Posted on 07/19/2005 7:07:09 AM PDT by topcat54
"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." (Matt. 21:43).
"But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." (Matt. 22:7).
This was not a bodily coming, but a temporal coming in judgment, just as God had dome many times in the Old Testament against Israel and her enemies.
In the future Jesus will appear bodily to resurrect all men, bringing His saints into glory and His enemies into eternal judgment. This is what we call Jesus' second coming.
Actually the sign of Jonah referred to Christ's burial in the earth for three days, AND His Resurrection. Actually, the resurrection is inferred, because the reference is to Jonah, who was spit out on dry land after 3 days, a type of "resurrection".
Jesus Himself explained it. It can't get much plainer than that!
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mat 12:40)
See post #129, the first paragraph between the two charts.
I'm surprised at you, an expert in Hebraisms and the Old Testament . Surely you know of this type of expression from elsewhere in the Bible.
Regarding Solomon, God said, "behold, I have done according to your words; see, I have given you a wise and understanding heart, so that there has not been anyone like you before you, nor shall any like you arise after you." (1 Kings 3:12)
However, regarding Hezekiah, He said, "He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses." (2 Kings 18:5,6)
And of Josiah we read, "Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him." (2 Kings 23:25)
Either God is fickle, or the superlatives in the Bible need to be understood with a Hebrew mind, rather than by some mechanism ("wooden literalism"?).
There are lots of other example for you to check out, e.g.; Exodus 10:12-15 ("They were very severe; previously there had been no such locusts as they, nor shall there be such after them."); Joel 1:1-4 ("Has anything like this happened in your days, Or even in the days of your fathers?"); Exodus 11:6 ("Then there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before, nor shall be like it again"); Ezekiel 5:9 ("And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations"); Joel 2:2 ("A people come, great and strong, The like of whom has never been; Nor will there ever be any such after them, Even for many successive generations"). If you examine the context, you'll see all these events happened in the past.
But if the great tribulation of Matthew 24 is a different event than we find in Luke 21, what about the superlative language found there?
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:22-24)
You might want to read Alfred Edersheim on the Olivet Discourse. He has no problem with the parallel versions found in the three gospels.
From these general predictions, the Lord proceeds, in the third part of this Discourse, to advertise the Disciples of the great historic fact immediately before them, and of the dangers which might spring from it. In truth, we have here His answer to their question, 'When shall these things be?' not, indeed, as regards the when, but the what of them. And with this He conjoins the present application of His general warning regarding false Christs, given in the first part of this Discourse. The fact of which He now, in this third part of His Discourse, advertises them, is the destruction of Jerusalem. Its twofold dangers would be - outwardly, the difficulties and perils which at that time would necessarily beset men, and especially the members of the infant-Church; and, religiously, the pretensions and claims of false Christs or prophets at a period when all Jewish thinking and expectancy would lead men to anticipate the near Advent of the Messiah. There can be no question, that from both these dangers the warning of the Lord delivered the Church. As directed by him, the members of the Christian Church fled at an early period of the siege. of Jerusalem to Pella, while the words in which He had told that His Coming would not be in secret, but with the brightness of that lightning which shot across the sky, prevented not only their being deceived, but perhaps even the record, if not the rise of many who otherwise would have deceived them. As for Jerusalem, the prophetic vision initially fulfilled in the days of Antiochus would once more, and now fully, become reality, and the abomination of desolation stand in the Holy Place. This, together with tribulation to Israel, unparalleled in the terrible past of its history, and unequalled even in its bloody future. Nay, so dreadful would be the persecution, that, if Divine mercy had not interposed for the sake of the followers of Christ, the whole Jewish race that inhabited the land would have been swept away. But on the morrow of that day no new Maccabee would arise, no Christ come, as Israel fondly hoped; but over that carcase would the vultures gather; and so through all the Age of the Gentiles, till converted Israel should raise the welcoming shout: 'Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord!'It's no wonder that you cannot see the superlative nature of the AD70 judgment against Israel. You theology causes you to treat it as a fairly insignificant event, all things considered. You refuse to see the end of the old covenant economy as represented by the temple, instead looking for a renewed sacrificial system sometime in the unforeseen future.
I also don't think you explained why Luke includes this language, ""And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." Are you so sure he wasn't speaking about the same subject as Matthew 24?
bookmark
That doesn't answer the question. What's the direct connection between "abomination of desolation" and Thessalonians.
You have laid out an unassailable case for true end-time Biblical prophecy. Thanks again.
1. Your doctrine casts Israel to the dogs.
Gen 27:29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed [be] every one that curseth thee, and blessed [be] he that blesseth thee.
Rom 11:17-18
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
2. Your doctrine is not a comfort.
1Th 4:16-18
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
3. Your doctrine makes Satan's chain far to long.
Rev 20:1-3
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4. Your doctrine disregards the continually new gentile converts and the continued blindness of the Israelis as a nation.
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
5. Your doctrine disregards the significance of the First and Last Trump of God.
Two specific trumps were made representing the heavenly First and Last Trumps of God for the calling of the assembly.
Num 10:2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps.
The First Trump of God is sounded.
Exd 19:13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether [it be] beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
The Last Trump of God is sounded.
1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
You're most welcome. Thanks for the encouragement. Too bad the opposition doesn't agree that it's unassailable. *chuckle*
Most certainly it did to anyone who's actually read both Daniel and the history of the Maccabean revolt. Since you're being (intentionally) obtuse, tell me: What was the original act that Daniel prophesyed of as being the Abomination of Desolation? What did Antiochus do that fulfilled this prophecy? Further, let me challenge you to look up the Hebrew word for "abomination" and tell us how it's used.
If you know that, the answer is quite evident. If you don't already and won't look it up, then I refuse to waste my time trying to explain it to you.
Let's look at Daniel.
"For ships from Cyprus shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage. So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation. Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits." (Dan. 11:30-32)
"And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days." (Dan. 12:11)
So the original prophecy of Daniel involved the setting up of something in the temple. History suggests that Antiochus set up a physical image of Zeus in the temple.
Paul is talking about a man. Daniel was talking about a thing. Literally there is a disconnect. Now, I will admit that a man set up the thing in Daniel prophecy. But the verses quoted place the emphasis on the thing.
Now if you wish to spiritualize the meaning of "abomination of desolation" (which, BTW, I have no problem with), then Paul's words do fit the prophecy. The symbolism all fits.
Now that we have established there is some latitude in understanding the phrase, we can see how Matthew and Luke and Paul all speak of the same thing from slightly different vantage points. Matthew uses the language of the Hebrew prophets for his audience. Luke uses the language and images common to the Greeks and Romans. And Paul fill in more details for his largely Greek audience.
I just wanted to establish that we were on the same wavelength. I'm still having no problem seeing this all fulfilled in the events of AD70.
As Edersheim says, "The quotation from Dan. ix, 27 is neither a literal translation of the original, nor a reproduction of the LXX. The former would be: 'And upon the wing [or corner] of the abominations the destroyer.' Our Lord takes the well known Biblical expression in the general sense in which the Jews took it, that the heathen power (Rome, the abominable) would bring desolation - lay the city and Temple waste."
This all fits with the facts as we know them.
That is not necessarily true. Any good scholar of Berhofs stature should be credited with a motive towards objectivity while still acknowledging his inherent biases.
What is more distressing, IMO, is how current "scholarship" tries to hijack the term "sola scriptura" and apply its meaning instead of the historical meaning. Sola scriptura of the magesterial reformers was a hermeneutic of Scripture as the final authority not the only authority, as current "scholars" try to paint the term. The Reformers never rejected tradition per se or the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church as many modern day churches neglect but rather always used the lens of Scripture to recheck tradition. (Semper Reformada). The majority of contemporary hermeneutics can be described as Solo Scriptura, no need for tradition.
Even with a scholar such as Fuller we can see his inherent biases. Noticed how he claims that the Reformers exegesis clashes with the principle of sola scriptura, employing his own definition for the term. Also, his claim about the causes for the rise of scholasticism within the Reformed community is debatable, claiming the problem to be systematics when it could equally be contended that the rise in foundationalist epistemology that arose with the Cartesian model is more responsible for the highly scholastic enterprise. {Fullers quote}:
While the reformers themselves introduced into biblical exegesis many practices which greatly furthered the cause of sola scriptura, yet because they did not grasp how their analogy-of-faith principle clashed with sola scriptura, they gave a strong impetus for Reformation theology also to revert to a scholasticism not unlike the medieval sort against which they had rebelled.
I think we can probably agree that the hermeneutic enterprise is ongoing but lets at least be careful to apply historical definitions appropriately.
You know where we can find one around here? :-)
BTW, you do realize that Luther was not Reformed?
Also, Fuller goes to extremes to criticize Calvin. E.g. he quotes Calvin as saying, "The doctrine which points out to us the power and fruit of Christ's coming appears far more clearly in [John] than in [Matthew, Mark, and Luke]. . . . For this reason I am accustomed to say that this Gospel is the key to open the door to the understanding of the others." It's quite common in Christian circles, even non-Reformed circles, to hand out Gospels of John to folks. I've never seen folks handing our gospels of Luke. This makes complete sense since John's own testimony says, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." John's gospel has an explicit purpose. To make the faith clear to folks that they might believe. This seems to be all Calvin is saying.
He makes many other rather bizarre statements, e.g., "Thus, according to Calvin, the message of Exodus through Deuteronomy could not be properly grasped simply by studying these books." Not knowing the context, the proposition seems true, otherwise there would be no unbelieving Jews today, since all the law and prophets pointed to Christ. Without the Word of God, Jesus Christ, the message is "not properly grasped."
Thanks for the input. I categorically deny everything you said applies to anything I've said.
"If you don't feel your hermeneutic can stand up to an impartial testing then ..."
"You know where we can find one around here? :-)"
See that, I knew if we kept at it long enough we would find common ground on something.
"I don't think Fuller was trying to "hijack" the term "sola scriptura" but was explaining that the Reformer's reliance on an "analogy of faith" hermeneutic was a subjective (bias) standard that derived from their systematic theology tradition just as the Roman Church's "analogy of faith" derived from its church tradition (bias) system."
How could the Reformers (mainly Luther and Calvin) be subject to their tradition since each was the beginning of a new tradition? Even that is not precisely accurate since what was being reformed was a Church that needed to return to its Augustianian roots.
What is inherent in Fuller and your response is the sense that Scripture is just some jigsaw puzzle that is meant to be deciphered for some eschatological purpose.
If the kingdom of God theory has any merit then the puzzle has for the most part been completed.
Also inherent in your response is that very foundationalist epistemology I spoke about. "Neither was pure and they required a redefinition of historic "sola scriptura" to take into account this lesser hermeneutic" What is pure? Isn't that subjective? Any attempt at a "pure" foundationalist approach is bound to fail. Luckily neither Luther nor Calvin were negatively affected by the "levin of Descartes".
If full preterism is to be beleived then the book of revelation isn't a revelation at all considering it would write about things that already have taken place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.