Luke 17:20 - 37
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”[h]
22 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. 23 And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them. 24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.[i] 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 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. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all— 30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.”[j] 37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse[k] is, there the vultures[l] will gather.”
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. What is the kingdom of God?
2. Why can't it's coming be observed?
3. What does it mean that the kingdom of God is in the "midst of you"?
4. What does it mean in "one of the days of the Son of Man"?
5. Why won't the disciples see one of the days of the Son of Man?
6. What is the "Son of Man in His day" mean?
7. What does Jesus mean by the lightning metaphor?
8. What day is when the Son of Man is revealed?
9. What does the comparison with Lot mean?
10. What does it mean that we shouldn't take our belongings with us? During what?
11. What does it mean that one will be taken and the other left? Taken where?
12. What did Jesus mean by the corpse and vultures comment?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteJesus taught that His Kingdom is a spiritual kingdom. Yet, so many, even today, still look for a future physical kingdom.
There were three historical temples in succession: those of Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod. The first temple was built by Solomon, about 1005 years before Christ (1 Kings 6). He spent seven years building it. This temple remained till it was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, 584 years before Christ.
After the Babylonian captivity, the temple was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, but with vastly inferior and diminished splendor. This was called the second temple. This temple was often defiled in the wars before the time of Christ. It had become very decayed and impaired. Herod's temple was really a massive rebuilding of the Zerubbabel temple, so both are called the "second temple" by Judaism. This rebuilding began in 19 B.C., but it was only completed in A.D. 63 under Agrippa II.
And it had been finished for hardly seven years when, in A.D. 70, it was completely destroyed in fire and blood notwithstanding the fanaticism with which the Jews tried to defend it.
Jesus predicts that this massive temple would be utterly destroyed in an act of God's judgement. At the time this was spoken, no event was more improbable than this. Yet, all this happened in A.D. 70 exactly as Jesus said it would. After the city was taken, Josephus says that Titus, "gave orders that the soldiers should dig up even the foundations of the temple, and also the city itself." Thus fulfilling the prophecy of:
Therefore, on account of you, Zion will be plowed as a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, And the mountain of the temple will become high places of a forest. (Micah 3:12 NASB)
Josephus observed that the leveling was so severe that Jerusalem's city wall "was so completely leveled with the ground that there was no longer anything to lead those who visited the spot to believe that it had ever been inhabited."
Jesus pronounced doom on the temple because the true center of the relation between God and man has shifted to Himself.
The fleshly, earthly tabernacle was a shadow ,and God destroyed it in A.D. 70. We now live in a spiritual kingdom, with a spiritual tabernacle, we worship God in spirit and in reality.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteEschatology is a source of great confusion today. Since World War 1, we have seen a rise in predictions about the end times and the return of Christ. The re-establishment of Israel as a state in 1948 boosted even more predictions. The word "generation" in Mark 13:30 has grown increasingly longer in many eschatological views since that time! In the early 70s, Hal Lindsey led the pack of end-time books with his, The Late Great Planet Earth. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have been the latest to greatly profit from the end-times' craze with their series of novels, movie, and Left Behind knick-knacks.
Let me ask you a question that is of the utmost importance to hermeneutics: Is the Bible written to you or for you? Do you know of any book in the Bible written to the saints in Chesapeake, VA? I don't. The Scriptures are not written to us! They are for us, but they were not written to us.
A principle of hermeneutics is Original Relevance-what did the original readers understand the text to mean? The Bible was written to real people in real places facing real circumstances. In our text in Mark 13 Jesus is not talking to us, but to His disciples.
To the Jews, time was divided into two great periods, the Mosaic Age and the Messianic Age. The Messiah was viewed as one who would bring in a new world. The period of the Messiah was, therefore, correctly characterized by the Synagogue as "the world to come." All through the New Testament we see two ages in contrast: "This age" and the "age to come." The understanding of these two ages and when they changed is fundamental to interpreting the Bible. Most Christians believe that most all of the New Testament prophecies deal with a time future to us. When they read in the New Testament the words "the age to come," they think of a yet future age. But the New Testament writers were referring to the Christian age. We live in what was to them the "age to come," the New Covenant age.
Notice who is taken--the wicked. Is this a reverse rapture? I believe this speaks of the Judgement of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It was the end of the Jewish age, and the wicked Jews were burned in the destruction of Jerusalem.
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you (1 Peter 1:20 NASB)
Jesus came during the last days of the age that was the Old Covenant age, the Jewish age. That age came to an end with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. All the things prophesied by Jesus in Mark 13 occurred at the end of that age. Nothing is taught in the Bible about a millennial age. The Bible talks about "this age"the Old Covenant age, and the "age to come"the New Covenant age.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteWas the gospel preached in the whole world by A.D. 70? What is the "world?" The Greek word used here for "world" or "inhabited earth" is oikoumene, which means: "the inhabited earth" (a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians.( b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire." So the census that was taken was not of the whole world, but of the Romans empire.
The word "world" here is also the Greek word oikoumene, which is a reference to the Roman empire. So what this is saying is that the gospel had to be preached to the Roman empire prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Every Christian I know (including myself) was taught false ideas about the future Second Coming of Christ from their earliest Christian days. We have read books on it, seen movies about it, and seen pictures depicting it. It was all we were ever taught, it is the only teaching many know about the Second Coming. Thus, every Christian must unlearn unbiblical teaching before they can understand the truth of Scripture.
B.H. Carroll says, "Pilate, at that time Roman Procurator, sent from Caesarea, the seaport of that country on the Mediterranean Sea, a legion of Roman soldiers and had them secretly introduced into the city and sheltered in the tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple, and these soldiers brought with them their ensigns. The Roman sign was a straight staff, capped with a metallic eagle, and right under the eagle was a graven image of Caesar. Caesar claimed to be divine. Caesar exacted divine worship, and every evening when those standards were placed, the Roman legion got down and worshiped the image of Caesar thereof, and every morning at the roll call a part of the parade was for the whole legion to prostrate themselves before that graven image and worship it. The Jews were so horrified when they saw that image and the consequent worship, they went to Pilate, who was at that time living in Caesarea, and prostrated themselves before him and said, 'Kill us, if you will, but take that abomination of desolation out of our Holy City and from the neighborhood of our holy temple.'"
Mark says, they will see this "abomination of desolation" "standing where it should not be" Matthew says "Standing in the holy place." This abomination should not be in the holy place. This does not need to be understood as the temple only, but Jerusalem also, and any part of the land of Israel. to the Jews, all Jerusalem was considered holy.
By combining Luke's statement with secular history, it is clear that Cestius Gallus and his Roman army were the abomination of desolation. It was fulfilled in A.D. 66 when the Romans surrounded the city of Jerusalem.
History records that for no known reason Cestius Gallus, suspended the siege, ceased the attack and withdrew his armies. At this time every believing Jew had the opportunity to flee the city as the Lord had instructed them.
There is probably not a Christian alive that has not heard of the "Great Tribulation."
Most of what we have heard is the eschatology of Dispensationalism. It teaches that someday soon, Christ will return to the earth invisibly and snatch away all the Christiansthe rapture. After God has removed the Church, He will go back to dealing with Israel. They view the church as a parenthesis in God's time line. There will be a seven year period called the tribulation in which the earth and it inhabitants will be destroyed by God's wrath.
The entire scheme of Dispensational eschatology, though popular in recent years, has no roots in historic Christian interpretation of the Scriptures.
According to Preterists, the "Great Tribulation" was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army in A.D. 70.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteJosephus, who was not a Christian, agrees with Jesus' words in Mark 13:19, that the war with the Romans was "the greatest of all" wars "ever heard of."
They didn't listen to Jesus or Paul. The Jews stopped paying their taxes and rebelled against Rome. A recurring theme in Josephus' work on the Roman war is the clear imputation of guilt upon the Jews themselves for the starting of the war.
Renan said, "From this time forth, hunger, rage, despair, and madness dwelt in Jerusalem. It was a cage of furious maniacs, as city resounding with howling and inhabited by cannibals, a very hell. Titus, for his part, was atrociously vindictive; every day five hundred unfortunates were crucified in the sight of the city with hateful refinements of cruelty or sufficient ground whereon to erect them."
We need to realize the scope of the Great Tribulation upon the people of Israel. It was not just those in Jerusalem that suffered and died, but all over Palestine, the whole country felt the judgement of God. Josephus said, "There was not a Syrian city which did not slay their Jewish inhabitants, and were more bitter enemies to us than were the Romans themselves."
David Clark said, "It is doubtful if anything before or since has equaled it for ruthless slaughter and merciless destruction. From the locality of these churches in Asia Minor to the borders of Egypt the land was a slaughterhouse, City after city was wrecked, sacked, and burned; till it was recorded that cities were left without an inhabitant."
With its destruction came a covenantal change. God's kingdom was taken from them, and no longer would Gentiles rule over God's kingdom, because His Kingdom was now a spiritual kingdom, entered not by a physical birth but by a spiritual birth. The old heavens and earth of Judaism were destroyed; the new heavens and earth of Spiritual Israel were established. It signaled the end of the age. God had utterly destroyed the physical temple, the genealogical records which qualified descendants of Aaron to serve as priests, and the city of Jerusalem. The old system of worship was forever over.
The destruction of Jerusalem was not simply a local judgement, it was a covenantal judgement. Notice Jesus' words:
that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 "Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:35-36 NASB)
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteBeliever, we must test everything we believe by the text. The beliefs you hold must come from the text. And we must be open to allowing the text to shatter our false ideas.
As we work our way through this discourse, we must fight the temptation to read this as if it was written to us in the twenty first century. Jesus is speaking to His disciples in the first century, and we must study it in that context. Audience relevance is something we must always keep in mind as we read and study the Bible; what did this mean to the original audience? The Scriptures are not written to us! They are for us, but they were not written to us.
Josephus computes the number of those who perished in the siege at eleven hundred thousand, besides those who were slain in other places; and if the Romans had gone on destroying in this manner, the whole nation of the Jews would certainly, in a little time, have been eliminated. The word "saved," here is not a reference to eternal life, but to physical deliverance. Had the war gone on much longer, no one would have been left alive.
"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 heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. (Mark 13:24-25 NASB)
Modern commentators generally understand this and what follows as the end of the world; but the words "in those days," show, that he is not speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately following the tribulation just mentioned, and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem.
When Jesus, therefore, spoke of the sun being darkened, the moon not giving its light, and the stars falling from heaven, He was not referring to the end of the solar system, but of the complete dissolution of the Jewish state.
In the apocalyptic language, great commotions and revolutions upon earth are often represented by commotions and changes in the heavens.
The Biblical evidence is overwhelming, the Olivet Discourse in its entirety is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The only thing that would make us push any of these things into the future are our own presuppositions. In this vivid picturesque language, Jesus is describing Jerusalem's destruction. In A.D. 70 the son, moon, and stars went out in Israel for good. When the tribulation was over, physical Israel ceased to exist. God's people were no longer distinguished by physical birth, but by spiritual birth alone. The Old Covenant was over and the New fully instituted.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteAfter the destruction of Jerusalem, the nation of Israel, after the flesh, was scattered throughout the earth and lost all tribal relations. This scattering was made immutable due to the fact that all tribal genealogical records were destroyed with the temple in A.D. 70. The simple fact is that there is no existing Jewish race.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
"The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (vol. 12, page 1054)
Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .
Encyclopedia Americana (1986)
"Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 16: p. 71).
Therefore, we can clearly and confidently assert that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, nor ever can there be. These facts are devastating to Dispensationalism. There are no twelve tribes today, there is no Jewish race today.
We know that there is no possibility that this passage of the Olivet Discourse has any relation to a future Jewish race, since there is no such thing. Since the fall of Jerusalem and the scattering of the nation of Israel in the first century, the nation calling itself Israel has consisted of a collection of people from nearly every nation in the world, with no relation to the twelve tribes of the historical nation known as Israel. Any attempts to state that there is, or will ever again be, a race of Israelites are proven to be futile and of no force.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteWhen I first came to see as truth the fact that the Lord had come in A.D. 70 and all prophecy had been fulfilled, my first objection was, "This means we are living in the New Heaven and the New Earth!" My response to that was, "Yea right! If this is the New Heaven and Earth, we got ripped off." Why did I feel that way? It was because I was looking for a physical fulfillment of 2 Peter 3. I thought that those passages were speaking of physical events. I thought that, because I was thinking like a twenty first century American and not like a first century Jew. I didn't understand apocalyptic language. But Jesus' disciples and those living in the first century were very familiar with apocalyptic language.
"Heaven and earth passing," understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe, and the period when that is to take place, is called the "end of the world." But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens"
The heavens and the earth (Old Covenant Israel) would perish, but Christ and His throne would remain for ever and ever. How is the world or the heavens and earth of old going to perish? David said they shall, "become old like a garment," and then they would be "changed." Is it just a coincidence that the Bible speaks of the passing away of the Old Covenant using the same language?
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:2 NASB)
Who is this bride and what is this holy city?
The bride is the Lamb's wife. We know from Ephesians 5, that the bride is the church. The bride of Christ is the totality of God's elect.
Revelation is also concerned about two cities. The old Jerusalem, which was physical Israel, and the new Jerusalem, which is the bride of Christ. The old city was destroyed, but the new city that takes its place is that city which is the bride of Jesus Christ.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteAnd I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb, are its temple. (Revelation 21:22 NASB)
There is no temple in this city. Why? The temple represented the presence of God. In the New Jerusalem, we are in the presence of God, we need no temple.
This age in which we now live is the New Covenant age. We are the New Jerusalem, God's holy bride.
Someone who believes all of this would be considered a Preterist. A Preterist is someone who believes that all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70. A partial Preterist (which is technically a futurist) believes that most of the prophecies have been fulfilled in A.D. 70, but still looks for a future return of Christ and a future resurrection. Partial Preterists would agree with most of what I have said in the interpretation and the application of Mark 13:1-31 referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Before he became a consistent Preterist, David Chilton concluded that there were no verses in the Bible which taught a future (to us) coming of Christ, in which Christ would bodily return to this planet. Nevertheless, he continued to believe the doctrine because it had been taught for nearly 2000 years by "Holy Mother, the Church" (Chilton's words).
John Bray held a similar view in his booklet, Jesus is Coming Soon! he says this, "The New Testament references to the parousia/coming of Christ had reference to that 'momentous' and signal event which occurred in A.D. 70. The time statements in the New Testament prove this. Any reference to a future (to us) coming of Christ found in the New Testament is found by inference and deduction, and not by express statement."
In his book, The Days of Vengeance, David Chilton labels full Preterism as heterodox: "Contrary to the theories of those interpreters who would style themselves as 'consistent Preterists,' the Fall of Jerusalem did not constitute the Second Coming of Christ... its ultimate thesis--that there is no future Coming of Christ or Final Judgment--is heretical.
David Chilton denounced full Preterism as heresy, but then something very strange happened, he had a paradigm shift. He became a full Preterist, he became what he called a heretical!
My 2 cents on the previous articles:
ReplyDeleteI should have led with this and I apologize for not doing that. The above articles are the preterist view (which is the view that all prophecy, including the second coming of Christ) has already been fulfilled. This view has been traditionally viewed as heresy (unfairly, I think)
While I agree that many things have been fulfilled in 70 A.D. (which would perhaps make me a partial-preterist?), I don't buy that Jesus has already come back. Am I holding on to a view that Jesus is going to still come back and redeem everything against Biblical data? I'm hoping that the next articles will give a good rebuttal of the preterist view.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeletePreterism denies the future prophetic quality of the book of Revelation. The preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem. Preterism teaches that every event normally associated with the end times—Christ’s second coming, the tribulation, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment—has already happened. (In the case of the final judgment, it still in the process of being fulfilled.) Jesus’ return to earth was a “spiritual” return, not a physical one.
Preterism teaches that the Law was fulfilled in AD 70 and God’s covenant with Israel was ended. The “new heavens and new earth” spoken of in Revelation 21:1 is, to the preterist, a description of the world under the New Covenant. Just as a Christian is made a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17), so the world under the New Covenant is a “new earth.” This aspect of preterism can easily lead to a belief in replacement theology.
Eschatology is a complex subject, and the Bible’s use of apocalyptic imagery to relate many prophecies has led to a variety of interpretations of end-time events. There is room for some disagreement within Christianity regarding these things. However, full preterism has some serious flaws in that it denies the physical reality of Christ’s second coming and downplays the dreadful nature of the tribulation by restricting that event to the fall of Jerusalem.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteOver the course of the church’s history there have been four main approaches: the futurist, historicist, preterist, and idealist approaches. The futurist approach understands everything from Revelation 4:1 forward to be a prophecy of things that are to occur just before the Second Coming of Christ. In other words, all of these prophesied events are still in the future from the perspective of the twenty-first century. According to proponents, this conclusion grows out of a belief that there is no correspondence between these prophesied events and anything that has yet occurred in history.
The historicist approach understands Revelation to be a prophecy of church history from the first advent until the Second Coming of Christ. This approach appears to have had its roots in the writings of Joachim of Fiore. It was later adopted by most of the Protestant Reformers, but it is held by very few today. The preterist approach to Revelation is most clearly contrasted with the futurist approach. According to the preterist approach, most of the prophecies in the book of Revelation were fulfilled not long after John wrote. In other words, their fulfillment is past from the perspective of the twenty-first century. The fourth major approach to the book is the idealist or symbolic approach. According to this view, Revelation does not contain prophecies of specific historical events. Instead, it uses symbols to express timeless principles concerning the conflict between good and evil.
Until recently these various approaches have been considered by most to be mutually exclusive. A number of scholars, however, have begun to propose a fifth approach, which may be termed the eclectic approach. As one proponent of this view explains, “The solution is to allow the preterist, idealist, and futurist methods to interact in such a way that the strengths are maximized and the weaknesses minimized.
I believe that the book itself demands a basically preterist approach. This does not mean that all of the prophecies in the book have already been fulfilled. Some of the prophecies in Revelation (e.g., 20:7–22:21) have yet to be fulfilled, but many, if not most, of the prophecies in the book have been fulfilled.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteProponents of the futurist view say that their approach is necessary because there is no correspondence between the events prophesied in the book and anything that has happened in history. This conclusion is reached because of an overly literalistic approach to the symbolism of the book and a lack of appreciation for how such language was used in the Old Testament prophetic books. This, however, is not the most serious problem with the futurist approach.
The most fundamental problem with the futurist approach is that it requires a very artificial reading of the many texts within the book itself that point to the imminent fulfillment of its prophecies. The book opens and closes with declarations indicating that the things revealed in the book “must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6). It opens and closes with declarations indicating that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). The book of Revelation does not begin in the way the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch begins, with a statement to the effect that the content is not for the present generation, but for a remote generation that is still to come. The book of Revelation has direct relevance to the real historical first century churches to whom it was addressed, and the text of the book itself points to the imminent fulfillment of most of its prophecies.
The historicist approach faces more serious difficulties than the futurist approach. As Poythress observes, “Of the four schools of interpretation, historicism is undoubtedly the weakest, though it was popular centuries ago.” The most serious problem with the historicist approach is its subjectivity and arbitrariness. Historicist interpreters through the ages invariably identify their own age as the final age. They then fit the prophecies of the book with whatever important events have transpired between the first century and their own day. The result is that the basic historicist interpretation of the book changes from one generation to the next.
The idealist approach is held by many in the present day, but it is fundamentally flawed as a method of interpreting the book of Revelation.
Not only does the idealist approach tend to ignore the historic specificity demanded by its character as a letter, it also tends to ignore the hermeneutical implications of its character as a prophecy. The Old Testament prophets used highly figurative and symbolic language, but they used this language to speak of real historical nations and specific impending historical judgments. Writing his own prophetic book, John does the same.
Proponents of the futurist, historicist, and idealist approaches offer several criticisms of the preterist approach to the book. Probably the most serious criticism is that this approach robs the book of any contemporary significance.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteIt is actually rather surprising that this criticism is repeated so often by conservative evangelical scholars. It implies that any biblical prophecies that have already been fulfilled are meaningless for readers in later generations. But are the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus meaningless for later generations? Obviously not, and neither would the prophecies in Revelation be any less meaningful or significant if it were shown that many or most of them have already been fulfilled.
When misguided criticisms, such as the one above, are set aside and the case for a basically preterist approach is objectively considered on its own merits, it is seen to be quite strong. In the first place, our basic hermeneutical approach to the book should be determined by the nature and content of the book itself. As we have already seen, the book itself indicates when at least most of its prophecies are to be fulfilled. In both the first and last chapters, John tells his first century readers that the things revealed in the book “must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6) and that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). These statements are generalizations, so they do not require that every event prophesied in the book must be fulfilled in the first century, but the generalizations do provide us with a “general” idea of how we should understand the book. The bulk of John’s prophecy concerns something that was impending in his own day.
Many of the Old Testament prophecies deal with impending judgments upon either Israel or Judah or the nations that oppressed Israel. They also contain glimpses of ultimate future restoration. In short, we take a basically preterist approach to the Old Testament prophetic books, recognizing that they speak largely of impending events, yet also deal at times with the distant future. Given that this is the way in which the Old Testament prophetic books are approached, it seems that our presumption should be in favor of the same basic approach to the prophetic book of Revelation.
It is also easy to forget when reading the book of Revelation that it is the capstone of the entire narrative of Scripture. The bulk of the biblical narrative has concerned the story of Israel, leading up to the coming of the promised Messiah. We recall that most of the content of the Old Testament prophetic books concerned the coming exile of Israel and Judah on account of her rejection of God. The prophecies continued right up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.(cf. Jeremiah; Ezekiel). In the first century, Jesus foretold another coming judgment of Israel on account of her rejection of himself, and he connected this coming judgment with his accession to the throne of the kingdom of God. In light of the history of prophecy in Israel, and in light of the redemptive-historical significance Jesus himself places on this first century judgment of Israel, would it be terribly surprising if at the conclusion of the biblical narrative God once again sent a prophet to declare the impending judgment of Israel as well as the ultimate future restoration? When the genre, the statements of the book itself, and the larger biblical context are taken into consideration, a basically preterist approach to the book emerges as the most appropriate approach to take.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteFull (or “Extreme”) preterists believe all Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, including...
• the great tribulation
• the Second Coming of Jesus
• the bodily resurrection of believers
• and the great white throne judgment
Full preterists (e.g., Max King, John Bray and the late James Stuart Russell) are even so bold as to say that we are living in the new heavens and the new Earth (talked about in Revelation 21-22).
So, that’s what full preterists believe: All prophecy has been fulfilled. They seem to be the minority within the preterist community. The camp that seems to have more influence today (and the camp that seems to be growing in size) is the group that holds to partial (or moderate) preterism.
Unlike full preterists, partial preterists do believe there are some verses like Acts 1:9-11 that do require Jesus to come back again in a physical and visible manner.
These are six reasons you can be confident that preterism is unbiblical. And rather than focus on the problems with full preterism, I want to show you six reasons partial preterism can be rejected. Because if I can show you that partial preterism is unbiblical, then full preterism can safely be laid aside as even more unbiblical.
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
Matthew 24:34
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”
He was talking about the generation that would see “all” (v. 34) the things He just mentioned.
Matthew 10:23
“When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
The disciples never did complete taking the gospel to all of the cities of Israel. Why?
Because Israel, to a large degree, would not receive their message. Jesus, even alludes to the coming Jewish unreceptivity to the gospel in the first part of the verse.
2. None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
And as far as the church fathers and preterism are concerned, there is zero indication from known writings of the church fathers that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective.
3. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
In other words, not only did the early church not refer to the Second Coming as a past event, over and over they refer to it as future event.
This early church document mentions the Antichrist, the great tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ as events that were yet to come. So the Didache is a good piece of evidence from the very believers who lived through the events surrounding A.D. 70 that the preterist view is incorrect.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDelete4. A strong case can be made that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of A.D. 70.
For the Preterist view to work, the Book of Revelation has to have been written sometime prior to A.D. 70.
Irenaeus says John had his “apocalyptic vision (the things he writes about in the Book of Revelation) towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” Domitian’s reign did not even begin until A.D. 81. His reign ended with his assassination on September 18th, A.D. 96.
5. The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
Another problem for the “Nero was the Antichrist” view is this…
C. Daniel 9:27 says that this coming world leader will make a seven year covenant relating to Israel. Nero never made any such covenant.
Another problem…
D. The Bible says this coming world leader will take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:4). That never happened. Nero never stepped foot in the temple in Jerusalem.
6. The Tribulation events in the Book of Revelation are too global and cataclysmic to be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Revelation 8:8-9
8 “Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9 And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.”
When did that ever happen in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem? A. Nothing like that has ever happened in recorded history.
Revelation 16:18-19
18 “…there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the Earth. 19 Now the great city [a reference to Jerusalem, see Rev. 11:8] was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations [plural] fell.”
When in the first century (or any other time for that matter) was there an earthquake that not only split Jerusalem into three parts but caused “the cities of the nations” (Rev. 16:19) to fall?
We reject that method of Bible interpretation. When these prophecies are fulfilled, they are going to be fulfilled literally, just like the prophecies surrounding God’s past judgments were fulfilled in:
• The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
• The judgments against Pharaoh and Egypt shortly before the Exodus
• The destruction of the world in the Genesis flood
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDelete---
Contrary to what the name (Amillennialism) implies, AMs do believe in a millennium. The millennium, however, is now: the present age of the church between the first and second comings of Christ in its entirety is the millennium. Hence the term realized millennialismis an apt description of the view here defended--if it is remembered that the millennium in question is not an earthly but a heavenly reign,”
2. As to the precise character of this spiritual rule of Christ, AMs differ:
(a) Some contend that the millennium is restricted to the blessings of the intermediate state; i.e., the millennium as described in Rev. 20:4-6 refers to the present reign of the souls of deceased believers with Christ in heaven. Others would go a step further and restrict the experience of the millennial blessings to the “martyrs” now in heaven with Christ (i.e., those who were slain while on the earth by reason of their testimony for Christ and the gospel).
(b) Other AMs interpret the millennium as encompassing all the inward spiritual triumphs experienced by the church on earth (i.e., Christ ruling in the believer’s heart). By far the more common form of AM is the first alternative under (a).
3. As a direct corollary to ‘2’ above, AM maintains that there will, therefore, be no millennium in the sense of a semi-golden era of earthly prosperity for the kingdom before Christ returns. There will be no visible earthly expression of Christ’s reign over the world as a whole; the church will not make disciples of all (i.e., the vast majority) nations, nor will it gain a dominant or widespread influence throughout the world. Thus it is here, and for all practical purposes only here, that AM differs from Postmillennialism.
4. According to the AM, there will be a parallel and contemporaneous development of good and evil in the world which will continue until the second coming of Christ.
At the end of the age there will emerge an intensified form of tribulation and apostasy as well as a personal antichrist (the AM, however, does not identify this period of tribulation with Daniel’s 70th Week, as does the Dispensational Premillennialist, nor does he define its purpose as having anything to do with the restoration of national theocratic Israel. It should be noted, however, that some AMs do believe in a mass salvation of ethnic Israel at the end of the age). Christ’s return at the close of this period will synchronize with the general resurrection and general judgment of all men, believers and unbelievers alike, to be followed immediately by the eternal state (i.e., the new heavens and the new earth). In other words, here is the major point of difference between the AM and Premillennialist: the former denies whereas the latter affirms an earthly, visible rule of Christ for 1,000 years between His second coming and the final resurrection, judgment, and introduction of the eternal state.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark-131-31-as-jesus-was-leaving-temple.html continued:
ReplyDeleteB. Other Distinctives of Amillennialism
1. The Interpretation of OT Prophecy
Traditionally, all OT prophecies which seem to teach an earthly kingdom were understood by AM not as pointing to future, literal realities, but rather were to be interpreted figuratively. I.e., they describe spiritual blessings now being fulfilled in the church.
2. The Interpretation of the Book of Revelation
Most AMs interpret the book of Revelation according to what is called progressive parallelism. “According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ’s first coming to the time of his second,” This has also been called the Recapitulation view, meaning that the structure of Revelation does not relate consecutive events but frequently covers the same ground from different perspectives.
The 7 sections are: (1) chps. 1-3; (2) chps. 4-7; (3) chps. 8-11; (4) chps. 12-14; (5) chps. 15-16; (6) chps. 17-19; (7) chps. 20-22. Therefore, according to this view Revelation 20:1 is not to be thought of as following in chronological order chapter 19 (which describes the Second Coming of Christ). Rather, it takes us back once again to the beginning of the NT era and recapitulates the entire present age. By doing this the AM is able to interpret (a) the binding of Satan in Rev. 20:1-3 as having occurred during our Lord’s earthly ministry, and (b) the 1,000 year reign (i.e., the millennium) of Rev. 20:4-6 as describing in symbolic language the entire inter-advent age in which we now live. Therefore, the thousand-year period is no literal piece of history; it is a symbolic number coextensive with the history of the church on earth between the resurrection of Christ and his return.
---
Postmillennialism in Reformed and Presbyterian circles holds out quite a different prospect. Gradually, the gospel will convert the majority of the world's inhabitants. True Christians will possess political power in every nation, controlling all aspects of the life of the nation so that there will be a genuinely Christian culture. This will be the "Christianizing," as they put it, of the world. The human race will obey the law of God, at least outwardly (for many will remain unconverted). There will be earthly peace worldwide. The result will be unprecedented material prosperity. Poverty will disappear. Disease will be checked. Crime will be virtually non-existent.
Coming is a "golden age." It will last at least for a thousand years, perhaps a hundred thousand years.
Christ will get an earthly victory in history.
This earthly victory will be the "Messianic kingdom" in its full splendor.
At this point, the postmillennialists differ among themselves.
Some have Jesus returning to the grand earthly kingdom. Others, looking hard at the disconcerting testimony of Revelation 20:7ff., that at the very end Satan will unleash an all-out assault on the church, predict that the peaceable earthly kingdom of Christ will suffer revolution at the end from the ungodly who were only submitting outwardly.
In either case, the second coming of Christ will follow hard upon the "golden" millennial age.
Postmillennialism tells the Reformed saints that apostasy, Antichrist, and persecution are past. It calls them to take power in the world. It assures them of future earthly ease. It leaves the people unprepared for the struggle that lies ahead for the church, the fiercest struggle that the church has ever faced. It renders the people oblivious to the gathering storm at this very moment. The abounding lawlessness in Western society, for example, does not for the postmillennialist herald the "lawless one," the "man of sin," of II Thessalonians 2. It is merely the prelude to the collapse of ungodly society so that the saints can take control.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/17-20.htm says:
ReplyDeleteThey had very grand notions of the extent of the Messiah’s kingdom, of the number of his subjects, the strength of his armies, the pomp and eclat of his court, and were eager to hear of its being speedily erected. Or, being inveterate enemies of Christ, they might possibly ask the question in derision, because every thing about Jesus was very unlike to the Messiah whom they expected.
It is an internal, spiritual kingdom; erected in the hearts of men, consisting in the subjection of their wills to the will of God, and in the conformity of their minds to his laws. Wherever it exists, it exists in men’s hearts.
---
he denied that his kingdom would come in the "manner" in which they expected. The Messiah would "not" come with pomp like an earthly prince; perhaps not in such a manner as to be "discerned" by the eyes of sagacious and artful people, who were expecting him in a way agreeable to their own feelings. The kingdom of God is "within" people, and it makes its way, not by pomp and noise, but by silence, decency, and order, 1 Corinthians 14:40.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/17-21.htm says:
Is within you - This is capable of two interpretations.
1. The reign of God is "in the heart." It does not come with pomp and splendor, like the reign of temporal kings, merely to control the external "actions" and strike the senses of people with awe, but it reigns in the heart by the law of God; it sets up its dominion over the passions, and brings every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
2. It may mean the new dispensation is "even now among you." The Messiah has come. John has ushered in the kingdom of God, and you are not to expect the appearance of the Messiah with great pomp and splendor, for he is now among you. Most critics at present incline to this latter interpretation. The ancient versions chiefly follow the former.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/17-22.htm says:
ReplyDeleteLuke 17:22 - And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
The days will come He here takes occasion to direct the minds of his disciples to the days of vengeance which were about to fall on the Jewish nation. Heavy calamities will befall the Jewish people, and you will desire a deliverer.
Such will be the calamities of those times, so great will be the afflictions and persecutions, that you will greatly desire "a deliverer" - one who shall come to you in the character in which "you have expected" the Messiah would come, and who would deliver you from the power of your enemies; and at that time, in the midst of these calamities, people shall rise up pretending "to be" the Messiah, and to be able to deliver you. In view of this, he takes occasion to caution them against being led astray by them.
Ye shall not see it - You shall not see such a day of deliverance - such a Messiah as the nation has expected, and such an interposition as you would desire.
---
This is said to guard against the mistake of supposing that His visible presence would accompany the manifestation and establishment of His kingdom.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/17-26.htm says:
ReplyDeletein the days of the Son of man, ( so that he speaketh of more than one day), the day of his power in the destruction of the Jews, and in the day of judgment, the antitype to the former, it shall be as in the days of Noah and of Lot.
---
so shall it be also in the days of the son of man; some time before, and at his coming in power, and great glory, to destroy the Jews, their nation, city, and temple; and as then, so it will be when he shall come in person, at the last day, to destroy the world: the times of Noah's flood, of Jerusalem's destruction, and of the end of the world, bear a great resemblance to each other: and when the son of man comes in either of these senses, then will the kingdom of God come; or then will it appear that the Messiah is come, and has took to himself his great power, and reigns.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/17-31.htm says:
Luke 17:31
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
These words seem to relate singly to the destruction of Jerusalem.
---
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop,.... Either for diversion or devotion, when he shall hear that the Roman armies are approaching to Jerusalem, to besiege it.
let him not come down; the inner way of the house, from the top:
to take it away; with him in his flight, but let him descend by the steps, or ladder, on the outside of the house, and make his escape directly to Pella, or the mountains.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/17-37.htm says:
Where, Lord? - Where, or in what direction, shall these calamities come? The answer implies that it would be where there is the most "guilt and wickedness." Eagles flock where there is prey. So, said he, these armies will flock to the place where there is the most wickedness; and by this their thoughts were directed at once to Jerusalem, the place of eminent wickedness, and the place, therefore, where these calamities might be expected to begin.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-17-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteThe point Jesus made was that God’s kingdom would not come with great “outward show” so that people could predict its arrival and plot its progress. The Pharisees’ question was legitimate, but it was also tragic; for Jesus had been ministering among them for some three years, and these men were still in spiritual darkness. They did not understand who Jesus was or what He was seeking to accomplish. Their views of the kingdom were political, not spiritual; Jewish, not universal.
---
Luke 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
Wiersbe - The statement “the kingdom of God is within you” has challenged Bible translators and interpreters for centuries, and many explanations have been given. One thing we can be sure of is that He was not telling the unbelieving Pharisees that they had the kingdom of God in their hearts! The Greek preposition can mean “within,” “among,” or “in the midst of.” Jesus was saying, “Don’t look for the kingdom ‘out there’ unless it is first in your own heart” (see Rom. 14:17). At the same time, He may also have been saying, “The fact that I am here in your midst is what is important, for I am the King. How can you enter the kingdom if you reject the King?” (see Luke 19:38–40) The Pharisees were preoccupied with the great events of the future but were ignoring the opportunities of the present (Luke 12:54–57).
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-17-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteHis coming is not just a curiosity or a fascination. It has to be beyond that. That’s why I’m not interested in the fictional approach to the Second Coming and I’m not interested in a fantasy when it comes to the Second Coming. I’m interested in the reality of the honor and the glory and the majesty of Christ being on display. I want His humiliation to come to an end in this world and His glory to begin. I don’t think many Christians seem to understand that today, many professing Christians. We live in a very self-centered, very overly narcissistic world. People are programmed to believe that they are the center of the universe, that the whole universe revolves around them. And even God is one of those revolving planets that moves around them to serve them. There’s a very superficial understanding of divine glory, a very superficial understanding of divine exaltation, divine honor, the lifting up of the majestic Christ. . . It’s as if the salvation of the sinner is the goal of redemption and God is the means to that. That’s the very opposite of what Scripture teaches. The glory of God is the goal of redemption and the salvation of the sinner is the means to that. We are saved only that we might forever give glory to God, that we might forever exalt Christ. That’s why we are here doing what we do on the Lord’s day and only people who really understand that know what worship is all about. It’s not about a mood induced by certain music, it’s about being consumed with the honor and glory of God and Christ. And when you have a world where all the emphasis is on personal fulfillment, and then you devise a Gospel that simply fits into that world of personal fulfillment, you cheat people out of understanding the very purpose for salvation, the very essence of worship and the very reason why we hope for the return of Christ.
Well said!
Deletehttps://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-17-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteSteven Cole - As you may know, there are three major views regarding Christ’s kingdom. The amillennial view teaches that His kingdom is His spiritual reign over His people in this age. The promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regarding their possessing the land of Canaan and their descendants ruling over the nations are all spiritually fulfilled now in Christ. While I greatly respect many men who hold this view, I reject it. It seems to me that Christ’s present rule over His people in this wicked and corrupt world is a far cry from the glorious kingdom promised in the Scriptures. I agree that Christ’s present reign over His people is the initial phase of His kingdom, but I believe that Jesus will literally reign over the nations on the throne of David, in power and great glory.
The postmillennial view teaches that Christ’s kingdom will come gradually but certainly as the gospel spreads and triumphs over evil. They often cite Habakkuk 2:14, “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” While I, too, believe that verse, I do not believe that it will be fulfilled before Jesus returns. Our text makes it clear that the world will not be converted when Jesus returns. Rather, it will be going on with self-centered business as usual.
The premillennial view holds that Jesus will return in power and glory to judge this wicked world and establish His kingdom on earth for 1,000 years. This is the view that makes the most sense of the most Scriptures to me. But don’t let the variety of views make you throw up your hands and not believe anything! Note that all three views share some things in common: Jesus is coming again bodily, in power and glory. When He comes, He will judge every person. We need to be ready for His coming by trusting Him as Savior and submitting to Him as Lord now. To deny these things that all of the views share in common would be to deny the core of what Jesus Himself taught.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-17-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteLuke 17:34 “I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.
NET Note - There is debate among commentators and scholars over the phrase one will be taken and the other left about whether one is taken for judgment or for salvation. If the imagery is patterned after the rescue of Noah from the flood and Lot from Sodom, as some suggest, the ones taken are the saved (as Noah and Lot were) and those left behind are judged.
---
Luke 17:37 And answering they said to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.”
Steven Cole - In light of Jesus’ answer, they probably were asking where the judgment would take place. Jesus’ answer is also hard to understand and there are a variety of interpretations. It could mean that just as vultures gather on dead bodies, so, “Where the spiritually dead are found, there inevitably will there be judgment” (Leon Morris, Luke [IVP/Eerdmans], p. 262). Or, the sense could be that when judgment comes, it will be obvious, just as the location of a corpse is obvious by the presence of vultures. Or, it could mean more, that judgment not only will be obvious, but also universal and permanent (Darrell Bock, Luke [Baker], 2:1440 lists these last two views, along with five others; he leans to the last view).
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. What is the kingdom of God?
The kingdom of God is made up of His spiritual beings (angels, etc.) and those God has chosen among humans. In the Old Testament, the kingdom of God just included Israel. Jesus came to establish His kingdom on the entire earth. When Jesus died and rose, He began His kingdom here on earth as a beachhead. Since then, His invisible kingdom has been expanding. When His invisible kingdom is done expanding here on earth, Jesus will come and finalize establishing His kingdom as a visible kingdom of His followers. Right now, it is an invisible kingdom that does not include everyone. Then, it will be a visible kingdom that includes everyone left. (Everyone who has been judged as not part of His kingdom will have been thrown into the Lake of Fire).
2. Why can't it's coming be observed?
The kingdom comes in two phases: The invisible kingdom, established with Jesus death and resurrection, and the visible kingdom, which will come when Jesus returns again. The kingdom Jesus was referring to was phase 1, which cannot be observed by the Pharisees, since they rejected it.
3. What does it mean that the kingdom of God is in the "midst of you"?
The kingdom was contained within and started by Jesus. He was standing in the midst of them, if only they could have recognized Him.
4. What does it mean in "one of the days of the Son of Man"?
For many of these prophesies, it's possible that there is more than one fulfillment. One of the days of the Son of Man may have been the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Even if that is true, this was probably not one of the days the disciples would look forward to. The other day is when Jesus comes back again to complete His kingdom. This is probably what Jesus was referring to.
5. Why won't the disciples see one of the days of the Son of Man?
If I am correct, the day Jesus is referring to is far in their future.
6. What is the "Son of Man in His day" mean?
It is the day that Jesus comes and fully establishes His kingdom. When He does, everything will either be reclaimed or destroyed.
7. What does Jesus mean by the lightning metaphor?
I think it means that when Jesus comes on that day, He will be visible to all.
8. What day is when the Son of Man is revealed?
When He returns to finalize His kingdom for all time. It's also possible that Jesus included 70 AD as a day in which He was revealed.
I have always assumed that telling the disciples they would wish to see one of the days of the Son of man means there would be a time when he would not be bodily with them and they would wish for those "good old days" when he was walking around as their physical leader, rather than them having to depend on the Holy Spirit. Jesus was always trying to prepare the disciples for his departure so they wouldn't be totally derailed.
DeleteQuestions and findings continued:
ReplyDelete9. What does the comparison with Lot mean?
Was Jesus warning the disciples about 70AD? It's possible. However, the language about people living their normal life and then Jesus coming was certainly not true of Jerusalem at the time. They were in the midst of a siege. It is true that the rest of the world was just living their lives, but it seems like Jesus was referring to life in Israel. It's confusing, because there is language in this passage as well as others that seems to definitely point to the events of 70AD. And then there's language (such as this one) that points to a coming during normal life, which is not true of the 70 AD events. The best that I can come up is to advance the multiple fulfillment idea - some things were fulfilled in 70AD, and some of the same things plus others will be fulfilled when Jesus comes back.
To specifically answer this question, I believe the answer to this question is NOT to sit around waiting for a rapture - or even give any thought to a potential rapture. That completely misses the point. I think the answer has to do with the way we live our lives and what we value. Huge events and/or new missions from God could come at any time. We cannot be held back by our lives or our stuff. We need to let go of our expectations and comforts to answer the call of God immediately - because that call from God, whatever it be, will come suddenly, and we will need to react immediately. We can't if things are holding us back.
10. What does it mean that we shouldn't take our belongings with us? During what?
Right before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, Christ followers were given a short window of time to escape the city. It's possible that this message is directly pointed to them. More generally, we cannot allow our stuff to hold us back from immediately answering a call from God (see previous answer).
11. What does it mean that one will be taken and the other left? Taken where?
There's two ways you can look at it. Theologians argue whether the person taken is the one being saved, or the person left. Some think what Jesus is talking about is a rapture. I personally doubt it. I think the point He is making is that when God comes to judge, He will judge and/or save people individually. He won't consider a family group or nation (such as Israel) when judging or saving individuals. This concept was pretty shocking to the Jewish person of the time. They counted on being part of the nation of Israel to save them.
12. What did Jesus mean by the corpse and vultures comment?
There's a footnote on "vulture", "or eagles". Premillennialists argue that this is about the rapture. Preterists and partial preterists argue that this is about Rome (the eagle) destroying a spiritually dead Jerusalem in 70AD. It is possible that Jesus wasn't directing this comment towards a historical event, but making a general comment that a. We will recognize great historical events when we see the vultures swarming. b. Whenever something dies, the vultures will come.
Commenting on the first several articles: the teaching you have quoted is called "replacement theology" and I believe it has some serious flaws in its generalizations. Paul clearly states that there are advantages to being Jewish and that God's promises (made to Abraham) do not change. The claim that there is no Jewish race is overstated. DNA testing will give you % of Sephardi or Ashkenazim Jew. Yes, due to conversion/intermarriage over many generations there are genetic differences, but the fact that Jews still exist and are both racially and religiously distinct is a testimony to the unique place they held in God's plan. Replacement theology is a slippery slope to antisemitism in my mind. That is not to say, however that much of what Jesus prophesied was not referring to the AD 70 event. I think it is important that Christians know more of that history (I was ignorant other than a bald AD 70 date, of its scope and horror until recently.)
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing this up! Replacement theology, or supersessionism states that the Christian church has completely replaced Israel as God's chosen people, and that modern Israel has been rejected completely.
Delete--- From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism#:~:text=%22The%20Attacks%20of%20Replacement%20Theology%22%20(opposing%20supersessionism)
R. Kendall Soulen notes three categories of supersessionism:
Punitive supersessionism is represented by such Christian thinkers as Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and Martin Luther. It is the view that Jews who reject Jesus as the Jewish Messiah are consequently condemned by God, forfeiting the promises otherwise due to them under the covenants.
Economic supersessionism is used in the technical theological sense of function (see economic Trinity). It is the view that the practical purpose of the nation of Israel in God's plan is replaced by the role of the Church. It is represented by writers such as Justin Martyr, Augustine, and Barth.
Structural supersessionism is Soulen's term for the de facto marginalization of the Old Testament as normative for Christian thought. In his words, "Structural supersessionism refers to the narrative logic of the standard model whereby it renders the Hebrew Scriptures largely indecisive for shaping Christian convictions about how God's works as Consummator and Redeemer engage humankind in universal and enduring ways."[82] Soulen's terminology is used by Craig A. Blaising, in "The Future of Israel as a Theological Question".
These three views are neither mutually exclusive, nor logically dependent, and it is possible to hold all of them or any one with or without the others
---
On the other side of Supersessionism is Dispensationalism:
--
https://christoverall.com/article/concise/dispensational-and-covenant-theology/
For all varieties of dispensationalism, Israel refers to an ethnic, national people and the church is never the transformed, restored eschatological Israel in God’s plan. The salvation of Gentiles is not part of the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel as a nation now realized in the church. Instead, God has promised national Israel, first in the Abrahamic covenant and re-affirmed by the prophets, the possession of the Promised Land under Christ’s rule as the Davidic king, which still awaits a future fulfillment in the premillennial return of Christ and in the consummation.
The church, then, is distinctively new in God’s purposes and ontologically different from Israel. Although in our present dispensation the church is comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, the church only receives the spiritual blessings of the Spirit that were promised to Israel, not all of her national blessings. Thus, most insist that the salvation experience of the person in the church is qualitatively different from the salvation experience of the Israelite under the old covenant.
---
There is something between the two called Covenant theology (not to say necessarily that Covenant theology is correct). From the same article as above:
---
unlike dispensationalism, covenant theology insists on the continuity between Israel and the church, which directly impacts ecclesiology and eschatology. For example, it teaches that Israel and the church are by nature essentially the same, yet administered differently. . . . the salvation experience of believers in Israel and the church is basically the same. The only real difference is that the “church” is more racially mixed and a more knowledgeable version of “Israel.”
---
My 2 cents:
DeleteThis is my own take on all this. I believe that both Supersessionism and Dispensationalism (I'm not sure about Covenant theology) are essentially wrong. I think that both are saying that ethnic Israel and the church are two separate trees. Take a look at John 15:1 - 6 and Romans 11:11 - 24. Jesus and Paul are saying that Israel and the church are one tree. Unbelieving ethnic Jews will be torn out and believing Gentiles grafted in. But it is the original tree planted in ethnic Israel. There is only one Covenant, which Jesus fulfilled and will fulfill the rest when He comes back.
I want to thank the commenter for an excellent point. There is a lot of difference of opinion among church attenders on this issue. I hope that at least I shed some light on the different views and hopefully pointed to the solution to the core of the issue (while not addressing the many questions that could be brought up).
Thank you, Bruce for all your analysis. I think your conclusions are quite sound.
Delete