Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 | ||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 | ||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 | ||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183999 | ||
jonp, I meant to say "restricted" not "edited". Coper |
||||||