Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183945 | ||
Hi jonp, I'll be glad to give it a shot. I'm confident Luke's words are are divinely true. Our task is to discern that truth from our English translation. I think it highly probable the person that coined the phrase "lost in the translation" was a Bible student. Even if we were fluent in Greek there would still be difficulties. Remember a few decades ago when all of a sudden "bad" meant good? Fortunately, that withered away. Luke 21:7; And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? In verse 8-17 He explains the things that will happen and the persecutions they will endure during the time period "these things" come to pass. In verses 18 and 19 He gives them assurances. Then in verse 20 He gives them the sign they had asked for: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (nigh: eggizo; to bring near, to join one thing to another, to draw or come near to, to approach). Verse 21, they're told that when they see this sign they must flee to the mountains, etc.Verse 22; Jesus affirms these coming days to be the judgement. "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written (grapho; writing in general but also used of those things which stand written in the sacred books of the OT) may be fulfilled." Verse 23 notes how especially hard it will be for pregnant women. The distress and wrath will not be on every person on the planet (people: laos; a people, people group, tribe, nation, all those who are of the same stock and language). Verse 24, 25, 26: Jesus continues His prophesy to the disciples. 24 "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." Verse 25 Could this refer to astrological signs perhaps? "Distress of nations:" (ethnos; a tribe, nation, people group, in the OT foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians). Although the war was local to Judea and especially Jerusalem, I beleive this refers to great distress in all the surrounding nations in the years immediately prior to the start of the war. Verse 26 continues describing this horrid anticipation. From the time Jesus spoke until His coming things went from bad to worse in an exponential manner. To the beleivers it had to be frightening but imaginine the unbeleivers absolute horror. Josephus describes this period with unbelievable horror. Verse 27:"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." I'm not sure I understand your comment on this verse. If you are saying His coming in glory at Pentecost and in judgement of Jerusalem are separate events, I completely agree. I see this coming in glory as a separate event. The word for glory (doxa) has many meanings depending on context. The one applicable here would seem to be; a thing belonging to Christ, the kingly majesty of the Messiah, the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ. This verse and similar ones are cited as a "proof " that Jesus did not come in 70AD because there's no record that He was seen. This verse does indeed seem to say He would be seen. It could argued, if they saw Him would they recognize Him? Abscent for 3 days, His disciples failed to recognize Him after His ressurection. But, I beleive examining Rev. 1:7 provides a better explanation. "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." (Eye: Ophthalmos; the eye, metaphorically the eyes of the mind, the faculty of knowing.) (See: Optanomai; to look at, behold.) So far this allows for the mind's eye to see Him, to understand He is coming in judgement. (Continued in next post) |
||||||
2 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183949 | ||
hi Thank you for your attempt at an explanation which I am grateful for. However firstly when I read of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, and then the people being put to the sword and the people being led captive among all nations for the period called the times of the Gentiles I can only see it as special pleading to suggest that this is before Jerusalem was taken. (You rather skipped over that bit :-))) ) That is clearly a picture of the end of the siege. Thus the judgment was over and what follows is AFTER the siege. Thus the coming in glory occurs some time after the judgment on Jerusalem. It seems to me that if words mean anything there can be no doubt about that. In which case it cannot refer to Jesus coming in judgment on Jerusalem. Your very noble attempt to explain it has not in my view succeeded. Perhaps you could think it over again and revise your comments and give a DETAILED explanation of verse 24. What in your view does each clause mean? Verse 25 then follows verse 24 so it cannot refer to the days of the siege. I did not suggest that Jesus came in glory at Pentecost. Then He came in power (Mark 9.1). The difference is carefully maintained. Nor does it say anywhere that He came in glory to judge Jerusalem. Coming in glory is described in Matthew 25.31 as being the judgment at the end of time when the final decisions concerning mankind will be made (Matthew 25.46). That certainly has not happened yet. I regret to have to say that I cannot accept your logic with regard to Revelation 1.7. It sounds to me like playing with words to obtain the meaning that you want. Peerhaps you would be kind enough to explain that in more detail too and do it step by step so that even the slowest of us can see the logic. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
3 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183970 | ||
Hello again jonp, My explanations of how I understand Luke 21 while bareboned took me several hours. So, I must defer to a later time more detailed analysis. In the meantime, may I suggest we determine if the 70AD judgement was all inclusive or if there is yet another judgement. The simplest test is: Are we under the New Covenant or the Old? The Old was not to pass until ALL prophesy fulfilled. What say you? Tom |
||||||
4 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183992 | ||
Hi, I know of nowhere in Scripture where it says that the old covenant cannot pass away until all prophesy is fulfilled. If you are referring To Jesus' words in Matthew 5.18 then I am afraid that you are misunderstanding them. Not one yodh or tittle of the Law will pass away until after this earthly life has ceased, and all prophecy is fulfilled, for until then it will be required by man whichever age he is in. The Law is included in both covenants. Paul was equally concerned that we fulfil the Law as rightly used (Galatians 5.13-15). We are under the Law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9.21). The Law is good when a man uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1.8). Paul had nothing against the Law when used as a mirror. Indeed he commended it. What he rejected was the idea that a man could be justified by the Law. But the Law was never intended to be a means of justification, even under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant offered mercy on the basis of God's gracious redemption (Exodus 20.1-2)and the Law was to be the people's response to that mercy providing a way of atonement and a requirement as to how to live. It was Israel's teachers who misrepresented it. We too need that example of how to live. When we sin as Christians (it is for all sinners, not just unsaved ones) the Law is used lawfully in pulling us up and telling us to get ourselves sorted out, just as it is lawfully used by making the unsaved realise their need of justification in Christ. But we can never be justified in God's eyes by trying to keep it. We are to be justified in Christ first, and then the Law becomes our friend, a necessary signpost on the way. That is why in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus clarified it. We are still required to live by the Sermon on the Mount. But the Sermon is for believers, God's blessed ones (Matthew 5.3-9). So yes the Law is still as solidly required to be kept by God's people as it was. It will never pass away until there are no more sinners to be condemned and no more saints who need guidance. So your question is based on a wrong premiss. It also fails in another way. Are you really suggesting that the Old Covenant did not pass away until 70 AD? It passed away as a result of Jesus' death and resurrection. After that it no longer had any validity for anyone who had heard of Jesus Christ. They either believed or were condemned. Israel was no longer the Jews. Israel was now the people of God who had believed in Jesus, the Israel of God. The old covenant had passed away. But the Law continued in its rightful use, showing God's people how to live. So the new covenant came in, and the old passed away long before the destruction of Jerusalem (see the letter to the Hebrews). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
5 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183994 | ||
jonp, If the old covenant passed away in 30AD, what do you do with Heb. 8:13? Coper |
||||||
6 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183996 | ||
Hi Coper. If you read carefully I pointed out that the old covenant had passed away for all who had heard of Jesus Christ. Of course many Jews in the dispersion had not yet heard of Jesus Christ, and so the spiritual ones among them still benefited by the old covenant (just as Gentiles who had not heard of Christ benefited from general revelation and could respond to it and find mercy). Neither of these situations was affected by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The ones mainly affected had rejected Christ long before. They were therefore no longer benefited by the old covenant. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
7 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183998 | ||
jonp, Since my posts are being limited and edited this will be my final post to you. I pray, if the preterist position is true, you will one day have your eyes opened. If the futurist position is true, I pray that I will find my way back. One final point to wrap up the "old covenant" line of thought. Throughout the book of Hebrews we see the old covenant system including the priesthood, temple, sacrifices etc. still in progress (Heb. 8:3-6, is in the present tense and 9:1 ties the continuing regulations and the earthly sactuary, or temple, to the first covenant. See also Rev. 11:1,2). They ended finally and forever at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. It's as if God was giving the Jews one generation to be evangelized, while the gospel also went out to the gentiles, then he would bring down their system in a dramatic way as predicted. This is why the 40 or so years (a generation, ironic I think) are referred to as a "transitional period" between the old and new covenants. I pray that God will bless you in your studies, Coper |
||||||
8 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183999 | ||
jonp, I meant to say "restricted" not "edited". Coper |
||||||