you seem to be the moderator or a moderator, I think it’s about time to encourage Xavier to refrain from his snide personal comments (cp. how he is getting back both at me and JohnE) … seeing that he indeed does direct them personally, whereas before I made a general comment and you got back at me as IF I had made a personal comment …
Xavier,
why do you think you have to display such arrogance in the manner you do here? I would think it would be far better to show fruit of the spirit, such as meekness, gentleness, longsuffering, patience …
Wolfgang
You know all you have done is argue from silence. As Mark and I have repeatedly asked you to provide scripture for your argumentation. What little you scripture you have provided [Mat 5?] really proves the point.
I really wish I had known your stance before or during our meeting in Germany. Now we do I guess.
As for JohnE and his detrimental comments regarding the faith, while you may not think much of them I thought they were in very poor taste. Just pointing that out. I really do not see why you guys are wasting time and energy on something we vehemently disagree with.
I do not have a problem arguing from scripture but that has not been the case on this topic.
Xavier,
now how does your post #106 answer the question about why you think you have to display such arrogance in the manner you do here?
Do you really think that what you are saying is valid reason for being arrogant and making snide remarks about others?
what is that supposed to mean or indicate? how would you have behaved then?
Wolfgang
You really have been off-topic from the start and now its getting beyond the page so…once again if your unwilling [or unable] to deal with the topic at hand with clear scripture references there is really no point to this.
Don’t worry I was not suggesting anything vicious just a point of fact that talking face to face is better than through a forum like this, where people start misreading and misinterpreting others too easily.
Xavier,
I am not convinced that Wolfgang is right about his spiritual kingdom idea. But he certainly is entitled to his own opinion. When you first come on this site there is a paragraph that welcomes people who might disagree with our opinions.
It says, “The views expressed by posters and commentators are not necessarily endorsed by Living Hope International Ministries. Feel free to disagree with us as we all work together to discover the truth of Scripture.”
For some reason you find it necessary to insult people and tell them to leave, just because they disagree with you. John E is obviously struggling with his faith and instead of caring, like Wolfgang and trying to communicate with him, you just tell him to leave. Go away. We Christians don’t have time to deal with people who are struggling with their faith.
We have much more important things to do like insult each other about whether the coming kingdom of God is spiritual or not…
DT
I may be wrong but it did not sound to me like he was “struggling with his faith”. He made that much clear back in post #96.
He then went on to belittle and attack the person of the Apostle Peter [“I do not talk to dead people”] and his letter. Did you actually read his posts in full?!
I am all for welcoming people who are legitimately seeking dialogue to further their faith. But, again I may be wrong but JohnE has obviously made it clear that he is not one of those.
What exactly makes you think he, or Wolfgang for that matter, are “struggling with their faith”? Careful they don’t accuse you of being arrogant as well by saying that. 🙂
Gentlemen,
The purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas. We must ALL refrain from personal attacks, judgments, or snide remarks. We are most likely not going to convince each other, so if there are disagreements, they should be about the subject at hand, and not about the motives or heart of the individual making them, since only God knows the true heart of a person. If the subject is so volatile that you feel you can’t discuss it calmly, take some time to relax before posting. There is no profit in lashing out at someone for their beliefs. And if you don’t foresee any profit in continuing the discussion, let it drop.
Rom. 12:18 “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”
Mark C.
Agreed. Thanks to all for the fiery exchange.
Xavier,
You asked, “What exactly makes you think he, or Wolfgang for that matter, are ‘struggling with their faith’?”
It says in 1st. Peter 3:15, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, -‘ALWAYS’- being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Instead of making a defense of the hope that is within you, you simply told John E to go away.
Wolfgang, on the other hand, tried to engage him by asking why he believes certain things, so that he could understand where he is coming from. If John E is willing to answer Wolfgang, then maybe he and others could challenge some of John E’s ideas, and give to him a defense of the hope that is within us.
BTW – I didn’t mean to imply in any of my postings that Wolfgang is struggling with his faith. It appears to me that his faith is quite strong. The fact that he was able to work with you and Anthony and the others to put on the “One God Conference” even though he disagrees with some of your beliefs, seems to demonstrate a very mature (unselfish) faith.
At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
DT
We know that he who is not against us is for us. Having said that, I do not know exactly how this will advance our commission to preach the Gospel when we’re obviously split on what it actually means!
Xavier,
It’s not your business what I have to share. You don’t regulate what I write. Mind your own business, ok? And if you don’t “take too kindly” anything, even imagined “mocking and ridicule” “by the likes of” me, who cares? That’s simply your way of seeing things, so?
Oh that’s not nice 🙂 Unfortunately, there are a lot of self-professed “Christians” out there with exactly this type of attitude. A word of advice: it’s not very helpful for your religion. This way all the bias non-Christians have against Christianity is validated.
But again, mind your own business, ok? My participation in this forum is none of yours. I do not take orders from “the likes of you”, ok?
So what if you think “they were in very poor taste”? Furthermore, de gustibus non est disputandum Xavier.
No, that’s just your imagination. I did not “belittle and attack the person of the Apostle Peter”, I simply responded to your invitation to “tell that to the Apostle Peter”. Well, I’m not going to tell anything to “the Apostle Peter” because he’s dead, ok?
And with this I’m done talking to you on this diversion from the topic. I’ll simply ignore anything from you that’s not on the topic we were discussing until you interrupted, the returning of Jesus.
Thomas
Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate your intervention. You’re much closer to your master than some people.
Mark
Thank you for your input and request. I am calm, can’t get angry because of simple words written on a blog. I hope my exhortation towards Xavier to mind his own business is not seen as over the top. Thank you.
Wolfgang
I mean that when Jesus was talking about his return, he did not mean it would happen three thousand years later; he meant it was going to happen in the lifetimes of the apostles, therefore in the 1st century.
“I simply take it as it is” means I accept the fact that Jesus indicates he will return in the lifetimes of the apostles; I have no problem acknowledging he did indicate that. That he was wrong in his belief is another problem.
Yes.
I have no reason to believe that, no indication that would prompt me to do so. I think he was sincere.
That’s a harder one. Some religious scholars, like John P. Meier for example, seem to be so embarrassed by the failure of the Parousia that they end up arguing against the authenticity of Mark 13 for example. Probably in a quest to make Jesus infallible. This Catholic scholar argues that the real Jesus could not have said that because – among other things – he said no one knows that day or hour, not even him, and that Mark 13 is just Christian creation, the fruit of their yearning for Jesus’ return.
But I have no reasons to dismiss it as such. Unless a more primitive gospel of Mark is discovered, lacking chapter 13, I’m willing to accept it as Jesus’ words.
There are no indications that the signs of Mark 13 are meant to be symbolic, these are not parables. When Jesus says “there will be wars and famine” and the temple being destroyed, apostles persecuted, I have no reason to take it symbolically. But I have to ask myself if the reason behind one’s reasoning, that these things are meant to be taken only symbolically, is not simply the conviction that Jesus and the apostles cannot be wrong? I think it is. Because Jesus cannot be wrong and he was surely sent by “God”, and there’s no readily available proof that the Parousia did happen (but that’s impossible, of course it did, Jesus cannot be wrong), then it means the language is merely symbolical, and it did happen in some unusual, inconspicuous way. I’m afraid that’s just wishful thinking.
Yes he did.
Yes, some events did.
In which verse?
I appreciate your interest, and you’re welcome Wolfgang.
I honestly don’t think that JohnE is stepping out of line. In fact, I really appreciate his comments on Jesus’ return. No need to get offended if you disagree, just see it as a way of sharpening your sword, and a blessing to have someone like JohnE to come around with the stone to sharpen it upon.
I am on the fence with this issue among many others that have to do with Paul’s letters. It seems that in the last year or so I have seen all of these contradictions in the NT and I keep looking for a way to explain them away, rather than just seeing them for what they say and dealing with the consequences. Of course this doesn’t mean I have my mind made up.
JohnE, do you think that Jesus’ could have been talking about in Mark is the destruction of the 3rd temple and not the 2nd?
JohnE,
Perhaps I should have said, “If the subject is so volatile that you feel you can’t discuss it KINDLY….”
You may have been calm, but “mind your own business” is still not particularly kind. I couldn’t help wondering myself why you would want to post on a site like this if you believe that the Scriptures are not all inspired by God, and that Jesus was wrong about what he taught. But I won’t tell you to go away unless you violate the communication policy. But I still say, there is no profit in lashing out at someone for their beliefs, and especially, if you don’t foresee any profit in continuing the discussion, let it drop.
***
To anyone who would care to get back to the subject of the original post, I would remind you that it was not the return of Christ, but Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom.
Thank you Joseph.
I don’t think he could have been talking in Mark 13 about the destruction of another temple, other than the one in existence at the time of their chat. I have no indication of that, but I do have indications that they were talking about the temple in place: Jesus and the apostles were at the temple, and the apostles tell him about it: “Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!”
They were clearly talking about the temple of their times, the second temple.
Jesus answers saying “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down” – so he is clearly referring to that temple. And then they ask him what will be the sign that this is going to be fulfilled, and Jesus enumerates the signs, and finally says that in those days (of the signs), after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened etc, and people will see him coming on the clouds with great power and glory, the faithful gathered by the angels, etc. He tells the Sanhedrin that they too, will see him coming with the clouds.
Paul did not invent the imminent eschatology trend, he inherited it from the “palestinian” Jewish church, and ultimately from Jesus, as Geza Vermes says. Now although Vermes is a non-Christian Jew, he is an expert on him and is not anti-Jesus (and neither am I). He describes Jesus as a 1st-century Jewish holy man, and says that, properly understood, the historical Jesus is a figure that Jews should find familiar and attractive. I recommend his book “The Changing Faces of Jesus”, where he tries to peel off Jesus the layers originating with the Church, in order to have a more accurate historical view of him. He also discusses how Paul fits into this equation. It is illuminating, if I’m permitted to say so.
Mark
I cannot be kind with people like that. I am kind by default with kind people, but if one steps on my toes on purpose I’m going to get him a taste of his own medicine. “Mind your own business” is certainly not kind, but is not unkind either.
I agree 100%, and have not done so.
I’m not sure what you mean by “profit”, but I enjoy discussing things with people who don’t agree with me. I’m looking forward to their responses, because this is a way of testing the conclusions I’ve reached. Did I miss something? Did I overlook something? Are there reasonable counter-arguments that can make me change my mind? Of course I’m not too encouraged to change my mind when people tell me to go away (or resort to name-calling, like some other “Christian” here has done in the past), in fact it validates my position and makes me dig more into my trenches. If that’s the kind of response I get, a desperate one, then I understand there are really no counter-arguments to my position from that person. Failure to address my arguments head-on and instead resorting to personal attacks is a sign of throwing your hands up in the air and lashing out. That’s game over 🙂
You can, and you will, or you will not be welcome on this blog, according to the communications guidelines (see the link at the top of this page). Giving someone a “taste of their own medicine” is not a Christian attitude and results in escalation of hostilities on any blog. Remember “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Matt 5:44)
There are reasonable counter-arguments, but the whole discussion is getting away from the main subject of this thread, which was Jesus’ gospel of the Kingdom. Without a clear understanding of what Jesus taught, there is no way we can understand anything about the timing of his return. I believe that’s why there are so many poor attempts to make sense out of end-times prophecy out there – they start with the wrong foundation.
The discussions about the return of Christ and its timing that we have had in the past can be seen in the following threads (and there may be others). If you have specific points to discuss, perhaps they could be addressed under those threads which deal with them.
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/02/the-kingdom-is-near-part-1/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/04/the-kingdom-is-near-part-2/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/06/the-kingdom-is-near-part-3/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/08/mysteries-of-the-kingdom-part-1/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/09/mysteries-of-the-kingdom-part-2/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/11/the-new-covenant-part-1/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/12/the-new-covenant-part-2/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/19/in-anticipation-part-1/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/26/in-anticipation-part-2/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/11/09/this-generation-part-1-revised/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/11/16/this-generation-part-2/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/11/23/the-kingdom-redefined-part-1/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/11/30/the-kingdom-redefined-part-2/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/12/07/the-kingdom-redefined-part-3/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/05/03/old-testament-foundation-part-1/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/05/10/old-testament-foundation-part-2/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/05/17/old-testament-foundation-part-3/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/05/31/old-testament-foundation-part-4/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/06/14/old-testament-foundation-part-5/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/06/28/old-testament-foundation-part-6/
Mark,
When I’ll not abide by the guidelines you’re welcome to make me unwelcome. But despite being a moderator, you might want to choose your words more carefully next time. Telling somebody “you can and you will” is not a particularly “kind” tone. You cannot order me Mark. And fact is, I did not break the rules laid out in the guidelines. I have done nothing that can be categorized under the seven points listed under “What Is Considered Inappropriate”. If anybody will continue to make ad hominem attacks, I will continue to tell them “mind your own business”, and that is more than reasonable. If you don’t want to see that phrase, please make sure to stop people before they start harassing me. I’m not the problem here, somebody else has initiated this disruptive behaviour.
It doesn’t have to be a Christian attitude since I am not a Christian. I am not going to escalate anything, I’m stopping at “mind your own business” and “who cares”.
Where are the reasonable counter-arguments when I say that Jesus tells people of the first century they will see him return in their lifetimes?
And I don’t feel the return of Jesus is not part of the “gospel of the kingdom”, on the contrary, it is part of the “good news” that the gospel is. I’d also like to refer you to the guidelines that say under What Is Considered Inappropriate:
Surely you’re not saying the return of Jesus is completely unrelated to the gospel? Is it like pontificating about summer in poetic form on a post about Jesus’ resurrection? I don’t think so.
I’ve participated in some of those threads, and they are not exhaustive. And I know how things go, usually posting to old threads has almost no effect, it quickly disappears from the list of the last seven posts, and the discussion does not continue. If people want to talk about the return of Jesus, why not let them do that?
JohnE,
Consider this an official warning. My comment, “you can and you will” was in response to the belligerent tone of your remark, “I cannot be kind with people like that.” My original exhortation to all of you was to refrain from personal attacks, judgments, or snide remarks. Xavier responded with a simple, “Agreed. Thanks to all for the fiery exchange.” You, on the other hand, continued to fight about it, using more flagrant language even after Xavier stopped.
I cannot “order” you but I can enforce the policy of this blog, which is my job as a moderator. And in fact, you did break at least one of the rules laid out in the guidelines:
In addition, the beginning of the Biblical Guidelines for Communication lists a number of verses, “…to keep in mind regarding how the Bible teaches us to communicate with each other. Since kingdomready is a biblically based website we hold ourselves and others to these standards.”
Since this is a Christian site we expect Christian behavior, as illustrated by the guidelines, including the Scriptures quoted in it. If you choose to continue a flagrant and belligerent attitude, it will not be tolerated.
Further details have been sent to you via email.
***
As for the subject of this thread, it is about whether the Christian Gospel includes the news of the Kingdom, and what that meant to Jesus. Yes, the return of Christ is part of that good news, but as I said, without a clear understanding of what Jesus said the kingdom was about, there is no way we can understand anything about the timing of his return. I would prefer not to derail this thread and miss the most basic point.
BTW, Posting to old threads will bring the comments to the top. If anyone responds, it will continue to be on top.
John E.,
I agree … I would say that Jesus taught in his gospel message that God’s rule would be finally established at the time of his return, and that it would be at the end of the then existing biblical age with Israel as a nation and its OT Law based system of worship centered at the physical temple at Jersualem.
The point is not about whether the signs are symbolic or not, but that the language describing the signs is using figurative apocalyptic language.
Now, Jesus’ words about “wars and famines” came to pass in the 1st century, climaxing in the events connected with the Jewish revolt and the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus’ words about the apostles being persecuted did come to pass … And so did all other predictions he made concerning signs and events and his coming. BUT we must not make the mistake of thinking that various descriptions where he used apocalyptic language regarding his return/coming are meant in a literal sense … or does anyone here seriously think that the man Jesus will sit on a cloud (perhaps sort of like the movies, where some folks travel on “a flying carpet”) and fly through the skies and then land on his cloud somewhere near Jerusalem??? Thus, when Jesus speaks about they will “see him come on the clouds”, it is OBVIOUSLY not meant in a literal sense because such an understanding is “luny tunes” and in itself makes no sense …
Wolfgang,
See, this is why I said I would rather concentrate on the foundation of the kingdom gospel. Trying to interpret what Jesus said about the end times without fully understanding the basics of his message results in compounding of error.
First, you are not using the term “age” the way the Bible uses it. We’ve been over and over this a thousand times, but the end of the Old Covenant is not called the end of the age in the Bible. The two ages are clearly defined in the Bible.
Second, Jesus’ words about wars and famines, and about persecution, did indeed come to pass, and have continued to come to pass for the last two thousand years. He said that would be the case, “but the end is not yet.” But as for your statement, “so did all other predictions he made concerning signs and events and his coming,” this is most definitely not true. He clearly said that the Great Tribulation would be precipitated by the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel, and that immediately after those days there would be signs in the heavens and the Son of Man would be seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. These events are inextricably linked and no interpretation of prophecy fits with Scripture without this succession.
You can’t just decide what’s literal and what’s figurative. A literal interpretation of those signs fits with those hundreds of OT prophecies you still continue to ignore. And before you call something “loony tunes” it would benefit you to give a full consideration of the subject. FYI, several different prepositions are used with reference to Jesus and the clouds.
The problem, I believe, stems from your insistence that the overall scope of the Bible has to do with life in a “spiritual realm” rather than life on earth. In fact, it is the very abandonment of the Hebrew thought of the Old Testament that resulted in the loss of understanding of the kingdom in the first few centuries of the Christian era. This is why it is imperative to deal with the words of the Prophets in order to get a foundational grasp on what Jesus meant by Kingdom of God.
Mark C.
Agreed. Same thing happened with Theology and Christology.
Following are comments that ought to serve as a much-needed guide to all our thinking about the Kingdom:
To split up, as it were, Jesus’ clear teachings regarding the signs of the end of the age by spiritualizing some and agreeing with the “literal sense” of others, is exegetical suicide in my view. This is the same problem we face with a Christendome that has split up the Jesus of the Bible into more than 30 000+ different interpretations/denominational bodies. All taking here and there from his person!
Mark C.,
basically ignoring (by re-interpreting it to now already have been lasting for almost 2 millenniums .. double the time that the supposed future world empire with Jesus as king at Jerusalem will last?) what Jesus said about the end of the age will however result in fully understanding the basics of his message? who is compounding error upon error here?
As far as I can read, the apostles and writers of NT scriptures regarded themselves to have already been “in the kingdom” … yet, you try to tell us that the kingdom has not even come as of yet in our day and time which is roughly 1900 years later.
Also, did not Paul already teach on his itinerary about Jesus being king (as can be seen from what he and his coworkers were accused of doing .. cp Acts 17:7)? Paul did not teach that Jesus was in the distant future to be reigning as king at Jerusalem, did he?
See, neither Jesus himself nor anyone else among the apostles and disciples ever taught or wrote about Jesus coming back to the city of Jerusalem in far away future day to be enthroned and crowned king over Israel to take over and to actually not only be king of the nation of Israel but to overthrow all governments in all countries to be the world empire king …
Also, Jesus also never said anything about being sort of “president elect” or “king in waiting”, did he? Nor did Jesus say anything about a double meaning “kingdom”, along the lines of your “could also” idea from a previous post …
So then, who is compounding error upon error?
Now, from where would such ideas then stem ?
Mark C.,
well, according to your interpretation of “age” in the Bible, there is an “evil age” and a “good age” … which is NOT at all how the Bible speaks of “ages”.
While I also do not advocate “dispensationalism” and a division of ages as is often seen in works by authors holding to dispensationalist views, I do however recognize that the Scriptures do NOT speak of just 2 ages, an “evil age” and a “good (or “perfect”, or whatever else you want to call it) age”.
For one, there are obviously more than just 2 ages mentioned or defined in the Bible … BUT, let’s say there are only 2: Since you obviously take “this present evil age” to be one of your 2 biblical ages, do you include the time frame or age of the “original paradise” as part of this “present evil age”? or was that time (age?) defined as not being “evil” but rather “very good”?
Wolfgang,
You will never understand my viewpoint as long as you continue to ignore the Old Testament foundation. There is really nothing else to say.
Mark C.,
well, if you have been misunderstood concerning your 2 ages theory, then you should clear up the misunderstanding and answer my above questions …
I do not ignore the OT foundation … I actually took it into account in my comments above concerning your “2 biblical ages” theory. What seems to be the case however is that your viewpoint about 2 biblical ages is not taking the OT foundation into account?
Mark,
I have emailed you a response.
Now, about the “good news” of Jesus’ return, since I was expecting somebody to ask me where in the Bible does it say what I said, and nobody did, I will do so here, with additional commentary.
Some Jews at the beginning of the first century were really certain God will very soon intervene in Israel’s history in a final, ultimate way. Before Jesus, there was John the Baptist. He says:
Matthew 3:7-12 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance. 9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I.I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
The “coming wrath” is almost here – even now, the ax that will cut the trees is at their root.
Jesus shared John’s expectations regarding the imminent unfolding of the eschatological drama. He preaches:
Mark 1:15 “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”
The time when God’s promises are going to be fulfilled is now. The Kingdom is at hand. It is so near that “some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power” (Mark 9:1).
It is clear that Jesus’ complex prophecy preserved in Mark 13 was destined to be fulfilled in the time of the apostles. One needs to remember that the signs Jesus gives – including wars, famine, persecution, etc – are signs intended to show the destruction of the temple is about to happen:
Mark 13:1-4 As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, “Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!” 2 Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple area, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be when all these things are about to come to an end?”
And then the signs follow. The destruction of the temple happened in the 1st century, so the signs are supposed to describe events happening before 70 C.E. Notice also how Jesus’ words indicate the signs will be witnessed by Peter, James, John, and Andrew:
Mark 13:7 When you hear of wars and reports of wars do not be alarmed
After mentioning the wars, earthquakes and famines, Jesus continues unperturbed:
Mark 13:9 “Watch out for yourselves. They will hand you over to the courts. You will be beaten in synagogues. You will be arraigned before governors and kings because of me, as a witness before them.
And so on. These four disciples are supposed to witness all the signs in Mark 13, right up to the last one:
Mark 13:24-30 “But in those days after that tribulation the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from the sky, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory, 27 and then he will send out the angels and gather (his) elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of the sky. 28 “Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 In the same way, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the gates. 30 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
So the disciples must learn a lesson from the fig tree. When Peter, James, John, and Andrew see all the signs, including wars, famine, etc, the sun, moon and the stars darkened and the powers in the heavens shaken, they should understand that Jesus is near, the time to see him coming in power and glory is imminent. It was guaranteed that they will see him because “some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power” (Mark 9:1). Even the Sanhedrin will see Jesus coming with the clouds:
Mark 14:62 ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’
So the generation that sees the signs Peter, James, John, and Andrew see “will not pass away until all these things have taken place”. It will all to happen in the lifetime of 1st century people.
Matthew agrees, saying “When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (10:23).
So the apostles will flee from city to city, but Jesus will come before they would finish all cities. Luke also indicates that the signs were to be seen by the disciples themselves:
Luke 21:28 But when these signs begin to happen, stand erect and raise your heads because your redemption is at hand.”
Clearly, the apostles would experience redemption soon after theses signs occur. Jesus will return on the clouds, the kingdom of God will be restored on earth.
Apostle Paul
Paul too, followed in the steps of early Christian imminent eschatology tradition. He believed God would soon put an end to this world, and so, for example, unmarried Christians were better off not looking for a wife so that they could “secure undistracted devotion to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32,35). As for those Christians who already had a wife, Paul advises them:
1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;
The time was shortened, so married Christian was not to be “concerned about the things of the world, to please his wife” (vs. 33), but instead be “concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord” (vs. 32). He continues:
1 Corinthians 7:30-31 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
In other words, for Paul, the 1st century Paul, the time of this world has been shortened, the form of this world is passing away. For him, their times were the end times, Christians then living were going to experience the end of their world.
He firmly believed that “The Lord is near” (Philippians 4:5). He and the Romans were “waiting eagerly for [their] adoption as sons, the redemption of [their] body”. “We wait eagerly for it” he wrote (Romans 8:23-25). Even more specifically:
1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.
Paul and his brothers were eagerly awaiting their own redemption, eager for Jesus to return from heaven, expecting all these to happen in their lifetimes. He expresses the same belief on various occasions:
Romans 13:11-12 Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to US than when we believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Paul and the Romans were soon to be saved, the dark times they were experiencing were almost gone, their salvation imminent.
1 Corinthians 15:51-52 Behold, I tell you a mystery; WE will not all sleep [die], but WE will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
Though not every early Christian will die, all Christians, Paul and the Corinthians included, would have their body changed when the dead will be resurrected. Paul expected that the eschatological resurrection would happen during their lifetimes – some of them would still be living when that grandiose event would happen. He again expresses the same belief when writing the Thessalonians:
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that WE who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then WE who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so WE shall always be with the Lord.
Paul evidently believed that he and the Thessalonians will live to see the return of Jesus, will see how he resurrects the faithful, and experience meeting Jesus in the air, and being with him forever. All this during their lifetime, happening in the first century. The next chapter says essentially the same thing:
1 Thessalonians 5:2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake YOU like a thief;
The Thessalonians were to stay “awake” (vs. 6) because Jesus comes as a thief (when no one is expecting that is), and so the day of Jesus’ coming would catch the Thessalonians by surprise if they were not spiritually alert. The were to experience themselves Jesus’ coming.
Returning to 1 Co 15, the reader gets the same idea of Paul believing the resurrection of the faithful is imminent, by paying attention to the fact the Jesus is “the first fruits of those who are asleep”; when it comes to the order in which the resurrection occurs, “each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming”.
The image is striking, because when the harvest begins, the first fruits are harvested, and the workers partake of them celebrating the start of the harvest. Everyone knew that when the first fruits are already harvested, the rest of the crop follows in no time. Paul was intimating that Jesus’ coming and the resurrection of the faithful, are right around the corner, ready to happen any time now.
The Johannine Tradition
1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
For “John”, the ultimate sign that shows their time as being “the last hour” is the many antichrists. The Revelation also contains numerous indications that there is little time left:
Revelation 1:1,3 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place […] Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
Revelation 22:7 “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”
Revelation 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
The events described in the Revelation are to happen soon. Jesus is coming soon.
Other NT writers
James 5:8 You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. 9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.
1 Peter 4:7 The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.
Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
Hebrews 10:35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence; it will have great recompense. 36 You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised. 37 “For, after just a brief moment, he who is to come shall come; he shall not delay.
For the authors of the epistle of James, 1 Peter and Hebrews, Jesus’ coming was near, the end is imminent; just one more brief moment and Jesus will come, he will not delay one moment. The reader notices that the early Christian community was already growing restless, so there was a need for encouragement to hold on, “be patient”, “do not throw away your confidence; it will have great recompense. You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised”.
By the time 2 Peter was written, the situation has already worsened. Some Christians were openly asking “Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:4)
Hi Wolfgang,
Why mustn’t we take it literally his language regarding his return/coming? To you, a 21st century man, Jesus riding a cloud may be looney tunes, but why should the ancients look at it in the same way you do? It sounds naive now, but the ancients in general *were* kind of naive, and believed all kind of things that to us today look as looney tunes. In fact, a cloud is already mentioned by the ancients when they describe Jesus ascending to heaven, don’t they? Is that figurative?
Jesus’ words do not indicate he switched from literal to the figurative, there’s no indication in that direction. That’s why I emphasized I take things in the NT *as they were written*. If Jesus says “people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory”, I take that as it is written, since no where can I find from Jesus an amendment that “this is all figurative”. As far as the text goes, people will see him in clouds with great power and glory, every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all peoples on earth will mourn because of him.
And as I said, when somebody proposes a hypothesis, I look for the basis of it. What is causing this person to come up with this? Has this person found something in the text that prompts him to make this statement? Or is this the result of apologetic impulse, a bid to make Jesus and the biblical promises right, defend the faith?
JohnE.,
thanks for your post #129 with a rather detailed summary of various scriptures which address the timing of the coming/return of the Lord … maybe some will realize the truth of it now that you have presented it in this manner, putting the many scriptures from various NT writers which speak to the timing of the coming of the Lord together into one package.
In some old threads I had mentioned a few of these as well … but at the time the proponents of a literal earthly kingdom basically did not see the rather simple truth given and instead held to some rather complicate interpretations of what terms such as “shortly”, “soon”, “quickly” would mean ….
Cheers,
Wolfgang
JohnE,
thanks for your response, I do enjoy reading your dialog on this subject. I also understand why some may be uncomfortable with this subject.
So, do you think that after the early Christians knew that Christ didn’t come in the apostles lifetimes, that the understanding on the day of his coming became more figurative instead of literal?
In other words, when do you think that the overall opinion changed from a literal to figurative return in accordance to the time? Is there early writings, besides the NT, that support this change in interpretation?
JohnE
So the “signs” happened but not the Second Coming, the KOG restored on earth?
I do not see how you can stretch or put a gap between “the signs of the end of the age” [great tribulation] and the coming of the Son of Man [Jesus] on the clouds of heaven with power etc. see Matthew 24.29!
So when did this happen?
Woilfgang
Where and how was the Second Coming properly “addressed” in post #129? I thought it went into great detail regarding 2nd Temple people being witness to “the signs of the end of the age” but not the actual return of Jesus, which in turn inaugurates a literal KOG on earth.
First of all, there is no argument that the apostles and disciples were expecting the return of Christ in their lifetimes. But as their lives drew to a close, they realized that was not the case.
Paul: “As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come.” II Tim. 4:6
Peter: “…Since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.” II Peter 1:14
However there is a big difference between what they believed and hoped for, and what Jesus actually taught. So none of the references from the other NT writers proves anything about the timing of the return.
Jesus said on several occasions that the kingdom of God was “at hand.” This no more proves that it must have happened within the lifetimes of his disciples than the OT Prophets who declared that the Day of the Lord was “at hand” in their time (Isa.13:6; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Zeph.1:7). Words like “quickly” and “at hand” are relative terms. No matter how much time has passed, we are still closer than we were. (“Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” – Romans 13:11).
Regarding Jesus’ statement that, “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1), they must be read in context, as there were no chapter breaks in the original manuscripts. Continuing to read in context, we see that this was actually fulfilled a few verses later, when Peter, James, and John went up the mountain with Jesus and saw the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-9). This was a vision (Matthew 17:9) of Christ’s glory which will come to pass when he returns to reign in his Kingdom. Relative to that vision, Peter specifically states, in II Peter 1:16-18, that they were eyewitnesses of his majesty, related to his power and coming (parousia).
Any interpretation of Christ’s words which infers that he taught them anything about when he would return flatly contradicts his clear statement that he did not know when he would return.
Matt. 24:36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Mark 13:32 “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Some have claimed that he meant only that no one knows the exact time (day and hour), but that the general time-frame was at hand. But in Mark he follows the statement, “of that day or hour no one knows” with an even more specific declaration: “Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come” (Mark 13:33). The Greek word for “time” here is kairos, a word used for a season or appointed time. His answer to the disciples’ question of when the end would come was that nobody knows the time, but the specific signs, when they come, will indicate that it is approaching.
As for Jesus’ discourse in Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, we must read the whole thing in context. The first part of Jesus’ answer speaks of wars and rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes. These are things that would happen from Christ’s time onward, as opposed to what would happen immediately before the end. They are described as “the beginning of sorrows.” The word literally means “birth pangs” and is translated as such in the NRSV and the NASB. The beginnings of birth pangs are to go on for a while, increasing in frequency and intensity towards the end as labor pains do. But Jesus said that while these are happening the end would not be yet.
In contrast, in the second part of Jesus’ response, he says that when they see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel, that would indicate the beginning of the end. And as I stated before, he said that immediately after those days there would be signs in the heavens and the Son of Man would be seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. This ties in with the Old Testament Prophecies again – you just can’t get away from them!
BTW, the fact that he says “you” doesn’t prove that it must be in their lifetimes. “You” can be used in a general sense as well. Since he didn’t know when these events would happen, and at that time may well have thought that it might be in their lifetimes, what better word should he have used? But in no place did he definitively say, “this will happen in your lifetimes” – if he had he would have contradicted his own statement that he did not know -Â and therefore in no place was he wrong in what he declared. He said what would happen, and he said nobody knows when it would happen.
The only place in the NT that definitively establishes anything about the timing of the events surrounding Christ’s return is this discourse in which he links together the Abomination of Desolation, the Great Tribulation, and the signs in heaven accompanying the return of the Son of Man. And those cannot be fully understood without understanding their OT context and significance.
For any further details about Jesus’ statements regarding his return, see the Future Events section of my site, especially This Generation, which was reprinted on this blog in two parts, here and here.
When we see that the expected return had not happened by the end of the disciples’ lives, we are faced with two choices: either they were wrong, or it is still to come. The history of the Church reflects this. Some concluded they were wrong and redefined what the kingdom of God meant, but to do so they had to jettison all Hebrew thought, along with the Old Testament itself. A small remnant chose the latter, and more and more have discovered that possibility in the last couple hundred years. I choose the latter; you are free to choose whichever you like.
Mark C., do you think it is rather odd that for how much Yeshua spoke of the his return in the NT, the apostles still got it wrong? Or did they?
I’m thinking at this from a skeptics eyes and putting myself in their shoes. If I were an Apostle I think that message would be rather clear and I would not be mistaken of the context. Of course, misunderstandings happen, but it’s far fetched that most, if not all, of the Apostles got his return wrong. Perhaps they were told wrong. Perhaps Jesus is the greatest trick of Satan. I’m not claiming this, but we have to entertain the idea to know what we believe is truth. After all, there are many people from many faiths in the world that think that both you and I are mislead.
Wolfgang,
You’re welcome Wolfgang. If I realized it, then anybody can.
Yes, and you have to understand, it’s something that’s uncomfortable for their faith, as Joseph said, so redefinition of words is in order to get around rather clear (but unpalatable) statements. But I’ll get to that in a jiffy.
Joseph,
thank you for your appreciation. Unrelated to this subject, I need to say you were right about pacifism, although I was very much against at the time.
I’m sorry, I don’t know the answer to that question. I haven’t studied any non-NT early writings, my interest being restricted to the earliest documents – the NT ones. From the little I know, the church didn’t even try to transform Jesus’ return into a figurative one, my sense is that they just let it drop under the radar completely. You can see this today in mainstream Christianity: nobody ever, ever, mentions the “return of Jesus”. Most church-goers don’t even know Jesus is to “return”. As I see it, the failed Parousia is the biggest elephant in Christianity’s room.
Xavier,
Some signs did happen, some didn’t, and the second coming definitely didn’t, that’s where the problem is.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here, I do not “stretch or put a gap between “the signs of the end of the age†[great tribulation] and the coming of the Son of Man”. Why would I? Having said that, I notice that you call the great tribulation to be “the signs of the end of the ageâ€, distinguishing it thus from the signs of the temple being destroyed. The text doesn’t say that, in fact it says the opposite. The apostles would see the abomination standing in the temple, and then they are to flee to the mountains, because “a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will”. The apostles will witness the great tribulation. Then as you pointed to vs. 29, immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, the stars will fall from the sky, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
Mark,
I’m glad you recognize that. This is something other Christians obstinately refuse to admit, this is progress.
Not that some having recognized they were wrong would matter to much when it comes to Jesus having erred or not, but for the sake of accuracy: you are right about Paul, although not because of 2 Tim – to which most of the secular academia assigns a non-Pauline authorship – but because of Philippians 3:10-11, an epistle apparently written in the final stages of his life.
But I do not agree with Peter having changed his mind, 2 Peter is not written by him (and I presented above why). But again, it doesn’t really matter.
Ok, so now we have somebody wrong, the apostles and the disciples, but it’s all a misunderstanding: they didn’t properly understand Jesus. That means that some modern Christians, 20 centuries later, have a greater insight into what Jesus taught, than his direct and contemporary disciples and apostles. I must say, this should be considered quite astonishing. Furthermore, a saying comes to mind here, “You can’t eat your cake and have it too”. If the NT writers were wrong in believing and writing that Jesus is near and would come in their lifetimes, how are their writings still “inspired by God”? Did “God” inspire them to err, and lead others too into error?
Not so, it’s just that the OT prophets were wrong too, the “the Day of the Lord” was not at hand in their time. It is really unfortunate that your religion tries to redefine simple words as “at hand”, “quickly” and “near” – and this despite the fact that you are the same people accusing Trinitarians of redefining words in order to sustain their doctrine.
The truth is very simple. Words like “at hand”, “quickly” and “near” are not at all “relative” beyond their purpose, that is, to designate that something is in proximity. In normal everyday language, “at hand”, “quickly” and “near” will never mean and never meant a long period of time, that defeats the very purpose of the idea these words are meant to convey. “At hand”, “quickly” and “near” can never mean 2000 years, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply unreasonable, simply a pious invention. Especially since the NT itself uses these words in other places where nobody would ever dare to argue they do not mean what they say. This is a bit 1984-ish: war is peace, freedom is enslavement, isn’t it?
That’s quite right, there are no chapter breaks in the original manuscripts, but there are chunks of text where one idea ends and another starts. The counter-arguments to your position are the following:
– Mark 9:1 makes it clear it’s all about seeing that the kingdom of God has come with power, not about “a vision of Christ’s glory which will come to pass when he returns to reign in his Kingdom”.
– The language used by Jesus does not allow an application of these words to events that happened only six days later. He says “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see. Read in a natural way, the event Jesus announces cannot happen few days later, since a reference is made to the disciples death. That is, unless somebody thinks the disciples were about to die, or were very advanced in age, or were gravely ill. When you mean to tell somebody you are about to come in six days, you don’t tell them to expect you before their death, unless they’re in the hospital suffering from a terminal illness, or you intend to kill them shortly after. If six days are meant by Jesus, it is unnecessary to mention their deaths.
– There is a visible embarrassment when one looks at the evangelists who wrote after Mark and used him as source. They completely drop the phrase “kingdom of God has come with power“. Matthew says “until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”, and Luke has “until they see the kingdom of God”. It’s clear the apostles didn’t see that the kingdom has come with power, and so “with power” needs to go.
2 Peter being so into doing away the imminent eschatology, would not be a wonder in wanting to interpret Mark 9 in a non-eschatologic way. But even this pseudonymous epistle stops short of saying they’ve seen the kingdom come in power, it only says “we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” with reference to both the miraculous voice from heaven at his baptism, and the *words heard* on the mountain. The majesty here comes not from the shiny clothes and shiny face, but from the words of God. And no reference is made to a kingdom, much less to one having come with power. Because the writer mentions the baptismal voice from heaven after “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”, he clearly has in mind the “power” Jesus manifested manifested during his ministry, and his first “coming”.
No, the interpretation of Christ’s words which infers that he taught them something about when he would return does not contradict his clear statement that he did not know when he would return. The phrase “the day and hour” cannot be ignored, since it is clearly intended to designate an exact time. It’s not only “the day”, it’s “the day AND hour” for a reason, it narrows down the interval of time Jesus had in mind. The day and hour is “the time” (kairos) not known.
But there is no “first part” and “second part” in Jesus’ answer, or do you go by subtitles inserted into modern translations? There is nothing in the text indicating one part of the answer has finished, another one is starting.
“When they see”? Who’s they? The apostles right? There you have it, in their lifetimes, Jesus comes with the clouds.
“Getting away” from the OT prophecies is not an issue here, what exactly do you mean?
Yeah sure, but this general sense cannot exclude Jesus’ interlocutors, can it? You cannot exclude the apostles from “you”, since they are directly addressed by Jesus; he is talking primarily to them, and just afterwards, if you insist (although baselessly), secondarily to others. To say that he talks directly to them, responding to their question, but excludes them from “you”, would be quite astonishing. There are no indications as such, it would be just another pious invention. When he told the Sanhedrin they will see him coming with the clouds, did he mean future Sanhedrins, future generations of Jewish priests? He didn’t know there will be no such thing after 70 c.e.?
Since you are asking, here you are: a better way to say it would have been “other Christians, not you, but after thousands of years, will experience this”. But then I notice you don’t exclude the possibility that Jesus “may well have thought that it might be in their lifetimes”, that is, he might have been wrong.
He definitely said that, just not using those words. When you take all these statements together, the conclusion is inescapable:
“When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt 10:23)
The interlocutors are Jesus’ immediate disciples and the apostles, which anchors this saying in their lifetime. Israel is mentioned, which again anchors it in the same century.
“I am,†said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.†– Mark 16:62, addressed to the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death. This anchors the coming of Jesus with the clouds in the lifetime of the Sanhedrin members.
After mentioning the great tribulation, the sun darkened and stars falling, Jesus coming with the clouds, Jesus tells the apostles: “when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”. The apostles will experience the great tribulation and the his coming with the clouds. This again anchors these events in their lifetime.
Now pair these with Jesus’ statements that the kingdom is at hand, some apostles will not die before seeing the kingdom has come with power, and their setting in time is clear: the first century.
John E,
You said, “After mentioning the great tribulation, the sun darkened and stars falling, Jesus coming with the clouds, Jesus tells the apostles: “when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.â€. The apostles will experience the great tribulation and the his coming with the clouds. This again anchors these events in their lifetime.”
You know I’m just a layman, but I don’t understand why these words could not have been directed to future generations. Yeshua knew the Apostles would pass on these words to us, and that we would pass it on to our children, and grandchildren. To me it doesn’t necessarily prove that these events were going to happen in their lifetimes. Some of them might have believed that it was going to happen in their lifetime, but that doesn’t necessarily prove that Yeshua’s words were mistaken.
I recommend you have another look at “This Generation, Part 1 + 2”. These articles explain many of the apparent contradictions that you and Joseph have pointed out. Have a good night and God Bless…
Thomas, I’m a layman too, just like you.
We have no indication in the text that these words could have been directed to future generations. The need to say otherwise therefore stems from the desire to defend Jesus and the faith. Other than that, as I said above:
I’ve read those articles. I find them lacking objectivity and merit, but thank you for your input.
Joseph,
No they didn’t. Jesus said nobody knows and they believed him, although they thought it might be in their lifetimes.
JohnE,
First of all, despite opinions in academic circles, there is no conclusive proof that II Timothy or II Peter are not genuine, so it is beyond the scope of this debate. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.
No, as I said to Joseph, Jesus said nobody knows and they believed him. They’d only be wrong if they said he would definitely come in their lifetime.
As I said, they are relative terms, as even the words “proximity” and “long” are. How close is “in proximity”? How long is “long”? The corner store is “near” me, compared to London, England. But London is “near” compared to the moon. When we are talking about the Day of the Lord, “at hand” could just as easily be referring to how near it was with regard to what events had to happen. We’re talking about God’s timetable, not man’s. As I said, no matter how much time has passed, it is still nearer than it was, as you yourself quoted (â€Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed†– Romans 13:11).
The verse does not say they would see that the kingdom “has come.” It says they would see the kingdom coming in power. There is nothing in the verse about whether it would be the kingdom itself or a vision of the kingdom. But they go up the mountain and see the vision of Christ in his glory, which Peter later describes.
There is nothing “embarrassing” about the other evangelists choosing to omit the words “with power.” (Mark didn’t say, “kingdom of God has come with power“ as I mentioned.) You don’t know what was in their minds or why they chose to word it differently.
The word parousia when used of Jesus is always referring to his second coming. It is never used to refer to his first coming. Plus, “This is my beloved son” is not exclusively the “baptismal voice” since it was heard at the Transfiguration as well.
I wasn’t ignoring the phrase “day and hour.” I was pointing out that it doesn’t mean exclusively “exact moment as opposed to the general time” which is what some have claimed that he was saying nobody knows. He clearly says that of “the day and hour” AND of “the time” (kairos) nobody knows, not even himself. Therefore any interpretation of his words that claims he told them anything about the time contradicts these clear statements.
All you have to do is read it in context. In Matthew 24, the disciples ask him “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (verse 3). In verses 4-14 he talks about things that would happen from that time forward, i.e. wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, afflictions, false prophets, etc. He says that they are “the beginning of sorrows” (v. 8 ), and that they must come to pass, but “the end is not yet” (v. 6). But when we get to verse 15, he says that when they see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains… for then shall be great tribulation (v. 11). A distinction is made between what would happen from his time until the end (whenever it would be), and the specific event that would mark the beginning of the end.
We see the same thing in Mark 13. In verse 4, the disciples ask, “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?” In verses 5-13 we read of the beginnings of sorrows. Starting in verse 14, we read of the Abomination of Desolation, which he says is the specific event that would mark the beginning of the end.
We see nearly the same thing in Luke 21. In verse 7, the disciples ask, “when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?” In verses 8-19 we read of those things which must come to pass but the end is not yet. Starting in verse 20, we read of the armies compassing Jerusalem. Here we have a slight variation from what we read in Matthew and Mark. Some commentators have concluded that the armies surrounding Jerusalem is the Abomination of Desolation, and conclude that the siege in 70 AD was the fulfillment. But it doesn’t say that; it just says that when they see Jerusalem surrounded, they will know that the desolation is near. They are linked, but not identical. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus links the Abomination of Desolation with the evil tyrant of Daniel, and states that it will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation. And all three Synoptic Gospels have the time of Great Tribulation followed by signs in the heavens and the Son of Man coming in the clouds.
Furthermore, the events of 70 AD are not the only possible understanding of “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.” Revelation 11:2 links the holy city being trodden underfoot by the Gentiles with the Great Tribulation, and with the period of “forty-two months” (also referred to in Revelation 13:5). This trodding underfoot will end when the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. These things in Luke, like those in Matthew and Mark, are all linked to the prophecies in Daniel and Joel (and others), and refer to what will happen just prior to the end of the age marked by “signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars” (verse 25) followed by seeing “the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” (verse 27). While the events of 70 AD can certainly be viewed as a foreshadowing of God’s judgment, they are not the fulfillment of prophecies, since the other accompanying events did not occur.
The various events in history that have been suggested as fulfillment of prophecies are at best types or foreshadows of the events that the Prophets say are to take place. Several events in history are similar to parts of prophecies, such as Antiochus Epiphanes at the time of the Maccabees. These can be viewed as types or foreshadowings of the complete fulfillment. But when the complete sequence of events takes place, it will end with a complete, cataclysmic overthrow of the world’s systems, resulting in God’s Messiah reigning on earth. This is what the Prophets say, and any other attempt to interpret the Kingdom of God without taking the words of the Prophets into account fails miserably.
You are again reading that into it, since he has made it clear that nobody knows when it will happen, and therefore nobody knows exactly who will be there to see it.
It is very much an issue, especially with Wolfgang. He continually tries to interpret the meaning of the Kingdom of God without dealing with the vast amount of Scripture in the OT that defines it.
I’m not excluding them. Since he said that nobody knows when these things would happen, he is addressing those who heard him directly, and anyone else to whom it would apply.
I’m not sure what sort of indication you expect. We have no indication in the text that these words could not have been directed also to future generations. The “need” to say so stems from putting it together with his clear statement that nobody knows when it would happen.
Your suggestion would only work if he was saying it wouldn’t happen in their lifetimes, which he wasn’t saying. He said he didn’t know. It could be in a year; it could be in 100 years; it could be in 1000 years, or 2000 years; NOBODY KNOWS.
What part of “Nobody knows, not even me” do you not get? He would only have been wrong if he thought or said that it would definitely be in their lifetimes. Since he said he didn’t know, thinking it might be does not make him wrong.
If you read Matt. 10 in context, you find this has nothing to do with the timing of his coming. If you interpret it that way, it not only contradicts his clear statement that nobody knows when he will return, but also several other things. I deal with this verse in This Generation, but you wouldn’t be interested in that, since you have concluded that it is without objectivity and merit. Not much I can say to that.
JohnE
If we agree that the sequence of events regarding Matthew 24 is all “one chain of events/one package”, did the apostles witness the great tribulation? If so, did they witness the Second Coming?
John E,
In msg. #138 you said, “We have no indication in the text that these words could have been directed to future generations.”
You went on to say, “Yeah sure, but this general sense (of the word “you”) cannot exclude Jesus’ interlocutors, can it? You cannot exclude the apostles from “youâ€, since they are directly addressed by Jesus; he is talking primarily to them.”
Deuteronomy 18:15, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me FROM AMONG YOU, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—”
Moses is speaking to a certain group of people when he says, “from among you”, but these people their children and grandchildren ARE excluded. The word “you” was directed to distant future generations, even though Moses was saying this to a specific group of people. It would appear to me that when it comes to prophesies the word “you” does not have to apply directly to the people that are being addressed.
You also asked, “When he told the Sanhedrin they will see him coming with the clouds, did he mean future Sanhedrins, future generations of Jewish priests?”
I believe he meant future generations who would be reading these words.
In msg. #130, you also said, “…when somebody proposes a hypothesis, I look for the basis of it. What is causing this person to come up with this? Has this person found something in the text that prompts him to make this statement? Or is this the result of apologetic impulse, a bid to make Jesus and the biblical promises right, defend the faith?”
I would ask you to consider the possibility that your insistence that the word “you” has to be specifically interpreted to apply to the Apostles, and not just the future generations alive at the time, is the result of an impulse, a bid to make Jesus/Yeshua and the biblical promises appear wrong???
We all have our prejudices and preconceptions. The fact that Moses uses the word “you” to apply to distant future generations, excluding the people he was directly talking to, seems to show that this is the normal use of the word “you” in biblical prophesies.
I’m not an expert, but that’s just the way I see it…
Thomas,
Good point, about the quote from Deuteronomy. I would say that that use of “you” could be all inclusive, though. He was saying “from among you,” addressing the children of Israel, which would include those directly hearing him as well as future generations. Your point is still well made, that (especially) when it comes to prophesies the word “you†does not have to apply directly to the people that are being addressed.
Mark C.
Also note at the beginning where Moses says, “The LORD your God will raise up for YOU a prophet like me.” These people, their children and grandchildren, never got to hear any of Yeshua prophesies, but Moses said, “God will up for YOU a prophet like me”. Again the word you is used to describe a future prophet for a distant future generation, and excludes the actual people that Moses was addressing with this prophesy…
Marc,
And they did say that, as I quoted from all over the place in the NT. You know what the problem is? When these authors write something to their fellows, you effectively forget that these are 1st century readers, and proceed to say the authors had future generations in mind. Which is a bad methodology, it is getting rid of the context. When an epistle for instance says “the end is near”, or “the lord is near”, or “I am coming quickly”, it is addressed first and foremost to the *contemporary* audience. These documents are meant for the then-current community of believers. When Paul writes to the Thessalonians, he really writes to the 1st century Thessalonians, not centuries-later Thessalonians. When Jesus tells the apostles “you”, he really means “you to whom I am speaking to”, and I find it quite sad that I have to spell out the obvious. The NT documents are addressed to readers contemporary with their writers. Is this such a difficult thing to comprehend?
As I said, they are not at all “relative†[b]beyond their purpose[/b], that is, to designate that something is in proximity. You are breaking the meaning of “near” if you say you live near the Swedish city of Malmo, because you actually live in Seattle. And this is the mistake made when saying “near” or “at hand” or “quickly” can mean 2000 years. It cannot Mark. London may be “near” you when compared to the moon, but you in real life one never compares it to the moon – except in apologetic discussion. When 1st century people say “near” and “at hand” and “quickly”, it is compared to their their time. Again I find myself in the weird position of needing to state the obvious: For a 1st century person, the year of 2000 c.e. is not near, not at hand, it is *far away*. And so I find it really absurd that someone would go to great lengths to argue that the year 2010 can be considered in the range of a 1st century “near”, “at hand”, “quickly”. That’s redefinition of words Mark, they stop meaning what they are supposed to mean when you are applying your methods.
Well actually it does say that, you may want to check your Bible more closely. NIV says:
“before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power”
And NASB even says:
“until they see the kingdom of God after[!] it has come with power”
As you can see, there is something embarrassing because Mark *does* say “kingdom of God has come with power“ as I mentioned.
If you assert that “word parousia when used of Jesus is always referring to his second coming, it is never used to refer to his first coming.”, please go ahead and prove it. This includes 2 Pe 1:16 of course. In the end this doesn’t matter too much, because as I said, even this pseudonymous epistle stops short of saying they’ve seen that the kingdom has come in power, it only says “we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” with reference to *words heard* from God. According to 2 Pe, the majesty here comes from the words of God – not from the shiny clothes and shiny face. No reference is made to a kingdom, much less to one having come with power, so this 2 Pe verse is not germane to the subject of seeing that kingdom has come with power – unless you want to consider the *hearing* of the voice from heaven as *seeing* that kingdom has come with power.
I would have to agree with those “some”; “day AND hour” does designate a small unit of time. On the other hand, Jesus does not say “the day and hour†*AND* “the timeâ€. As I said, after he says nobody knows the day and/or hour, he re-iterates that they don’t know the time he comes. By refusing to account for the word “hour”, an even smaller unit of time than “day”, you are effectively ignore the meaning of this expression.
It certainly does not. The time is the one when the signs will be visible, and they will see those, meaning they will be alive – dead people usually see nothing as far as I know:
“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when[time] its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when[time] you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
That’s the whole point of giving out signs, because the exact day and hour is not known. *When* the apostles see the signs, they will know Jesus is right at the door.
No Mark, there’s no distinction from this time to that time, it’s all in one. You would have had a case if Jesus would have said “ok, these are the signs for the end of the temple: etc; and here are the signs for my return”. They’re all in one, and there is no indication that there’s this great length of time (thousands of years!) separating the destruction of the temple and Jesus’ coming. There is evidence to the contrary:
After “These are the beginning of birth pains.”, follows “You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues.” This is clearly referring to the times of the apostles, when Christians were flogged in the synagogues. Not just any Christians, but the apostles. Then after trials, family violence, “you will be hated etc”, comes “when you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong etc” and the great tribulation. There is nothing here to indicate we suddenly passed into the next 2000 years. The apostles were to experience the great tribulation, and “immediately after” that tribulation, Jesus comes with the clouds.
That’s “spiritualizing” Mark 13. These are two different books, written by different authors at different times, with their own theological outlook, please do not conflate them or say that the later written Revelation can shed light on what Jesus said decades ago about Jerusalem.
No, your statement is wrong. It is the “day and hour” that nobody knows. All should know by now when it will happen: right after they (the apostles) see the signs occur (remember the fig tree?).
But this (you and me discussing) is not about the “meaning of the Kingdom of God”.
So if you’re not excluding them, are you including them? Do you acknowledge the obvious that because he addresses the apostles, Jesus means at least the apostles?
I expect *any* indication. Like for example “you here and the generations after”, or “you and others after you”.
I just *naturally* – and I emphasize *naturally* – said that the apostles are to see these, because they are being addressed. I do not need to present proof that no future generations are referenced because YOU are the one claiming so. If you claim there are future generations involved here, present proof.
No, again, be more precise, he said he didn’t know *the day and hour* – the appointed time. Not that he simply didn’t know. Nobody knows if that would be a Friday 10.00am. But he knew well that the time is right after the signs will be witnessed by the apostles.
That is unkind. I would like to refer you to the guidelines.
And “Nobody knows, not even me†*the day and hour*.
No, you are wrong here. It’s not that he said he didn’t know whether it would be in their lifetimes. He didn’t know “the day and hour”. He said it would be in their lifetimes by telling them they would see the signs (right after which his coming occurs), and should raise their heads because their salvation is near, and that they will not finish running thru all cities of Israel because he will come before that happening. That’s in their lifetime, I can’t understand how a thing as simple as that cannot be understood.
Well that’s ironic, because the text itself says *clearly* it’s about the coming of Jesus! How can you say such a thing?
Xavier
We certainly agree on that. Did the apostles witness the great tribulation? I have no idea, were they alive when the destruction of the temple occurred? Does the religious idea of a “great tribulation” coincide with the historical event of Jerusalem’s destruction? For the purposes of the discussion I have here it doesn’t matter, as I say that the apostles and the Sanhedrin (at least) were meant to see Jesus return on the clouds. They did not witness such a thing.
Thomas
You searched for an address of “you” where it wasn’t referring to the people present, but you could only find “from among you”. Your contention doesn’t work for several reasons:
– the phrase “from among you” can very well refer to their descendants; Mk 13 does not say “from among you”, does it? The future Christians are not the physical descendants of the apostles, or are they?
– that “these people their children and grandchildren ARE excluded” is simply an invention. That does not come out of the text, you read that into it, following the example of the writer of Acts. You cannot affirm the writer of Deuteronomy has in mind “distant future generations”, the text does not say or hint at that. This stems from your pious view that if Deuteronomy says so, it MUST be fulfilled, and since you don’t read it has been fulfilled in that community, and because SURELY Jesus is the one, it MUST follow that future distant generations are referenced. There are a lot of *assumptions* to which I do not subscribe, but you do. The writer could have very well literally referred to his contemporaries, and that is what the text actually says.
– even if that would be the case – although that is a baseless assumption – you would have to provide proof that this is also the case in Mk 13. Why do the two (De 18:15 and Mark 15) need to be the same case?
But the simple fact that you believe so does not make it so, or prove it is so. Why do you believe so? Your belief certainly goes against a natural reading of the text, where Jesus addresses members of the Sanhedrin and tells them they will see him coming with the clouds.
My insistence is reasonable. I am reading the text *as it is written*, in a natural way. Normality and common sense is the impulse that drives me. I gain nothing by Jesus being wrong.
John E.
Thanks for the polite response. You asked, “Why do you believe so? Your belief certainly goes against a natural reading of the text, where Jesus addresses members of the Sanhedrin and tells them they will see him coming with the clouds.”
I could be wrong in my interpretation, but there are also other possible explanations as well. For example the Sanhedrin may be resurrected just before Yeshua’s arrival, when they will see him coming with the clouds. I don’t think you have clearly proven that Yeshua was wrong in his statement to the Sanhedrin.
You also said, “You searched for an address of “you†where it wasn’t referring to the people present, but you could only find “from among youâ€. Your contention doesn’t work for several reasons.”
If that occurrence of ‘you’ is not satisfactory, then what about the earlier mention of ‘you’ that I mention in msg. #144 where I said, “Also note at the beginning where Moses says, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for YOU a prophet like me.’ These people, their children and grandchildren, never got to hear any of Yeshua’s prophesies.”
Yet Moses clearly said that “God will raise up for YOU a prophet like me”…
JohnE
Then what exactly are you arguing with us against if we agree that the KOG is a future, yet to be fulfilled event?
JohnE,
Sorry, I don’t recount exactly which thread as I’ve been in a couple of them where the topic has been discussed. What made you change your mind? This is a hot subject that people will easily make the mistake of taking a radical view on a bit of text.
I have to say that so far, IMHO, JohnE has provided the more logical, natural argument on this subject. Not that this is a ‘who won or lost’ debate, as I’ll remain undecided, like I do on many subjects concerning the NT.
I’m gonna rant here for a sec….
It’s strikes me to think back that I started my faith in a Mormon family. Both my parents where 1st gen Mormon converts from a LONG line of Catholic and Jewish blood. Now much of my family has left the Mormon church, besides my Father and Brother, who are still active. I went into being Agnostic in my early teens to mid twenties and even touching on Taoism and Asian Philosophy. I then started to delve deeper into evidence of scripture (mainly physical), which rekindled my faith in God, and Messiah. I was also a Trinitarian at the time, but I didn’t understand why. I then started into deeper study of the Hebrew language which led me to meet my Israeli wife 5 years ago. Since, I have gained a good understanding of the Hebrew and the culture and history of the Bible in the eyes of the Jewish people. This has really led me down the path in helping to recognize and comprehend the doctrines and evidence from historical Hebrew texts, and what it feels like to be Jewish. Ultimately this progression has left me with a strong faith in God, but not without more questions arising on the details my own “Christian” beliefs.
This leads me to now, in which basically any subject that arises from the NT has left me undecided. After one is disappointing so many times by the doctrines that come from the NT which sprang out thousands of different views and denominations, how can anyone have a strong faith in such a compilation of letters? At this point in my life I have decided anything written in the NT, unless it is simply a reiteration of the OT, to be left undecided. I have realized over the years that the NT is basically the OT rewritten, but with a man Jesus repeating the OT prophecies and claiming to be Messiah. How do you think the Bareans became to believe? It seems they were simply checking to see if what Paul said was familiar with the Tanach. Which of course it was as Paul was a Jew and that was his Bible.
On the issue of miracles. I have had my own experiences when I prayed to God in the name of Yeshua and have found my way. Things that can’t be explained by luck or chance. But, was it my prayer to God which was why it was answered? Or my asking in the name of his son, Jesus? People pray to God everyday and get them answered, but dont’ do so with the belief in Yeshua. There are even many blessed by God without the belief in Yeshua. Even if Jesus performed miracles, does that mean he was Messiah? Doesn’t it say that others also performed miracles and for us to watch out for imitators? Wouldn’t it be a great con to say that others are the ones to watch out for, even though the one saying that is the one to watch out for?
Again, I’m simply being skeptical. And I’m sure all of us know that being skeptical is what led us from the grips of the Trinitarian belief, in which very smart and learned grown men can still believe in. Something to think about.
Joseph,
You said, “This leads me to now, in which basically any subject that arises from the NT has left me undecided. After one is disappointing so many times by the doctrines that come from the NT which sprang out thousands of different views and denominations, how can anyone have a strong faith in such a compilation of letters?”
I too find myself confused trying to reconcile all the epistles with my understanding of the rest of the bible. That’s why I stopped studying them. I find if I just stick to the basics, the synoptics, 1st. Peter, James, and Acts I am left with a very clear Unitarian/Socinian view of God/Yahweh and his son Yeshua. There is no mention of Yeshua ‘returning to heaven’ or ‘coming from heaven’ or anybody calling Yeshua by the name of God (as Thomas does in John for example).
I’m left with a very clear simple message with no apparent contradictions. Sure there are still some differences, like Luke saying there were 2 angels in the Yeshua’s tomb, and Mark and Mathew saying there were one. But like I said, when I study these books and letters there appears to be no contradictions. This simple and straightforward message gives me confidence that I can believe what they say.
This in turn helps strengthen my faith. Of course this path, that I have chosen, is not for everyone. Many people that I talk to find strength in their faith from studying the writings of Paul or John. I don’t want to take that away from them. We are all different and find spiritual strength in our own ways. I believe the important thing to recognize that as Unitarian Christians we have more in common with one another, then we realize.
We shouldn’t let little differences between us grow into road blocks where we all stop exchanging ideas and talking with each other. I’m hoping that together we can explain to John E. “the reason for the hope that is within us”. Our brother has lost his faith in Yeshua as the Messiah. All our other differences are trivial in comparison.
At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
Thomas,
You’re welcome, and thank you for keeping this discussion civilized.
Yes, I think you are wrong, but you still didn’t answer my question. Why do you believe so?
And where do you find in the text the idea that the Sanhedrin will be resurrected to see him coming 2000 years later? From the text? Do you read that out of the text, or into the text? I am trying to help you understand that you are not entirely objective here. For me things could not be simpler. Jesus tells the Sanhedrin they will see him coming with the clouds, and they didn’t. I’m not going to come up with different theories, because I have to stick to the actual text. Anyone can come up with all kinds of theories, but where do they come from? Not from the text. I repeat, things are very very simple and straightforward.
My comment above is universal in this regard, it applies here as well:
Xavier,
I thought it has to be clear by now. I did not say I agree that the KOG is now a future event. What I said is that Jesus was to come during their lifetimes (in their immediate future if you will) and failed to do so. The apostles were supposed to not taste death until they see the kog after it has come with power.
JohnE
I see. So the whole thing failed? You don’t blame Jesus as such, you just think he was wrong?
JohnE,
I said, “They’d only be wrong if they said he would definitely come in their lifetime.” You said, “And they did say that, as I quoted from all over the place in the NT.” Odd – we’re both quoting from the same NT. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Even with ordinary books, if someone writes something intended to be read for years to come, it is not addressed only to contemporary readers. It is even more so with something like the Bible, which I believe is God’s communication to man.
You don’t seem to be getting the point I’m making about relative terms, especially when used of things related to God. It is not beyond its purpose to say something is near from God’s perspective, even if it doesn’t seem near from ours.
Just because it is worded that way in later versions doesn’t mean that they are the best translations. What then are you going to do with the older versions that word it differently? You also have to take into account the context. The statement was made as an introduction to the Transfiguration, which was a vision of Jesus’ power and glory related to his coming and his kingdom (your denial of II Peter notwithstanding).
You can prove it for yourself by simply looking it up in a concordance.
Jesus said, “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.” (Mark 13:32-33). If I understand you correctly, you are claiming (as others do) that he knew the general time – i.e. in their lifetimes – but just didn’t know the exact day and hour. But this would contradict his use of the word “time” which means a season. It is not synonymous with “day and hour” and is never used of such. (You can look it up in a concordance if you don’t believe me.) There is nothing in this passage to suggest that he knew his return would be in their lifetimes. He clearly said nobody knows the day, or the hour, and then said they didn’t even know the general time.
As for the Olivet discourse, I didn’t say the two parts were “signs for the end of the temple, etc.” and “signs for my return.” I said the first part consisted of things that would continue to happen from that point forward, like birth pangs, “but the end is not yet,” and the second is the specific signs that would indicate when the end was starting, beginning with the Abomination of Desolation. You might want to reread what I wrote, as well as the Gospel records in question.
I didn’t say it did. Nobody knew how long it would be. He just spoke of, first, the ongoing “birth pangs” which would be an undetermined length of time but the end was not yet, and second, the event that would signify that the end was here.
Again we have the problem with the word “you.” I believe if he’s talking to disciples and doesn’t know when the end would come, there is no other pronoun to use. He can’t say “somebody else in the future” because at that point it may have been them for all he knew. He can’t say “you and NOT somebody else,” because he didn’t know if the end would be in their lifetimes. But you can take it or leave it.
It’s not spiritualizing, it’s putting together prophecies. I believe both books were inspired by the same God, and part of His overall message, which is where we must agree to disagree.
I beg to differ. The meaning of the Kingdom of God is the subject of this thread (which I’m still trying to get back to) and it is what I have been talking about all along. And as I said to Wolfgang, without understanding what the Prophets say about the kingdom of God, none of this discussion about the timing of the end will make any sense or have any meaning.
Would it have been better if I had said “Is this such a difficult thing to comprehend?” or, “I find it quite sad that I have to spell out the obvious.” I was merely expressing the same thing as you. I apologize if you took it the wrong way.
You’ll have to read the article to find out. It would take too much time and too much space to repeat it all here.
Joseph,
It changed when I stopped believing in the existence of God. I am also a student of history, and saw how these religious people were massacred, their lands taken, they’re worship places turned into rubble if not converted to the conqueror’s kind of worship place – and I’m referring mostly to Islamic conquest. The most holy city of Eastern Christianity – Constantinople – has been occupied for centuries, and will never return back to Christians. In fact, few know today Istanbul was Constantinople, the religious/political capital of Eastern Christendom. Rome remained unconquered only because of blind luck. I see that unless one does use physical force against attackers, one fades into nonexistence. There is nobody out there. This world functions exactly as it would if there would be no God at all. Evil has, is, and will wreak havoc all over the world and the pacifists have not disappeared yet because non-pacifist people fought for them. The world is finite, you cannot constantly run to where there’s peace, you will run out of place to run to. Jesus told his disciples they would finish all the cities of Israel because he will come to rescue before that would happen, but of course it was just wishful thinking. Pacifism makes sense with imminent eschatology, but it stops making sense when that fails. And Christianity adapted, they dropped pacifism exactly because of that.
John E.
You asked, “Yes, I think you are wrong, but you still didn’t answer my question. Why do you believe so?”
I believe that when someone is prophesying about the future, then it naturally follows that the things they are saying are not necessarily going to apply to the people who are hearing the prophesy. You on the other hand say that because Yeshua uses the ‘you’ he must be talking about the people of his time. I gave examples of where Moses uses the word ‘you’ and it obviously didn’t apply to the people of his time.
Unfortunately you claim I’m only saying this because I’m a Christian apologetic who will twist the scriptures around to fit my beliefs. I do try see if the prophesies were historically fulfilled or not. If they are not then it is not unreasonable for me to believe they will be fulfilled in the future. Of course if you don’t believe Yeshua was the Messiah (or a prophet) you would just assume he must have been mistaken.
My beliefs dictate that these prophesies will be fulfilled in the future. Your beliefs dictate that these prophesies will never be fulfilled, since you believe they were false prophesies. You claim to be more open minded and objective then I am, but aren’t you just assuming they won’t be fulfilled because you’ve already made up you mind that Yeshua wasn’t the promised Messiah.
I’m just curious if you can be honest enough with yourself to answer this question; Which came first your belief that Yeshua wasn’t the Messiah, or your belief that these prophesies would never be fulfilled???
Of course you don’t have to tell me what the answer is. It is only important that you are honest with yourself about this subject. I am just a simple Christian who can only tell you about the hope that is withing me. I pray that is enough…
JohnE
That’s too bad. My life story is the reverse. I grew up agnostic and became a Christian in my 30s. I too am a “history of student” and was never interested in Christianity as such. Considered the same as the mythological stories I loved to read about growing up.
Once I started to search and examine the scriptures though everything made sense. Deep down I think we all know “something is wrong with this picture”. Things are not meant to be the way they are. Death is somehow alien, does not belong in creation. I mean if this is all there is what a nightmare!
Anyways, even though I may understand a little bit of where your coming from JohnE, I hope you do find some kind of peace in the faith that most of us on this post are trying to properly teach and practice.
Mark,
Well maybe you do not know to which post I’m referring to; it’s 129, and I was referring to non-gospel material.
Ok, but that does not address my point, which is that the 1st century audience was the main audience. “Near” is near to them in the first place. “See” is for them to see.
See, that’s exactly where the problem is. When Paul says “the lord is near”, it’s not from “God’s” point of view, it’s from his. Common-sense understanding of his language pretty much guarantees it. When the 1st century people say something is near, I simply understand this as straightforward as possible, just as you as a student would say full of excitement “graduation is near!”. Likewise with Jesus for the “kingdom is at hand”; he wasn’t talking to God, he was preaching to people, and people used their own brains to parse his statement. It was their brain’s version of what “at hand” is, that was understood.
When Paul says “the time has been shortened”, “the form of this world is passing away”, “the night is almost gone, and the day is near” it’s relative to him and his audience, not relative to “God”. He writes to real, existing people, and tells *them” it is near, the audience is not “God”. They used their own brains to parse his statement, and it was their brain’s version, that was understood (I’m sorry to again and again state the obvious, but it seems it is needed).
Same with John’s “we know that it is the last hour”. Really, for them those were the last moments. It’s not “God” talking here, it’s the people talking. The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, time is near – for the servants breathing and living in the 1st century, it was near to them, not near for God. “I am coming quickly” is addressed to 1st century people, for them it would have been quickly. That’s what any normal person understands when is told the person they wait for will come quickly.
This is made clear also in the rest of the verses I quoted:
When you tell somebody:
do not throw away your confidence; it will have great recompense. You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised.”For, after just a brief moment, he who is to come shall come; he shall not delay.
is there any doubt left that this is meant literally, and not from a hypothetic view of time from God’s perspective? If these people and all the others were told “it’s near, it’s around the corner”, with no qualification, without saying “oh, it’s not actually near, it’s only near from God’s point of view, it’s millenniums! what, you really thought ‘near’ means actually ‘near’ your times???!!!”, then this is all a cruel trickery. Those people were made to believe it was near, but in fact it was nowhere near them. That’s just wrong.
So you’re going to pick and choose now Mark? I quoted the most popular modern translations, and I thought you here prefer NASB, don’t you? Now NASB is suddenly not good any more?
I’m going to look into the Greek text and see the newer ones are correct.
No Mark, that’s just your interpretation. They are not linked by anything but proximity, and I explained why, based on the text itself.
My denial of its authorship does not contribute in any way to my overall argument, which was based on 2 Pe itself.
No I can’t, because concordance cannot tell me 2 Pe refers to the second coming.
Kairos actually means “appointed time” OR “season”. What season would this be, spring? Or the harvest season? It’s not season, it’s appointed time.
But where did i say that it is THIS passage that shows he knew it was in their lifetimes? It is the other passages in Mark, Matthew and Luke. And the NT writers’ sense of urgency and imminent eschatology confirms that.
But there is no verse that says “And here are the signs that indicate when the end was starting”. Ok, let’s make this simpler. What is the verse in Mark if you will, where it stops being about the apostles and 1st century people, and only about future generations?
So nobody knew how long it would be…, does the text say it would be long (not *how* long, just long)?
“you” is not a problem for me, it’s a very simple word intended to convey a simple sense. But to continue, it’s not that he doesn’t know when the end would come, he doesn’t know “the day and hour” – the appointed time. And of course there are other words to use.
He could say “whoever will see these things”. If he doesn’t know for sure if they will see, he cannot say “you”. I mean this is all very simple, no need to go round and round and round. “You” are the people addressed, therefore the people addressed will see. It should be as simple as that.
Yes, it would have been, apologies accepted.
I doubt it Mark. If an article contradicts a clear cut statement of Jesus, I cannot agree with it. If Jesus says this is about his coming then it is – as far as I’m concerned anyway.
Thomas,
Yeah but how does the text tell you Jesus is prophesying about the future after their deaths?
No, my belief based on a natural and straightforward reading of the gospels, is that they were meant to be fulfilled in the 1st century. Seeing that they weren’t, I naturally conclude they will not be fulfilled.
It’s not a matter of honesty, I have nothing to hide. It is hard now to discern which came first cause maybe they came in stages next to each other. I would be inclined to say the knowledge that these prophecies were meant for the 1st century and that they weren’t fulfilled came first. Ultimately in my mind, Jesus being the Messiah or not has really no relevance to the fact that they were meant for that century and they didn’t happen. This conclusion stand on its own.
Thomas,
This is my roadblock in a way, is that the more I continue with the basics, another issue arises and then I’m left with little to be certain of in the NT. In simplicity, I think of Yeshua as a Jew that kept and loved the Torah and traditions. If I’m to follow him, I will do those things too. But if Paul taught that food that Yeshua himself wouldn’t eat is kosher, or that it’s ok to not follow the Sabbath on the day the Yeshua celebrated the Sabbath, then who should I believe? This is why I’m in love with the OT, it just works.
JohnE,
Frankly, I don’t think there’s anything more I can say that won’t be repeating what I’ve already said several times, which you just don’t seem to see. And you, I’m sure, feel the same way. We should probably just agree to disagree at this point.
Here’s something else to consider, as a side note. If the apostles were sure that Jesus had told them he would return in their lifetimes, and then at the end of their lives he had not returned, how do you account for the fact that they did not lose faith, but rather continued to proclaim the gospel even in the face of death? People who know they are wrong don’t usually go to their deaths defending their beliefs. There must have been something more to all this that they saw, and were able to convince other people of as well, resulting in a widespread movement. If it was so obvious that Jesus was wrong, why didn’t more people see it, or why don’t more see it today? And please don’t say that Christians are stupid, because many of the greatest minds of the past 2000 years have embraced the faith, some even pursuing scholarly study of the Scriptures. Just something to think about.
JohnE,
Honestly, I did not know what your personal beliefs were concerning God, and I still respect your points. On pacifism, this is why I like the OT, call me old school, but it makes sense in accordance with the nature of man. You bring up a good point about the conquests and how defying Pacifism is what was practical to keep the Christian faith alive. This also corresponds directly with our personal lives. I remember now the thread this was discussed in. 🙂
Also like Xavier said, my experience has taught me that history is what really helps me to know that there is a God, more than it denies it. For me, it truly is amazing that the Tanach has been preserved so well through time as a piece of history. And the more time goes on, we increasingly find fauna that supports the history written in the pages of the Bible and documents based around the Bible. This is something that I give the NT, it does fair rather well with great historical accuracy on people, places, ect. On miracles in the bible, I don’t know, as I wasn’t there to observe their physicality. But I do not throw them out the window of impossible as I have had many spiritual experiences, came very close to death, and prayers answered, that no possibility that luck or chance could have been involved. And I have gone over these experiences in my mind many times trying to “logically” explain them away. Reality is the reason I gravitated toward Judaism, as it just fits with how man is. It doesn’t try to deny our nature, and provides a wisdom that is infinite to the existence of man on this earth. I have had the choice to pick a belief or none, and when I came to believe in God and the Tanach is when I started to see reality. As before I was trying to escape reality with philosophies that couldn’t’ fill the void.
I respect a guy like you, who has studied these texts and honestly comes up with your own conclusion, more-so then the religious person who simply just believes because someone told them so. I really enjoy reading your position too. Please don’t take my thoughts above as trying to persuade you, or saying you are wrong, as I know you are a smart man and I’m sure continue to challenge your own current set of beliefs.
Joseph
In lieu of this…
Xavier,
Did you mean, “In light of this”? “In lieu of” means “instead of.”
John E.
You asked, “Yeah but how does the text tell you Jesus is prophesying about the future after their deaths?”
I once read that at the time of the Roman Empire the average lifespan was 25-30 years of age. All these people that were being told to stay awake, the kingdom of God is near (at hand etc…), didn’t have many years left to live (in comparison to today). Very few would live over the age of 40 or 45. After their deaths they would awaken, and what would they find???
They would find Yeshua returning on the clouds (figuratively or literally) with great power and authority. When you are in the grave it makes no difference if 2 weeks pass or if 2 thousand years pass. You will not know the difference. When they awake judgment day will be at hand. I do not study Revelations. I only look at the prophet Daniel and Yeshua and their end times prophesies.
The Sanhedrin and Apostles may be raised before hand to see Yeshua arriving in power and glory, or they might not. From what I have read, I am not sure. I try to keep an open mind. You on the other hand have apparently closed your mind to any of these possibilities. Sadly, it appears you have lost faith and given up hope.
All I ask is that you try to keep an open mind about the possibility that Yeshua is the Messiah, and that he will be returning.
You also answered my question by saying, “I would be inclined to say the knowledge that these prophecies were meant for the 1st century and that they weren’t fulfilled came first.”
Because these prophesies were not fulfilled in what seems to be a logical way to you, you dismiss them, and dismiss Yeshua as the Messiah, and God/Yahweh as our Father and Creator. You have forgotten what the bible says about “Man’s logic is foolishness to God”.
There’s no arguing the gospel message has to be logical and make sense. But is it wise to dismiss it all just because some prophesies weren’t fulfilled the way you thought they should have been fulfilled??? Can’t you have faith that God can fulfill them in his own way???
Joseph,
You said, “In simplicity, I think of Yeshua as a Jew that kept and loved the Torah and traditions. If I’m to follow him, I will do those things too.”
I have a lot of respect for Jewish Christians. After all the first Christians, and the first Christian leaders were Jewish Christians. I recently talked with Robert and he has found a Jewish Christian site that seems to share most of his beliefs. I wish him luck and hope he finds what he is looking for.
You also said, “This is why I’m in love with the OT, it just works.”
I’m a fairly new Christian and I’ve only read the OT twice. To be quite honest I found it very frustrating and confusing. I know that I should spend more time studying it. I just find it difficult to understand what is figurative and what is literal. My knowledge of the OT is very limited and I have a hard time understanding much of it.
Who knows maybe one day God will guide me to the path of becoming a Jewish Christian like yourself. But, for now I feel God is guiding me to try to better understand the New Testament writings. I realize that there is so much for me to learn yet.
May the peace of God be with you, and with us all…
Mark C.
😉
Mark,
Ok, we probably should then.
Well, first, I do not know that “the apostles did not lose faith, but rather continued to proclaim the gospel even in the face of death”. Some could have lost faith in the end. Or maybe they didn’t even had time to lose faith if they were suddenly killed, hence unable to realize they won’t see him – I have no idea. I noticed the evangelists, and especially Mark, engage sometimes in apostolic bashing. Sometimes they are presented as kind of stupid because they couldn’t understand so Jesus loses his patience, some other times they lack faith. This could in fact mirror an evangelist’s dissatisfaction with the way some apostles were faring post-Jesus. This is all theory of course, could be so or not.
Some could have remained faithful, looking for – and finding maybe – scriptural explanations of where did it all go wrong. The fact is that the Jewish church has failed in their bid towards evangelizing the Jews, and has disappeared entirely. Paul had more success with the pagans who weren’t as well versed in Judaism, or weren’t at all.
Yes you are right of course there was something more. The story (I use the word in a benign way) of a man that cured people, reversed death and even his own death, a figure that can liberate you from your hardship and worries and turn around this down-trodden ugly world, is a very attractive figure. People wanted to believe, and they did. There were also attracted by the equality they’ve found in Christianity, where all were equal, be they slaves or free people, poor or rich.
Martyrdom also has interesting effects. As some church father said, the blood of the saints is the seed for their church. When people see absolute dedication, even to the point of death, they will believe it must be true, this total dedication can have only one explanation. It must be true, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. It’s a fact that the majority of Christians back then were unsophisticated, uneducated people. Their opponents were accusing that they prey on weaker people – women, children and slaves.
I don’t know what “more people” would mean, or whether many people didn’t see it. As I said, the mission towards the Jews failed entirely, and the whole church disappeared. Maybe many people – Jewish people – saw it. And then you have all the doctrinal aberrations that followed – gnosticism featuring prominently. They totally despised imminent eschatology, there was no place in their belief system for it; they’ve probably realized it failed, so it could not have been originating from Jesus. Then comes John with his gospel, written real late, and there’s no trace of imminent eschatology. He has what scholars call, “realized eschatology”. Imminent eschatology was swiped under the rug of discarded religious trends, and the church is now the kingdom of God on earth. As I said before, nobody in mainstream Christianity seems to be aware that Jesus is supposed to have a second coming. It’s all water under the bridge.
Far from me to say that. I guess reasons for embracing the faith vary greatly, but I’m sure most of these people don’t bother with the subject I raised before they decide to believe.
Joseph,
thank you.
Yeah, that was a big thread 🙂
Thomas,
Ok, but you didn’t answer my question 🙂
I’ll try to keep an open mind, but unfortunately the NT content is not going to change…
It actually says man’s *wisdom* is foolishness to God, but I thought you don’t put too much faith in Paul’s writings 🙂
One day I decided to be totally open minded about faith and the scriptures. That meant I was willing to allow, if needed, the possibility that Jesus, the apostles, the NT writers could be wrong (and before this, I spent years trying to convince people on the street, from door to door, and on the internet, to the contrary). Since then, all I tried was to avoid inventing ways of reconciling the difficulties. Because if there was really an error somewhere, I wouldn’t see it with all the complicated and convoluted explanations, whose single goal was, of course, to reject error. And then I did discover that some things claimed to be errors by different scholars – among whom people of faith nonetheless – were indeed errors. And if one naturally reads the text, one does find problems, like the failed Parousia for example.
Xavier,
I appreciate the good sentiments, and your (from all of you) good intentions to help, thank you.
JohnE
The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. He is being patient for all our sakes. Since He seeks not our destruction but our repentance.
Mark C.,
you wrote above in #134
both these 2 choices are based on the wrong premise that “the expected return had not happened by the end of the disciples’ lives” ..
Those who propagate this view cause themselves the dilemma expressed by the 2 choices given. One should note that even in the case of choice “it is still to come”, the disciples would have been wrong thinking that it would happen during the lifetime of some disciples of that generation.
The truth of the matter is rather that the return / coming of the Lord did in fact happen as prophesied and in accordance with OT prophecies as well as with what Jesus taught his disciples. Thus, the disciples were correct to expect the Lord’s coming during that generation in the 1stcentury, Jesus taught correctly when he taught about his coming that it would be during the lifetime of some who heard him speak, and yet, that he himself did not know “day or hour” (btw, he further illustrated what the not knowing day and hour was about by comparing the situation with a pregnant woman and the birth of the baby approaching. Does the mother know when the baby will be born … “Yes” and “No” !! “Yes” …she does know the general time frame, that it will be normally at the end of a period of time of about 40 weeks, labor will set in and the birth will immediately follow. Does she know day and hour when the labor will start or day and hour when the baby will finally be born? No.)
The real problem is that many have a certain idea about “the nature of the kingdom” and it being an earthly, political, national kingdom, expanded into a world empire with Jesus as a king in a political sense. They usually also have the idea that the apocalyptic figurative language used to describe the great calamity which was ahead is meant to be understood literally. Based on these premises, some then arrive at the conclusions that the return/coming of Christ and the kingdom must still be future, because what they imagine should be happening obviously has not happened. Others arrive at the conclusion that because it has not happen in that manner during the lifetime of the disciples in the 1st century, they must have been wrong and it most likely will never happen.
The truth is rather simple: Yes, it did happen in the 1st century at the end of that age, BUT it did not happen as those groups imagine that it should happen. The language used for emphasis employs apocalyptic language.
Now, someone commented on taking things literally unless there was some kind of explanation that it was meant figuratively. This too is a wrong idea. for not always does there have to be an explanation like “beware, this statement is meant as a figure of speech” in order for it to be one. For example, if I write “You are asking a thousand questions and never answer even one asked of you!” is this meant literally or does this statement employ figurative language for emphasis? The answer is obvious! If we read about “moon turning into blood” or “the heavens will be shaken” or “the heavens will be rolled together like a scroll” … are those to be understood literally just because there is no further explanatory comment “beware, figure of speech” mentioned? No … it is obvious from the statement itself that it is using figurative language. I already mentioned about Jesus coming “on the clouds” … obviously this is NOT meant in a literal sense that all eyes will literally see him sitting or standing on a cloud flying through the sky. JohnE mentioned how the ancients used such type of language and he figured that they meant it in a literal sense …. but did they?
While I used to see the dilemma which exists between (a) the “models” of how people perceive the kingdom and the return/coming of the king as having to be still future, because it has not happened as imagined or assumed, and (b) the time for it being rather clearly stated all over the place as having been near, soon from the time of writing of the NT scriptures, and was unable to find a solution for the dilemma, things changed dramatically and became rather clear when I realized that the records about the timing of the return/coming of the Lord and the kingdom were naturally meant in a literal sense and thus it was to have happened in the 1st century AD and that the records about the rule of God and the nature of the “kingdom” was therefore not earthly or political in the sense of an earthly nation or empire.
May everyone figure out their own beliefs and how to solve the obvious dilemma and “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Wolfgang
When people quote Paul in Romans 14, especially Sabbath keepers, they always seem to forget v.14. Or the simple fact that the contrast is between those who are “strong” in the faith trying to strengthen those Paul sees as “weak”.
Wolfgang, I now understand your position much better. Thank you.
But, how is what you believe aligned with Zachariah 14? There is a very literal prophecy given of the Mount of Olives splitting in two (v 4) and many other descriptive events that I would take as literal as well. Verse 9 then states that the Lord will be king over all the earth….
1 A day is going to come for the LORD when the loot you have taken will be divided among you. 2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for battle. The city will be captured, the houses looted, and the women raped. Half of the people in the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people won’t be taken from the city. 3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as he does when he fights a battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, just east of Jerusalem. The Mount of Olives will be split in two, forming a very large valley from east to west. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and the other half will move toward the south. 5 Then you will flee to the valley of my mountains, because this valley between the mountains will go as far as Azel. You will flee as you did from the earthquake at the time of King Uzziah of Judah. The LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones will be with him. 6 On that day there will be neither heat nor freezing cold. 7 There will be one day–a day known to the LORD–with no difference between day and night. It will be light even in the evening.
8 On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it to the Dead Sea and the other half to the Mediterranean Sea. It will continue in summer and in winter. 9 The LORD will be king over all the earth.
Frank D
I brought that up all the way back in post#18. Along with similar language found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures [Wisdom literature, Psalms, etc.].
This is also highlighted by our new RF video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-IdWYsjFOg
Like Mark C. said, it seems we’re going round in circles here with Wolfgang.
John E.
You asked, “Yeah but how does the text tell you Jesus is prophesying about the future after their deaths?’â€
I responded with, “I once read that at the time of the Roman Empire the average lifespan was 25-30 years of age. All these people that were being told to stay awake, the kingdom of God is near (at hand etc…), didn’t have many years left to live (in comparison to today). Very few would live over the age of 40 or 45. After their deaths they would awaken, and what would they find???”
Then you said, “Ok, but you didn’t answer my question 🙂 ”
I’m sorry but I was trying my best to answer your question. These people would all soon be tasting (experiencing) death, and from their point of view, they would be immediately awakening on the day of judgment, either just before, or just after the arrival of Yeshua. From their point of view 2,000 years would not have passed.
My study of history tells me that Yeshua did not come in power in the past, and there was no day of judgment recorded in our history. So if it didn’t happen in the past, it must be going to happen in the future. Of course it appears you have decided that it was suppose to happen in the past, and therefore it will not, or cannot, happen in the future.
There’s not much I can do to change your mind. All I can do is ask that you keep your mind open to the possibility that this could be future event, like I and so many others on this site believe. Like I said before, I believe all these things that were said like “stay awake”, “the kingdom of God in at hand (near)”, “He is standing at the door”, etc… were aimed just as much at us, as at the people at the time who were hearing it.
Life is short. I just turned 50, but it seems like I was just a teenager a short while ago. My boys are in their 20’s, but it seems like they were just toddlers not that long ago. What is near and what is far??? The fact is death is near to all of us. After death, I believe, we will be resurrected on the final day of judgment. I don’t know the details of exactly how it will work, but I do have faith that it will happen.
I’m not the greatest writer, but I hope this better answers your question…
Frank D.,
I would not consider Zech 14 to be all that “literal” as you seem to think. How is a mountain to be literally split into two halfs (the picture giving the impression as if it was cut with a knife in a straight line east to west)? Throughout the passage it speaks about “the LORD (YHWH)”, and then about “his (YHWH’s) feet” standing on Mt. Olives … however, does YHWH (Almighty God, Who is SPIRIT) even have “feet” in a literal sense? What bout the passage which mentions “living water flowing out from Jerusalem” (“On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it to the Dead Sea and the other half to the Mediterranean Sea. It will continue in summer and in winter.”) ?? Is there “living water” in a literal sense or does “living water” refer figuratively to something else? Then it does speak about YHWH (“the LORD”) being “king of all the earth” … again, it is not even speaking about Messiah Jesus.
Thus, although I am not necessarily sure about the exact meaning of the passage, I do know it is not speaking about events in a literal sense, nor is it speaking about Jesus returning to earth in a literal sense.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
John E.,
you mentioned
I agree about “avoid inventing ways of reconciling the difficulties” … BUT I do not exclude that there are difficulties which – for example – do not as such exist in the texts but rather exist between the text and what people have proposed as interpretations and/or understandings. In such cases, nothing need be invented to reconcile the difficulties, and one need only recognize the error where indeed it is. It surely doesn’t help, declaring that there is error in the texts, when in reality the error is in people’s interpretations of the text, does it?
As I already mentioned in a previous post, it seems to me that a “failed parousia” is one of those “errors” where people’s interpretations / understandings of what it is supposed to look or be like is causing the supposed error … the error does NOT exist between text passages, but exists between the texts and what interpretation and understanding is given to certain texts.
At the root of that supposed error is the failure to recognize the used figurative apocalyptic language in the description of the nature or manner of the parousia …. now then, as long as that failure is not corrected, people have no other choice but to either claim (a) the statements about the timing are wrong, Jesus and the apostles were wrong, because it did not happen, or claim (b) it must still be future because it did not happen, which in reality is no different than choice (a), except for suggesting an assumption and speculation about the future as a supposed answer to the dilemma.
I would suggest that the supposed “error” / “dilemma” in this matter is in the failure to understand the texts correctly in regards to what is stated in a literal sense and what is stated for emphasis by way of figures of speech and apocalyptic language.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
John E – thanks for posting here. I am curious when a skeptic knows so much about the Bible. Where did the desire to learn come from? Were you a Christian at one time and then lost faith? If not, what has inspired you to read and investigate so much?
I agree that on my reading of the Bible there are many such issues that are seemingly contradictory or just plain difficult to understand. The expectation of the second coming before John’s death, anyway, seemed to be what was spoken of. Before I became a Christian, I would point to such passages and dismiss the faith.
What changed for me and led me to conversion (at age 46 mind you) was looking at the Bible not from the perspective of dismissing it if anything doesn’t add up, but accepting that it has, at least in part, been inspired by God if there is anything that could not have come from man’s imagination.
When I changed my perspective, I can only tell you that something supernatural within me changed. Shortly after, God’s spirit took hold of me. The evidence is the change in my life. My dabbling with porn stopped. My all consuming interest in my career stopped. My focus on God first, above all else, became the centerpiece of my life. Since that time, I am happier. My marriage has blossomed. My wife and friends have noticed the change in me. I am engaged and involved at church, finding people interesting where they really weren’t before. This I attribute to God’s spirit – it is not my own doing. Specifically on the porn issue, I tried on my own to stop many times but always rationalized that I wasn’t hurting anyone and I always caved. But with God’s spirit, it is a weakness I have conquered.
That said, I continue to be skeptical about whether the entire Bible is God breathed. Did Paul know he was writing scripture and if he did, why did he never say such? We know there are letters he wrote that did not become part of the canon. From my research, I see it was a group of men that decided what became the NT canon and elevated it to the level of scripture. As one who has dismissed the trinity, I find it odd that we accept this canon. Inspired writings? Yes. Scripture? I don’t accept that for the NT (I do for the OT because there is enough evidence that Jesus referred to them as such). The only NT book that I might classify as scripture is Revelation because it was given to John by revelation from Jesus.
But it is really about the spirit indwelling us. You cannot reason your way to that (nor reason your way out). Only the Bible, particularly the NT talks about that. That is why I read it ‘religiously’. I don’t accept that Paul et al are infallible and that each verse comes from God. Maybe I will someday, but for now, I do know the writers of the NT walked with Jesus and maybe they missed a few details and put some of their own ideas into their writings, but that does not change what the core message of Christianity ought to be – Love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything flows from that.
DT,
you mention above
I’ve heard this many times over many years in sermons and teachings where preachers encouraged their audience about being watchful, being ready, etc. because the kingdom was near, the Lord could come any day, the Lord was already standing at the door and knocking, etc … BUT – for whatever reason – they never specified HOW the believers nowadays should “get ready”, “be ready”, “stay awake”, etc. so as to not be caught unawares when the Lord comes.
When I read the Lord Jesus’ teaching about his coming and the end of the age (cp. Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk21) I do read warnings and encouragements given which are rather specific, such as those about fleeing (without delay and without concern for trying to save personal belongings, etc. !! ) from the city of Jerusalem and into the surrounding hill country, etc. What sense do those of you propagating a yet future coming of the Lord give to those passages for a person living in the USA, UK or Germany who is reading or listening to your “sermon”? Also, how do you prepare for the coming of the Lord and for what do you watch and be ready in light of the rather specific instructions the Lord gave in his discourse and the instruction he gave to his disciples?
Wolfgang, you bring up some good points. I’m trying to understand you fully. In a nutshell, what is your belief concerning the Kingdom, second coming, ect?
Wolfgang,
You asked, “What sense do those of you propagating a yet future coming of the Lord give to those passages for a person living in the USA, UK or Germany who is reading or listening to your ‘sermon’?”
I apologize if what I said sounded like a ‘sermon’ to you. I was just saying what I believed, from my own limited understanding of the scriptures. I’m not sure if that particular verse, where Yeshua talks about fleeing, was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, or if it is yet a future event. I’m sorry if that sounds like a cop-out, but I really don’t know.
You also asked, “Also, how do you prepare for the coming of the Lord and for what do you watch and be ready in light of the rather specific instructions the Lord gave in his discourse and the instruction he gave to his disciples?”
Yeshua answers that in Matthew 24:45″Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? (46) Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. (47) Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.”
I believe when Yeshua said this he meant we should not be caught asleep (not doing the things that he taught us to do), at the time of his coming. Antioch explained exactly what we should do very nicely when he said, “Love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything flows from that.”
We might think that because his arrival is delayed that we can ignore what Yeshua taught us, and indulge in the sinful pleasures of this world, ignoring all the things that He told us were important for us to be doing. I’m not an expert, but that’s just the way I see it…
DT,
thanks for your reply and the info
Why would his arrival be delayed … seeing that the writer of Hebrews in the 1st century wrote:
Heb 1037 (NIV)
For in just a very little while, “He who is coming will come and will not delay.
Heb 10:37 (NASB)
FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
in a very little while would certainly not be 1900+ years …
As for the commonly heard exhortations to get ready, to be prepared for the coming of the Lord, etc., there were rather specific instructions given by the Lord which were more than just “live as I have taught you a disciple would live” (as I would reword what you mentioned above as “do all what je has taught us”) How would living our daily lives as disciples ought to live be equal to a be watchful, be prepared for the specific event of his coming?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
ooops …. for got to bold print an important part of the Heb 10:37 verse:
Heb 1037 (NIV)
For in just a very little while, “He who is coming will come and will not delay.
Heb 10:37 (NASB)
FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
Not only is there rather emphatic mention of a very little while, but even more emphasis is put on that truth by following it with the will NOT DELAY.
Is it not rather weird that almost all of Christendom speaks about “the Lord tarries”, “the Lord delays his coming”?? As far as I can read, such teaching is in direct contradiction to what the writer has stated here in Heb 10:37.
Wolfgang
Until you start recognizing and quoting ALL of the NT as scripture, including 2 Peter, then you might be able to see the bigger picture.
Xavier,
I recognize ALL of the NT as scripture, including 2Pe …
As a matter of truth, 2Pe 3 is a rather important passage which shows that there was indeed only a very little while left before the prophesied coming of the Lord was to take place.
Now, it appears as if you did NOT want to take all of the NT (including Heb 10:37 !) as scripture ? If you did, would you say that indeed the coming of the lord was only a very little while away from the time of the writing of Hebrews and that he who was to come did in fact NOT delay but come ?
Xavier,
re 2Pe 3 … I’ve seen plenty people make the mistake of wanting to all of a sudden turn their method of “how to count time” into what they call “God’s way of counting time” by claiming that from God’s way of reckoning time 1000 years=1day, etc …. those same folks however quickly turn away from God’s method of time reckoning when it comes to the so-called millennium … all of a sudden, that reign does last 1000 literal years (when it should perhaps only be 1 day) ?
I trust you did not want to go that “1000 years = 1 day” route when you indicated in your previous post that I was not recognizing 2Pe as scripture …
Wolfgang
We all know that the theme of the NT, just like that of the OT, was the imminent arrival/establishment of God’s “rule” [if you do not like “kingdom”]. So if your criticizing the NT on those grounds, do the same for the OT.
I do not think that comparison can be made here. When Peter says it, we know its not like saying “equals”, like some mathematical formula or something.
Why would we take the Millenial reign as anything but a literal thousand years? We take them literal or spiritual as per the context in which they are written.
To be fair, Revelation mixes both literal and spiritual contexts. How we interpret them is the key and for that we need the wider biblical framework/context.
Xavier,
well, I know that in the OT prophecies relating to events of the end of the age are NOT worded as being “imminent”!
There are some passages speaking about a “day of the LORD” which have reference to a more imminent fulfillment … for example those passages which speak of the LORD’s day of judgment on Jerusalem before they were taken into captivity, or those which speak of the LORD’s judgment on Babylon, etc … The key there is to recognize that there is not only one “day of the LORD” spoken of in the Scriptures but several … Now, the one spoken of in the NT scriptures as being imminent is the day of the LORD which was to happen at the end of the age.
Wolfgang
Really?
Sounds like…
Am I missing something here?
Where do you get that there are several days of the LORD?
Wolfgang,
You asked, “Why would his arrival be delayed … seeing that the writer of Hebrews in the 1st century wrote:”
I find it fascinating that almost all the religious experts agree that Hebrews was not written by Paul. From what I understand the only reason Hebrews was included in the New Testament cannon was because they thought it was written by Paul. We have no idea who wrote Hebrews, or if these writings represented the view of the mainstream church at the time.
We do however know that Yeshua said the following in Matthew 25,
about the Parable of the Ten Virgins, (6) “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ (7) “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. (8) The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’”
The foolish ones thought the bridegroom was going to be on time and made no preparations for a possible late arrival of the bridegroom. This parable is obviously talking about the end times and the arrival of Yeshua (the bridegroom). Personally, I prefer to believe Yeshua over the writer of Hebrews (whoever that might have been)…
DT
The letter is unauthorized. Even those that are there are still those who dispute them as belonging to the authored writers. You simply cannot win.
Does the letter read that different to you when compared with the rest of the NT canon?
Are you sure Jesus said that? How can you claim authenticity when it comes to the Gospels but not the rest of the NT letters? Seeing as how they are all copies of copies and you can very well make the same claims as those who argue against the authenticity of Hebrews or 2 Peter etc.
Correction. “The letter is not authored.”
Xavier,
I am not a biblical expert, but I know that according to THEM the letter of Hebrews was probably not written by Paul and the letter of 2nd. Peter was probably not written by Peter. As for Matthew, I used to think that it was written by the apostle Levi (the tax collector). But, I have since learned that Matgthew is just the Greek word for disciple. We really don’t know exactly who wrote Matthew, but it is agreed by all to represent the beliefs of the mainstream early Christians.
I’ve heard this argument before (from many people). You can’t look at each letter and book on an individual basis, because if you find one is not acceptable you have no choice but to throw the whole bible out the window. This is nothing but an emotional illogical argument, that if you think about it, makes no sense whatsoever.
In other words we can’t use the minds God gave us to think and make rational decisions about these things. We have no choice but to accept everything in the the New Testament cannon as being correct. The propaganda is so good that there are some Christians who believe that God himself handpicked the books and letters that we currently have in the N.T. cannon…
Antioch,
In msg. #174 you said, “What changed for me and led me to conversion (at age 46 mind you) was looking at the Bible not from the perspective of dismissing it if anything doesn’t add up, but accepting that it has, at least in part, been inspired by God if there is anything that could not have come from man’s imagination.”
I had a similar experience where I was about to give up trying to study the bible because of the apparent contradictions that I found. I too came to the conclusion that, “It has, at least in part, been inspired by God.” I decided to start out by studying the parts that didn’t seem to contradict, but actually support each other, and then move on from there to look at the other parts a bit at a time.
This sort of gives me a foundation to build on. A foundation that I can have confidence in and trust as being authentic.
You also said, “This I attribute to God’s spirit – it is not my own doing. Specifically on the porn issue, I tried on my own to stop many times but always rationalized that I wasn’t hurting anyone and I always caved. But with God’s spirit, it is a weakness I have conquered.”
I had similar problems when I was a staunch atheist. Of course at the time I didn’t see it as a problem. I rationalized it away by saying that everybody does it, and that it is normal. I remember, several years after becoming a Christian, throwing my porn into the garbage and then realizing how good it felt. It was almost like a load being lifted off my chest.
It’s hard to describe, but I’m so glad I did it…
DT
I think you will find all of the canonized letters are considered “to represent the beliefs of the mainstream early Christians”.
Xavier,
from reading the scriptures … and from observing what they address and in which context they were written.
Wolfgang
Which “scriptures”? I do not see where “the day of the LORD” is multi-faceted since the OT prophets, like the NT, connect it with doomsday kind of events that will mark it.
Xavier,
the ones found in the Bible
indeed, you seem not to see it …
Again, it also seems like your literal interpretation of apocalyptic language is a major reason why you see what you see .., (such as “doomsday kind of events that will mark it” … )
Wolfgang
Can you point to some evidence where “the LORD of the Day” is supposed to be multi-faceted and not one event, as most of us understand it to be.
Correction: “the LORD of the Day†= “the day of the LORD”
hey tis 7am…cut me some slack. 😛
DT – thanks for sharing. My heart really goes out to people like JohnE for I feel a special bond to the informed skeptic. That was me before God got a hold of me. Seems that was you too.
Arguing theology would never have led me to God. It was a heart matter. I thank God that He never gave up on me and I know with JohnE, if you are still out there, the same is true for you. I pray that my testimony can be of help. It was not study or logic that led to my conversion. I did not all of a sudden find some passage in the Bible that gave me the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
Rather, it was belief and repentance. Belief in God. Belief that He wants us to live our life according to His will. Belief that through Jesus’ sacrifice, the path has been cleared for us to follow. Repent – turn away from the sin in my life and align myself with God’s will. That is when His spirit came upon me and changed my life.
Xavier,
a few further things came to mind as I was thinking about these matters and what “Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom” was about ….
It seems to me that some in recent years are so taken captive by and thus overemphasize a “kingdom” concept (of an earthly political millennial world empire with Jesus as “king” in a political sense) which almost seems to ignore the biblical truths of the two covenants and how Jesus’ teaching relates to those. In addition, and as proof or to put some weight on their concept, the emphasize interpreting the Scriptures from a “Jewish” perspective and even claim that the Jews of Jesus’ day were correct in their understanding of the kingdom as being a re-established earthly political national Israel kingdom, etc …
It seems to me that such Jewish views were in existence in Paul’s day when he wrote in 2Cor 3:14 that the veil of Moses was still in place in his day among the Jews, and that it was taken away only in Christ Jesus. Without properly understanding Jesus as Messiah and his mission of fulfilling the old covenant and establishing a new covenant, the gospel Jesus preached was still veiled to them.
Some like to designate any teaching relating to the events of 70 AD as a “theory” and they usually imply that it is “another gospel”, a “false doctrine” (because it contradicts what they believe and view to be “THE gospel”). For me, what happened in 70 AD is certainly what the gospel was all about. This answers to the time when ALL Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled; it answers when the End of the Ages was completed, when the last days were completed; and when all Israel was saved. It was the time that Christ Jesus came in the clouds with power and great glory as he himself had prophesied (within “this generation”, while some of those who heard his teaching were still alive, etc.). It was the Day of Redemption. It was time the saints received of the Kingdom of God. Sin and Death were abolished for the believer (=> which is what the new covenant is about)
But then again, for most in many Christian groups and circles, all of this is not a big deal. The events of 70 AD are only seen as just a physical judgment on Israel with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. For them it has nothing to do with redemption and salvation. To them it has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. According to them, such coming of
Jesus, if he came at all, wasn’t a visible, bodily coming and therefore,
for them it does not count as the second coming of Christ.
Interestingly, many of those folks do say or believe that they have received the New Covenant, but then – strangely – they confess that they still live in a world of sin and death, typical features of the Old Covenant. What they do not realize is that the two covenants do not go together. It is in the New
Covenant that there is no remembrance of sin. It is those who believe in
Christ, who do “not come into judgment, but has (have) passed from
death into life.” “If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.”
“And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe
this?” Her we see in Jesus’ very own words that sin and death are not features of the New Covenant. If you are subject to the sin and death, you are still under the Old Covenant.
As for me, the events of 70 AD are a big deal. What happened then makes the truth of the scriptures come alive. I would highly recommend such an approach to the scriptures.
Cheers, and a happy new year to all
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
One of the reasons I can’t agree with you is because of what happened in Acts 1:6, “So when they had come together, they asked him, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?'”
This would have been a perfect time (right after the resurrection) to explain to his followers that he had no intention of restoring the kingdom to Israel. But, Instead of saying that, Yahshua replied in Acts 1:7, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.”
He seems to be saying that there IS going to be a time or season when the kingdom will be restored to Israel, and it is not for them (or us) to know these things. Of course it is human nature for us to want to know, just like it was human nature for his followers to want to know. But, Yahshua made it clear we are to be patient, and not loose faith in his coming return.
At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
Wolfgang,
BTW, I’d like to wish you and everyone else a happy and prosperous New Year…
DT,
as for Acts 1:6, please note that the disciples were NOT (!) asking about the nature of God’s rule and that the fulfillment of prophecies relating to God’s rule were about a national, political kingdom if Israel liberated from Rome and re-established as a national, political kingdom nation …!
They were asking about THE TIME when God’s rule (which Jesus had proclaimed to be at hand) would be established to Israel … and Jesus’ in his answer addressed exactly that point by letting them know that it was NOT AT THIS TIME (right after the resurrection, as he was standing there with them) by indicating to them that it would be coming (obviously in accordance with what he had prophesied concerning it previously, and not contradicting what he had taught previously) but that it was not for them to know that time … even as he had affirmed previously that he himself did not know the exact time, the very day and hour.
I would like to also point out that when Christ came at the end of that age God’s rule was established over Israel …. just not in the way in which many folks and the Jews at the time imagined it (their idea is that of a political nation on earth or a world empire with Jesus as a political ruler)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
how about the passages in Isa 13 ? … it is NOT about the day of the LORD at the end of the age, but (as 13:1 clearly indicates!) about the doom of Babylon, when Babylon experienced their day of the LORD (the LORD’s judgment on them) … now please note with what kind of language that is described (for example in 13:5,10,13) Is this language about what happens with the heavens and earth literal? Or is it in fact about the time of the LORD’s judgment (the LORD’s Day) when the Medes came and overtthrew Babylon?
how about the LORD’s judgment on Egypt in Isa 19? Cp Isa 19:1, where we also read about “the LORD riding on a swift cloud” and “is about to come to Egypt” ….. would you really think and believe that God “literally, physically†came into Egypt riding on a “physical/literal†cloud? I would think that you most likely would not think so, or am I mistaken about your view? We understand this to simply be prophetic language to indicate “God’s presence†that brought about that memorable event!
So then, why do folks like you want to understand the same identical type of language used in prophetic statements one time as being meant “literally” and another time (such as in the above cases) as “figurative/apocalyptic”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
You said, “as for Acts 1:6, please note that the disciples were NOT (!) asking about the nature of God’s rule and that the fulfillment of prophecies relating to God’s rule were about a national, political kingdom.”
I disagree. According to the ESV their exact words were, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?†I can only see one way to interpret “restore the kingdom to Israel”. It seems pretty clear to me that the disciples were expecting the kingdom of Israel to be restored.
Like I said, Yahshua didn’t say that they were wrong in expecting this. He just said the time and season when this will happen is not for them (or us) to know…
DT,
you mentioned
I refer you back to Acts 1:6 and their exact words (emphasizing what the question was about) => “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?†So, do you still disagree that their question was NOT about the nature of the kingdom but about the timing? Are the words at this time not sufficiently clear and emphatic to show what the question was about?
oops … clicked the submit button too early …
Sure, they even may have expected a political kingdom to be restored to Israel, or perhaps would have understood the Lord’s previous words about the Messiah and the kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God NOT being fulfilled in a political earthly way ….
BUT the point of the question in Acts 1:6 was THE TIMING … Thus, one should not try and (mis)use this scripture as a proof for the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven being an earthly political kingdom of the nation of Israel or a world empire with Jesus as a political ruler/king
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
You asked, “I refer you back to Acts 1:6 and their exact words (emphasizing what the question was about) => “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?†So, do you still disagree that their question was NOT about the nature of the kingdom but about the timing?”
Yes I disagree. The subject (point) of the question is not “will you at this time”. If this was the subject of the question you should be able to remove the rest of the question and still have it make sense. If you remove the rest of the question you are left with the nonsensical question, “Lord, will you at this time?”
Will you at this time what??? Without the subject the question makes no sense.
You also asked, “Are the words at this time not sufficiently clear and emphatic to show what the question was about?”
The words “at this time” are a modifier which modifies the subject of the sentence. You can remove the modifier and you are left with, “Lord, will you restore the kingdom to Israel?” Since this is the subject of the question, it makes perfect sense, even without the modifier “at this time”.
From my point of view it is indisputable that the subject (point) of the question is “Will you restore the kingdom to Israel?” It is also just as clear that the words “at this time” are just a modifier modifying the main subject (point) of the question.
I don’t mean to be argumentative, but that’s the way I see it anywaze…
DT,
I am somewhat surprised with your above comment …. When I ask you “Will you THIS NEXT TIME bring such and such with you when you visit?” am I asking about how your visits look like or am I asking about something particular concerning the visit THIS NEXT TIME ?
I did not cut off the question of the disciples after the words “at this time” … you did! I only pointed out to you that the emphasis of the question was about TIME, that is, whether Jesus was going restore AT THIS TIME the kingdom … and in his answer, Jesus addresses exactly this point regarding the TIME!
Unfortunately, many people seem to not realize the point of the question and isolate (take out of context!) the term “kingdom to Israel” and from that interpretation put their emphasize on “earthly political national kingdom” when in reality the question was not really about the nature of the coming rule but about the timing of the coming rule.
Hi all,
some further thoughts about what Jesus taught regarding the coming rule / kingdom
Consider that Jesus said that he would come in power and great glory at the time Jerusalem was destroyed. (Mt 24:30). Now, I would hope that all will agree that this verse in Mt 24:30 is about what happened in 70 AD and is not about a future coming. Furthermore, this then was the next time he came. So then, why should we not call it therefore his second coming?
In addition, Jesus’ coming (here called “the parousia”) is associated with the end of the age and it is to be recognized by “a sign.” (Mt 24:3). Was not the question, “What shall be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” The very sign for both of these events was “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel (Mt 24:15). Considering the parallel passage in Lk 21, Luke tells us what the sign was: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” (Lk 21:20). Ever asked yourselves why they needed a sign to see his coming and the end of the age? Could it have been because he wasn’t coming in a “visible, physical, bodily form?”
Another important point to consider here is that the Scriptures do not speak of “the end of time.” The Scriptures do not address an “end of time”, rather they speak of “the time of the end” (Dan 12:4) and “the end of the age” (Mt 24). Since this is an OT teaching, it has application to the end of the Old Covenant age. We now however do no longer live in the Old Covenant age, thus – as Paul states – the new covenant believers live in the “fullness of time.” (Eph 1:10), “that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth–in Him.” Or are we indeed still living in the OT age and things are not yet gathered in one in Christ??
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
You created a question that said, “When I ask you “Will you THIS NEXT TIME bring such and such with you when you visit?â€
Just because you capitalize something that doesn’t make it the subject of the sentence. You have capitalized the modifier which modifies the subject. If you remove the rest of the sentence the question again makes no sense. “Will you this next time?”
The reason it makes no sense is because it has no subject. The subject of a question is always the main point of the question or the sentence. In the quote from Acts 1:6 you keep on insisting that the main point (or subject) of the question is not important. Only the modifier “at this time” is important.
I’m sorry but I just don’t read it that way. I explained my reasoning as best as I could in msg. #206 above. I would just be repeating myself if I were to say the same thing again. Since we appear to be talking in circles at this point, I think it would be best if we just agree to disagree on the interpretation of this particular verse and what it was the disciples were actually asking Yahshua.
May the peace of God be with you and with us all…
If, as Wolfgang proposes, Jesus returned during 70 AD, why do the events written in Revelation, (written after 70 AD) align with the events described in Jesus’ Olivett Discourse (Matt 24:1-25) and Paul’s descriptions of Christ’s return in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4? To my understanding, these are all describing the same post-tribulation return of Jesus to earth. The events in Revelation align with those in Daniel and Zachariah. Agaain, IMHO, all describing the same events.
Does this all boil down to a debate over dispensationalism?
Frank D.,
as for the dating of the writing of the book of Revelation, scholars are divided about a so-called early date (written prior to the events of 70AD, John having been exiled to Patmos by Nero as indicated in a foreword to the Aramaic text) and a so-called late date (written in 95-96AD). I adhere to the early date and believe the book was written in approx 65 AD.
I do not propose dispensationalism with its pre-trib, or mid-trib or post-trib ideas regarding the coming of the Lord with a literal millennial (exactly 1000 years) political reign of Christ in either a political nation of Israel in the Near East or a world wide political empire.
Wolfgang, Are there any ancient extra biblical sources that write of Jesus’ return in 70 AD?
I am curious if this is an early held belief or if it developed later on.
Frank D.,
as for ancient extra biblical sources which mention an already accomplished coming of Christ I remember as I am writing a passage from the so-called “The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos”
As you can see, not only are the cross, the tomb, the resurrection, the ascension, the enthronement mentioned as “all that came to pass for our sake”, but also “the second, glorious coming”
(source: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html)
As I can think of any other reference, I will try and post them here …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Frank D.,
found the following among my bookmarks/favorites:
http://www.newjerusalemcommunity.net/?c=50&a=1797
___________________________________________________
Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:21:00 +0000
The Early Church and the “End of the World”
What did the earliest of the early Christian writers actually believe about prophetic events? We can only answer this question by actually studying what they wrote. The number one question today is. (How come the Church did not see the view).
There are a number of early writers who made significant preterist statements. All it takes is going to the writings of the early church fathers and doing a little research to learn the truth of the matter. The church fathers back that far did not write much about Jerusalem, but some of them did. Think deeply on these things.
Eusebius records the statement that James (brother of Jesus, writer of the book of James) made just before (c. 63 A.D.) he was pushed off the temple to the pavement below when he was being martyred for his faith in Jerusalem: “Why do ye ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of great Power, and “is about to come on the clouds of heaven.” ( Eusebius’ Esslesiastical History, Book 2, Ch.23; cf James 5:8,9)
Eusebius says that the abomination of desolation (i.e the antichrist, man of sin and beast of Revelation) occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.”… these facts, as well as the whole tenor of the war, and each particular of its progress, when finally “the abomination of desolation, according to the prophetic declaration, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, but which now was approaching its total downfall and final destruction by fire; all this, I say, any one that wishes may see accurately stated in the history written by Josephus.” (Eusebius; Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch.5). After quoting sections of Matt. 24:19-21; Lk. 19:41ff and Lk. 21:20, 23, 24,
Eusebius says this about the destruction of Jerusalem: “All this occurred” in this manner, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian (70 A.D.), according to the predictions of our Christ…On comparing the declarations of our Saviour which the other parts of Josephus work, where he describes the whole war, “how can one fail to acknowledge” and wonder at the truth divine and extraordinary foreknowledge and prediction of our Saviour?” (Eusebius’ Esslesiastical History, Book 3. Ch.7)
Eusebius declares that the Great Commission had been accomplished by the time Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 (cf. Matt. 24:14): “Of who (Christ), indeed “at this very time, “the sound of the holy apostles went throughout all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.’ ” (Eusebius Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8; cf. Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:6,23)
Athanasius declares “For now that “He has come” to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind in checked, and “the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away.” For the race of men had gone to ruin had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet “the end of death.” (Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 9 Verse 4; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21-26)
In reference to the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Massiah and their interpertation of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, Athanasius has this to say: “Perhaps with regard to the other “prophecies” they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ refrred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and “Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel.” (Athanasius; On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 39 Verse 3; cf. Dan. 9:24ff).
One doesn’t have to look too closely to find some real gems. We just didn’t recognize them as early preterist statements.. Here are some examples of a few of the earliest:
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-193-217), in The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1 page 329, in The Ante- Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, placed the abomination of desolation of Daniel’s 70th week prophecy, in the time of Nero. He said: ‘ in the one week; was He Lord. The half of the week Nero and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Gaiba, and Vitallus. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the Holy place.”
Earlier that Clement of Alexandria, was Clement of Rome, who wrote to James and told him what Peter had to the Jews, thusly: ” ‘ For we; said I, ‘have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you….; “When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple…;’ (Clement, p 94, vol. 8, The Ante-Nicene Fathers).
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (145-220) told of how the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment of predictions that had been made in Daniel 9:26. He said: Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that ‘both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin; And so the times of the coming Christ, the leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.
“In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be exterminated;, (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 158).
Tertullian was also a preterist in his interpretations of Zechariah 14:4. He said, ” ‘But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives; For thus had Zechariah pointed out: ‘And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives; ” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 417).
Eusebius says that the abomination of desolation (i.e.the antichrist, man of sin and beast of Revelation) occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D “…(Eusebius’ Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch5).
As one can easily see, the preterist position was taught by various writer clear back to the time of the apostles. They originally understood rightly that the time of fulfillment was to be imminent until the middle of the second century when they began to abandon that and suggest the delay/ postponement ideas. When the remaining fulfillment’s associated with Christ’s parousia did not occur in the physical-literal way they had expected, they assumed they had not been fulfilled at all. The same problem persists today, and can be solved by following correct Biblical interpretation methods. We need to get back to the study of Biblical Judaism.
Frank D.,
here’s part 2 of the above study on early preterist statements
http://www.newjerusalemcommunity.net/?c=44&a=1798
_____________________________________________
Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:11:00 +0000
The Early Church and the End of the World.
Question Did the first centery Church believe in a second coming?
Answer Yes. But not a thousand years from that generation to fulfill the rest of God’s promises.
If Jesus failed to fulfill all His predictions the first time in (the same generation) he could not be the Messiah. Notice how various will know Jewish writer express this.
The Jew refused to accept the excuse that the major prophecies concerning the Messiah will only be fulfilled in a “second coming.” He expects the Messiah to complete his mission in his first attempt . [The Real Messiah Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973 page 15.]
The Jewish rabbis have taunted Christians throughout church history saying Jesus can’t be their Messiah, since the Messiah would accomplish redemption, and judgement, in one generation with no gaps, delays, parentheses of postponements. The full establishment of the Kingdom could not be delayed. (The Real Messiah. Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973. page 15).
Since Jesus did not fulfill the most important Messianic prophecies, they expected him to return to complete this task in a “second coming.” At first, Christians expected that this second coming would come very shortly…in their lifetime. When their prayer was not an answered they began to hope that it would come a thousand years after Jesus’ death. This was the millennium or thousand years kingdom. Finally after a thousand years passed and Jesus still had not returned, they postponed his second coming to an indefinite time. We therefore see that the Christians were forced to radically alter the Jewish concept of the Messiah in order to explain Jesus failure. This compounded with the pagan influence in the early church, gave birth to a Messianic concept totally alien to Judaism. [Pinchas Stolper, ed. pages 32, 33]
You will discover that when ever any really strong question such as why Jesus hasn’t fulfilled all Messianic prophecies is asked of the Christians , the (standard answer is that it refers to the second coming). It therefore becomes extremely important to ascertain the validity of this claim. The success of the Christian claim or its failure ( rest to a very large extent on the theory of the second coming). It is clearly an answer born of desperation. [Samuel Levin. You Take Jesus, I will Take God. Los Angeles 1980. Page 15
Reader these Jews never had the concept of a second coming to fulfill the rest of the things he was unable to fulfill the first time in the Old Testament. (see Isa. 35:4-6, 40:10-11, 61:1-2, 62:11, 63:1-6, 66:6-16; Zech. 14; and Mal.4:1-6) The language used closely connects the coming of the Lord with both salvation and vengeance (judgment). Nowhere does the OT teach a “second coming.”
In fact the only place in the NT which even comes close to teaching a (second advent) is Heb. 9:28 where it says Christ will appear a second time . This was using the symbolism of the High Priest at Yom Kippur when he took the blood into the holy place and then reappeared back outside the Temple to announce that atonement had been accomplished .
This is the fulfillment of the type and shadows in Leviticus 9:1-24 where it say: Then Aaron lifted his hand toward the people blessed them, and came down from offering the sin offering, the burnt offering, and peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of meeting, and (came out and blessed the people), Then the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people.
Notice here that Israel’s sins were not forgiven until Aaron the High Priest came out of the tabernacle to bless the people verses 22,23. Every Jewish Christian understood this simple concept. Hebrews 9:24 says. For Christ has not entered the holy place made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us . This is a picture of our High Priest Christ Jesus going into the tabernacle to offer up the sins of the people.
And as the High Priest Aaron had to come (out of the tabernacle) and appear to the people blessing them, by letting them know that their sins had been forgiven of another year. So did Christ have to return out of the tabernacle a second time apart from sin, for salvation. (Hebrews 9:27-28)
Notice what this early Church Father has to says on the subject of the turning point of eschatology.
The thought of a postponement of the Parousia appears all through 2 Clement but here it is expressly mentioned for the first time. Thus about the middle of the second century a decisive turning point occurs one which can be compared in significance to all other great turning points, including the Reformation. Obviously we cannot fix this turning point precisely at the year 150 for it took a while until the thought caught hold every where.
(But a development does begin with the Shepherd of Hermas which could not be stopped a development at the end of which we stand today). As soon as the thought of a postponement of the Parousia was uttered once and indeed not only incidentally but thoroughly presented in an entire writing it developed its own life and power.
At first people looked at it as only a brief postponement, as the Shepherd of Hermas clearly expressed. But soon as the end of the world did not occur it was conceived of as a longer and longer period until finally this is today’s situation nothing but the thought of a postponement exists in people’s consciousness. [Kurt Aland. A History of Christianity. (2 vols) Vol 1 page 87-102].
This is were the mistake was first made and it has affected Christianity ever since. His statement is just one of many which goes back in Christian history.
Unfortunately this misunderstanding accursed before the Church really developed, and were incorporated into their teachings.
When the remaining fulfillments associated with Christ’s Parousia did not occur in the physical literal was they had expected they assumed that Christ had not returned at all. So they began adjusting their concept of the TIME of fulfillment instead of considering the possibility that their concepts of the NATURE of fulfillment were the only things needing adjustment.
The Jews never had the concept of a second coming, over a thousand years and since it was the Jews who first taught the notion of a Messiah via the Jewish prophets it seems quite reasonable to respect their inspired witting more then our traditions or anyone else’s uninspired opinion today.
We must immerse ourselves in the culture history religion and Jewish language of the Jews of Jesus day if we hope to go any further and deeper in our understanding of the Bible.
Christianity is not some totally new religion. It is the fulfillment of the promises made to the Jews on behalf of the Gentiles as well. (Romans 15:8-9) Salvation is of the Jews. It was directed to the Jews first and would be fulfilled in that very generation (Matthew 24:34).
Wolfgang,
You said, “The Jews never had the concept of a second coming, over a thousand years and since it was the Jews who first taught the notion of a Messiah via the Jewish prophets it seems quite reasonable to respect their inspired witting more then our traditions or anyone else’s uninspired opinion today.”
The way I see it, it’s not a matter of not respecting the Jewish inspired writings. All Christians respect the writings of the O.T. It’s a matter of not respecting “their interpretation” of those writings. There is nothing that says the Jewish people had a monopoly on the correct way to interpret the O.T. writings.
The Jewish people expected the Messiah to be a great general that would lead the people to some sort of military victory, as King David did. When the Messiah actually came and began telling people to turn the other cheek, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, the Jewish leadership immediately dismissed him as the potential Messiah (because he didn’t fit their expectations/interpretation of scriptures).
He was about as far from being a great military leader as could be imagined. He abhorred violence, and spoke of love (even loving your enemies) and about living in peace with our brothers and sisters. Just because the Jewish leadership (people) expected him to be a great military leader and accomplish everything in just one coming, doesn’t mean that he actually had to achieve everything he needed to achieve in just one coming…
DT.,
first, a small correction => what you ascribe to me is part of the article from a different website (cp. the url source I mentioned) and is not from me.
As for the point you raise, it is not just the Jewish interpretation of the Jewish scriptures (i.e. OT writings) but indeed it is fact, that the OT writings do NOT speak of two different comings of the Messiah separated by a thousands of years long interval.
Sure, the Jewish religion’s ideas at the time of Christ regarding the Messiah was that of a national, political leader who would indeed liberate Israel from Roman rule and establish Israel again as a political nation. Such ideas of the Messiah as a political, national or military leader was indeed wrong.
Yet, for some very strange reason, many Christians (including various members of this blog) hold to the exact same opinion of the Messiah coming as a political, national (or even worldwide) ruler, who will also exercise even military type power to subdue “enemies” and establish himself as king of a world empire. Since they have no choice but recognize that the Messiah did not fit such a picture when he came about 2 millenniums ago, and since they do not want to change their views about the nature of his rulership and his kingdom, they proclaim that he will surely have to come again to fulfill those expectations which they have.
Truth is not all that difficult and complicate … when one is on track, truth is simple and assumptions or imaginations about unknown future events are needed for the Scriptures to make sense and to be in harmony
Hello all,
since the article here deals with Jesus’ gospel message about the kingdom, and since many here apparently believe that Jesus’ message is about him being a political king over either a national state of Israel or even a world empire, exercising political and most likely also military power to subdue his enemies, etc … I would like to know in which of Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of heaven / kingdom of God did he ever even hint or point in the direction of such an understanding?
All of his teaching centered around a rule of a completely different nature, in some places he emphasized that his rule would absolutely NOT be in any way shape or form as that of political rulers/kings. and he even warned his disciples that they should NOT think in such terms, but rather follow his example of emphasizing the spiritual aspects of life resulting in service to others, in meekness and humbleness, and by no means in rising to political power.
Why then do many of Jesus’ followers even today have the idea of Jesus as a political world emperor in view?
Hi Wolfgang,
If you’re interested, a partial list of the Scriptural passages, which indicate that Jesus will rule on the earth, are contained in the following document:
The Kingdom of God
Brian
Hi Brian,
I was not asking about scriptures which indicate that Jesus will rule on earth … I am by now rather familiar with the passages commonly interpreted in a manner which makes the kingdom of God synonymous or identical with a re-established nation of Israel and/or a world empire with Jesus as king in a political sense.
I am asking about where Jesus himself taught/indicated that he would be ruling as a king in a political sense, exercising political and military power to subdue nations and establish a political world empire …?
It seems to me that when we look at Jesus’ gospel message as a whole, that he did not teach anywhere that he would eventually be a king in a political sense, that he would lead military campaigns as head of state or king to subdue other nations, etc. in order to re-establish Israel as a nation/earthly kingdom and then expand it to become a world empire …
Hi Brian,
I did read your above linked article on “The Kingdom of God”. In it you write among other things the following concerning what the “kingdom of God” is and you base your definition mostly or exclusively on a definition of the term “kingdom” and its OT references.
Indeed, the OT does have already references to God as KING and to God ruling … yet, where did God rule as a political leader? when was God ever a ruler in a political sense? It should be plain obvious that God’s rule is not of a earthly, political nature but is spiritual in nature.
Furthermore, it should be obvious that the 1st century Jews may have thought that they were familiar with what the kingdom and the Messiah was about … BUT were they? or were they entirely wrong in their ideas about the Messiah being a political leader and liberator who would re-establish an earthly nation of Israel or even a world empire? of course NOT! Neither can those living centuries later be correct who hold the same views as the 1st century Jews did …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Brian (msg. #219),
The link to the article `Kingdom of God` was great. I found it very informative. I don`t understand how people can ignore the multitude of O.T. scriptures and also ignore N.T. scriptures like Acts 1:6-7.
Acts 1:6-7 (English Standard Version)
The Ascension
(6) So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” (7) He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.
Yahshua didn`t say, `NO! I`m not going to restore the kingdom to Israel. He said it is not for us to know the times or seasons for these things to be happening…
Thomas,
The reason they ignore it is because they view it through the filter of post-Biblical ideas. One is the assumption that Hebrew thought was too carnal. Another is the pagan, philosophical notion of living in a non-material “spiritual realm.” They conclude that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) didn’t really mean what they said and are to be interpreted as “figures” of some ethereal realm on another plain of existence. These ideas are not biblical and came about after the NT was written, but they have the affect of blinding people to the truth.
Mark C.,
you write
really? are not you ignoring the very clear Biblical ideas concerning Jesus’ teaching about the nature of his rule and the timing of his kingdom?
As becomes clear from the articles about early extra-biblical documentation for an understanding of fulfilled prophecy concerning the coming of the Lord show, it was the post-Biblical turn to a physical, earthly, political idea of kingdom promoted by some church fathers who then propagated that the “soon to be fulfilled prophecies” were actually still unfulfilled (because things had not happened as these guys imagined that they should have happened) which lead to “futurist theology” that nowadays is still held by the vast majority of those in Christian groups and churches (sort of a similar situation to that of “trinity theology” which also came about in post-Biblical times and nowadays is still held to be the true doctrine about God).
Wolfgang,
Your “historical” data is faulty.
First, the earliest Church Fathers (as well as the NT writers) believed in the restoration of the kingdom based on the OT prophets. It was only after the unbiblical notion of “going to heaven when you die” crept into the church that a kingdom on earth was replaced with a kingdom in heaven. This is demonstrated in the following articles:
http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/redefined.htm
http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/Fathers.htm
http://godskingdomfirst.org/TheDead.htm#disembodied
http://godskingdomfirst.org/gospel.htm
Second, it was not a “post-Biblical turn promoted by some church fathers” that introduced a physical, earthly, political idea of kingdom. You said yourself that it was believed by the Jews at the time of Jesus, even though you claim they were wrong. As I showed, the NT writers and earliest Church Fathers believed the OT Prophets. It was the embracing of Greek philosophy and the loss of Hebrew understanding that brought about all the wrong doctrines in the Church. This is a historically proven fact.
And third, the “futurist theology” is not held by “the vast majority of those in Christian groups and churches.” Most Christian groups and churches hold to the idea of going to heaven when you die. But how many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not.
Mark C.,
guess what …. I – and all who I have come to know who do hold to the understanding that what Jesus taught about his soon return and coming even while some who heard him were still alive – do believe in the restoration of all things and in the establishment of God’s kingdom in accordance with the prophecies made by OT prophets !!
As those articles which I mentioned above with references from early extra-biblical writings show, those folks who understood things in a “preterist” manner also believed that the events they understood to be relating to the Messiah’s return at the end of the age to be in fulfillment of what the OT prophets already prophesied.
For example, I do believe what Jesus said as recorded in Lk 21
Lk 21:20-22 (KJV)
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand.
21 “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
You, however do believe that what we read here must not quite be correct, because NOT ALL THINGS which are written were fulfilled at the time the disciples saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (which happened when the Roman armies began besieging Jerusalem prior to the 70AD destruction of city and temple) … You believe that SOME THINGS which are written are still – almost 2 millenniums later – unfulfilled.
Wolfgang,
As usual, you ignore the points I made, and your statements demonstrate that you don’t even know what it is we believe, despite our many attempts to explain it to you. Why do you continue to argue when you have no desire to actually consider what we’re saying? This seems like just trolling for arguments.
Mark C.,
your points are shown to be contradictory to rather simple scriptural truths, as becomes evident by those scriptures and the points made not only by me but also those mentioned by the authors in the articles I mentioned.
Also, I am considering what you are saying … and I am NOT agreeing with your points. Rather I do show that they are contradictory to what the Scriptures teach and that your concept doesn’t fit not only the overall Scriptural scope but also not the rather plain details concerning the timing and the nature of the events in question.
Wolfgang,
You just proved my point. You have no interest in discussing, so why keep bringing it up?
You keep saying my points are contradictory to Scripture, but:
(1) you have demonstrated that you don’t even know what my viewpoint is.
(2) you have nowhere presented Scriptural proof that disproves even what you perceive my viewpoint to be, let alone what it actually is.
(3) you have ignored many of my points completely.
(4) you have flat out stated that you have no interest in reading what I have written elsewhere (comment 79, among others).
Since you have no interest in open, honest discussion, your continued contradictions are nothing more than trolling for arguments, and a waste of time.
If you genuinely want to discuss the subject and give honest consideration to our viewpoint, you can demonstrate it by doing the following, relative to the four points above:
(1) examine what we’ve presented, making an effort to see what we believe and why, and stop telling us what you claim we believe (for example, that our whole premise of a literal kingdom is based on a misunderstanding of the word ‘kingdom;’ or that we think God Himself was or is a political ruler, rather than His Messiah ruling on earth in His name; or that I believe that what we read in Luke 21:20-22 “must not quite be correct.”)
(2) present Scriptural evidence for your viewpoint, not just a broad claim that it’s clear when you look at it in light of the “overall scope” of Scripture.
(3) actually deal with the specific points we make, and respond to them. (you claim that you have shown that they are contradictory to what the Scriptures teach. Show me WHERE you have done this.)
(4) actually read what we say, and discuss specific points that you disagree with.
If you are unwilling to do these things, then it would be a waste of our time and yours to continue any discussions on this subject.
Mark C.,
you may want to take a look in a mirror … YOU are the man who continues to basically ignore and/or explain away any points raised which do not agree with your understanding of the kingdom (such as points relating to the timing and nature) …
Someone else here has voiced the same points as I have concerning timing and nature (although the person arrives apparently at a totally different conclusion concerning the implications) of the kingdom … and you were not able as of yet to show that our rather simple arguments about what the Scriptures do state concerning the imminence of the coming of the Lord and the establishment of the kingdom are incorrect.
I mentioned a very simple scripture with words of the Lord Jesus himself (Lk 21,20-22) in a post above where Jesus prophesied that ALL THAT IS WRITTEN (in the OT, since this must have been the Scriptures to which Jesus could have then referred) would be fulfilled at the time the apostles would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies (which was fulfilled in the siege prior and during 70 AD) and you obviously in your writings contradict the Lord’s words by claiming that NOT ALL was then fulfilled but some is even now still future.
Is this point from Scripture not sufficient and not specific enough? Or do you actually agree that ALL that was written did then come to pass?
Now, let’s see how willing or unwilling you are … or if you regard answering a waste of time just because the point raised shoots down your point about a yet future fulfillment of some of what is written in the OT?
Wolfgang,
If you read what I wrote, you’ll see that I did not ignore those points, nor did I “explain them away.” I “explained them” in a way that is consistent with the overall viewpoint to which I hold. You may not agree with my conclusions, but I did offer an explanation; I did not ignore the points.
As I have said, I believe that there have been a number of historical occurrences that could be considered “types” or “foreshadows” of the ultimate fulfillment. But since the Prophecies of Daniel and the words of the Lord are specific, I don’t believe that the events of 70AD could be the fulfillment of those Prophecies. Daniel and Jesus both state unequivocally that the Abomination of Desolation would signal the beginning of the Great Tribulation, and that immediately after those days would be the signs in the heavens and the coming of the Son of Man.
The Prophets are also clear that when the Son of Man comes, there would be a mass resurrection, and Messiah would inaugurate his kingdom on earth. At that time there would be no more war, no more famine, no more disease, and the nations would bow to Messiah’s rule. There are too many specific prophecies in the OT that cannot be ignored or interpreted as “figurative” to dismiss the idea of a kingdom on earth. This is why I have repeatedly stated that without the foundation of the OT, you cannot and will not understand what Jesus meant when he spoke of the kingdom of God.
Regarding Luke 21:20-22, please note I am not saying that “not all was then fulfilled but some is even now still future.” What I am saying is that ALL WILL BE fulfilled in that day, when the time comes. In the mean time, some events may resemble the Prophecies in some areas, but because they do not resemble the Prophecies in other areas, and in fact contradict them, we know that it was NOT the fulfillment of Prophecy. Antiochus Epiphanes at the time of the Maccabees is another such example. There are many similarities between those events and the Prophecies, and some people even consider that to have been the fulfillment. But Jesus did not. The Prophecies were still future in his mind.
The only way to accurately determine whether Prophecies have been fulfilled is to study them carefully, and from what I’ve seen the only way they fit is to see them in light of all the other prophesies of the coming Messiah and his kingdom. If you try to interpret them in light of understanding that came later (i.e. after the NT was written) you just end up working backwards. The Kingdom of God (i.e. Messiah ruling in God’s name on a restored earth) is the foundation of the whole Bible, and nothing fits without that foundation.
I also asked you several times to show me HOW “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven†contradicts the idea of a literal kingdom; you never did. You kept saying he wasn’t talking about a literal kingdom there, but you showed no proof of that. As I said, that verse doesn’t prove either a literal or a figurative kingdom. Taken by itself it could be talking about either one. When I said that before you replied, “See, it’s rather simple, isn’t it?” but then proceeded to say that Jesus “is NOT talking about a political nation or world empire…” Based on what? We both are interpreting the verse in light of our views, so the verse itself neither proves nor disproves those views.
As Brian’s article pointed out, most of the time Jesus didn’t offer a definition of the kingdom of God, because the Jews to whom he was speaking already knew what it meant. You just cannot get away from the fact that the NT makes no sense without the OT foundation, and the OT is all about God’s Messiah being promised as a ruler on a renewed earth.
BTW, I never said answering questions that contradict my viewpoint is a waste of time. What I said was a waste of time is going in circles and having to repeat myself over and over. If you want to discuss the OT references I’d be happy to do so. But if you’re going to keep coming back to the supposition that the timing questions define the kingdom rather than the OT foundation, there is nothing else I can say that I haven’t said already. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Mark C.,
you make mention above to the fulfillment of the Law and the OT prophecies
Now, Jesus himself said that “”one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled?” Thus, until all is fulfilled, the Old Covenant is in effect!
You think my understanding is odd and wrong and incoherent with OT Law and prophets, BUT in fact it is built upon an understanding that the time elements show that the Law and prophets were “imposed until a time of reformation,” (Heb 9:10), a time which came at the judgment on Jerusalem, AD 70.
This is also the time when Jesus came out of Heaven, for Peter, after Pentecost, said, “whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets,” (Acts 3:21). Notice this is another OT prophecy of which all the prophets had spoken. Either Jesus fulfills this at the Restoration of all things or every jot and tittle of the Law is still in effect!
Since it is the time when Jesus comes out of heaven, it is the time when Phil 3:20-21 are fulfilled. Paul and the Philippians were eagerly awaiting their savior from heaven and the Old Covenant body would be transformed into his glorious body. It is, therefore, something that has happened almost 2000 years ago and is not something that the saints since or today are waiting for.
You say that Jesus is to come again. I hope you can see that if Jesus has not already come again, the Law was not fulfilled, the Restoration did not come, and the New Covenant was not established. In essence and rather few words, one would have to conclude that such a teaching tells the world that Jesus failed.
Wolfgang,
As I have dealt with before, there is a big difference between the ratification of the New Covenant which Jesus accomplished with his shed blood, and the completion of all things when he returns to judge the world and set up the kingdom. That’s in another of my articles that you don’t want to read (The New Covenant). If everything were finished, then why would Paul say that the holy spirit was an earnest, or token of our inheritance to come? (Eph. 1:13-14; II Cor. 1:21-22; II Cor. 5:5)
More importantly, it is your viewpoint that would make Jesus appear to have failed. If Phil 3:20-21 has been fulfilled, in what way did he “transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory?”
Also, I listed the specific things that he himself and the Prophets say will happen when he returns. If they are fulfilled, why is there still war, disease, rampant evil, and mass deception by the devil? When did the people cease from war and beat their swords into plowshares? Where or when did people come from east and west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom? Where is David’s throne that would be established in Jerusalem, to which all nations would bow? Where is the peace and prosperity that God promised in the Age to Come?
What did his return accomplish? If what we see in the world now is the fulfillment of all the OT prophecies, then Jesus wasn’t much of a Messiah. JohnE’s conclusion would actually be more logical. Or if the Church is the spiritual kingdom of God, how could it have gotten so messed up? Is there anything that is still to be accomplished? If so, what will be different? (Please include Scripture references with your answer.)
Mark C
Seems like you do not have a problem endlessly debating any other topic apart from “Christmas”, don’t you?
Wolfgang, you allow for the possibility of the disciples wrongly thinking that the Kingdom mentioned in Acts 1:6 as being being political or earthly in nature, which on the face of it was the common belief of the Jewish nation of that day. But if you are right in your conclusion that they were mistaken and that the Kingdom was spiritual in nature, then it raises serious question about the teaching methods of Jesus, who must have either failed to communicate properly that the disciples notion about a spiritual rather than physical Kingdom was a mistake, or He simply kept them in the dark for three years. On the face of it, the question of when would the Kingdom arrive in Acts 1:6 is a perfectly logical and natural one if it is conceded that the nature of this Kingdom was already settled in the minds of the disciples, so it should not be surprising that the emphasis of the question would be when it would arrive and not what is its nature, for the Jews new nothing of a spiritual kingdom.
Also, the bible makes it perfectly clear that at this time, we are not spiritual beings, so the notion that we are a spiritual Kingdom, is in my opinion, wrong. Yes christians are able to understand and follow spiritual truth, but only as it is revealed by God. Read 1 Corinthians 15 carefully, we are earthly not spiritual in nature until the resurrection, so how can we be a spiritual Kingdom.
Wolfgang, also read John chapter three. Jesus spelt out very carefully to Nicodemus that he was not going to see the Kingdom of God until he had been Born Again or born from above. In the context of John three, what does it mean to be born from above.
The very fact that Jesus chides him for not already knowing what was being revealed to him even though he was a teacher proves that it was something that was already taught in the Old Testament. If being born from above was entering a spiritual kingdom, then were was this taught in the OT ?. I dont think it was.
What was clearly taught was that when the kingdom was to be set up, a resurrection would take place Ezekiel (36-37)
John 3:16 confirms this idea when we understand that when Jesus promises Eternal Life to the whosever who believeth, that the only place in the entire OT that contains the phrase Eternal Life, and therefore should have been the foundation of understanding the term, is Daniel 12:2, a clear reference to the resurrection.
This harmonises perfectly with the Lords words, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.
Born of flesh = what came out of your mother’s womb,> natural, earthy, That which is born of spirit = imperishable> spiritual body.
I wonder if Paul knew this when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15.
Allen,
I think Jesus was rather clear and plain and did not leave anyone in the dark about the end of the age, the kingdom at hand and his coming … he rather plainly taught (as did his disciples) that it was at hand, would come shortly and even in his generation (cp. various places where Jesus spoke of this … such as in Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk21, end of Mt 16, etc. … also cp. the various NT passages in Paul’s writings as well as Peter’s where it is clear that the disciples were taught and expected the Lord’s coming to happen within their lifetime.
Now, was such expectation wrong? was it wrong because they were wrongly taught? was it wrong because they misunderstood what they had been taught (perhaps because – as you said above – Jesus’ teaching methods were unclear? ) ?
OR could it be that they were taught correctly, understood correctly and those are wrong who since the early centuries even until today claim that it did not happen (basically, just because the nature of how they think it should have happened did not happen)?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang, in my opinion the teaching methods of Jesus were not unclear, they built perfectly upon the Jewish expectation of a literal earthly kingdom. As most would recognise, this was the expectation of the first century Israelites, and the burden of proof falls on those who believe that Jesus taught clearly otherwise.
As we can see from Acts 1:6, the nature of the kingdom was not in the thinking of the disciples, it was when it would arrive.
The Jewish patriarchs and fathers believed in this promoise of an earthly kingdom, certainly the concept of them believing in a spiritual ethereal kingdom is now where to be found in OT, so I take confidence from the fact that this belief was not contradicted by the words of Jesus, as can be seen by the content of Pauls faith in Acts 24 14-15, what the fathers believed, Paul believed.
14“But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; 15having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.
Note what Paul believed was in accordance with the Law and Prohets, when did the Law and Prophets teach any thing other than earthly promises.
Wolfgang, also read John chapter three. Jesus spelt out very carefully to Nicodemus that he was not going to see the Kingdom of God until he had been Born Again or born from above. In the context of John three, what does it mean to be born from above.
The very fact that Jesus chides him for not already knowing what was being revealed to him even though he was a teacher proves that it was something that was already taught in the Old Testament. If being born from above was entering a spiritual kingdom, then were was this taught in the OT ?. I dont think it was.
What was clearly taught was that when the kingdom was to be set up, a resurrection would take place Ezekiel (36-37)
John 3:16 confirms this idea when we understand that when Jesus promises Eternal Life to the whosever who believeth, that the only place in the entire OT that contains the phrase Eternal Life, and therefore should have been the foundation of understanding the term, is Daniel 12:2, a clear reference to the resurrection.
This harmonises perfectly with the Lords words, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.
Born of flesh = what came out of your mother’s womb,> natural, earthy, That which is born of spirit = imperishable> spiritual body.
I wonder if Paul knew this when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15.
Allen,
so now, how do your above posts address the points I raised in my earlier reply to your post?
Perhaps you did not get my point, so I repeat it in simple questions:
Did the early church believers anticipate the coming of the Lord, the kingdom, the end of the age, etc. to “be at hand” (come “shortly”), even in the lifetime of some of them?
Did they have such imminent hope of these events because they had been taught that by Jesus as well as the apostles?
Had they been taught correctly or falsely? did they perhaps wrongly understand what they had been taught?
OR — in case they had been taught correctly and did believe correctly — are those wrong who have taught since the early centuries AD (and even those today who teach) that these events did not come to pass ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
PS: As for your above two posts, I pretty much understand those points you mention the same way as you do.
There is a decisive difference however, and that concerns your very first statement:
” … the teaching methods of Jesus were not unclear, they built perfectly upon the Jewish expectation of a literal earthly kingdom. ”
I agree that Jesus’ teaching methods were not unclear, but I do NOT see that he agreed with the Jewish expectation of the kingdom of God (kingdom of heaven) being a literal earthly kingdom. I would say that Jesus was very clear when being asked by Pilate about being a king (John 18:36: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
Some folks (some here as well) gladly read the part I put in bold print and then explain, that “not of this world” means that it comes from heaven, but is worldly, earthly, political etc in nature. Yet, in the very next phrase Jesus does explain that with his “of the world” and respectively “not of this world” IS INDEED referring to the nature of his kingdom (and not to its supposed “origin”). See, the simple fact that Jesus did not have his disciples fight nor take any other earthly, political, etc. steps as king already proves that “NOT of this world” refers to the nature of Jesus kingdom as NOT being political, earthly, of this world.
Wolfgang, the early apostles did live in readiness of the kingdom, you are right. But that does not mean that because it has not arrived that it has changed from a earthly kingdom to a spiritual kingdom. Thats the whole point of Jesus telling them that it was not for them to know the times or sesasons of its arrival, but they had to live in light of its fulfillment, we are exactly the same, no one knows when it will arrive, but we must make preparation for it when it does arrive or else there is a danger of us not entering it.
You seem to really be claiming that a monumental shift took place in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles that lead you to believe that the promised kingdom changed from earthly, the evidence that you provide simply does not merit or prove that this change took place.
To say that in Jesus response to Pilate, My kingdom is not of this world, means that this changes the very nature of this kingdom is correct, but not in the way that you state.
If the kingdoms of the world in the first century are the same as the ruling kingdoms of today, then I think you will agree, unrighteousness, corruption, wars over natural resources and rich people running rough shod over those that they rule would be the norm. No better example of this would The Roman empire of which Pilate was a representative. When Jesus stated that His kingdom was not of this world, He meant that its arrival and its nature as far as its governance would be different and characterised by righteousness, but its location would still be very much earthly as far as the OT prophets are concerned.
When Abraham and his seed were promised a land in Genesis, it was made clear in Galatians that the seed in question was Christ.
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto your seed will I give this land: and there he built an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
– Gen. 12:7
And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto you, and to you seed after you.And I will give unto you, and to your seed after you, the land where you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
And God said unto Abraham, You shall keep my covenant therefore, you, and your seed after you in their generations.
– Gen. 17:7-9
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,†as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,†that is, Christ Gal 3:16.
As Paul clearly states, the promised seed was Christ, and the land is His inheritance, an inheritance that He shares with those who are faithful.
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God Romans 8:16-19.
As I see it, to strip Christ of His promised inheritance is no small matter, and part of that inheritance is clearly an earthly throne.
Luke 1:31-33 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.â€