Posted on 04/26/2007 8:07:01 AM PDT by topcat54
I just received a book notice from Moody Press for a new commentary on Revelation by John MacArthur with the title Because the Time is Near. At this time I will forego a critique of MacArthur’s use of “near” to describe an event he believes is “near” while the use of “near” by New Testament writers (e.g., James 5:8; Rev. 1:3) did not mean “near” when they used the same word.
For years, I have been dealing with issues related to the last days. I got involved in this topic because Christians were using last-days theology as a way to explain the state of the world and why Christians can’t do anything to reverse present trends. MacArthur is representative of this view when he writes, “‘Reclaiming’ the culture is a pointless, futile exercise. I am convinced,” he writes, “we are living in a post-Christian society—a civilization that exists under God’s judgment.”1 A good case could be made that the people in Europe in the fifteenth century were living under a similar “post-Christian society.” Here’s how Samuel Eliot Morison opens his 1942 biography on Christopher Columbus:
At the end of the year 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science, and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune [immature] and lifeless. Institution s were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through the study of the pagan past.
Islam was now expanding at the expense of Christendom. . . . The Ottoman Turks, after snuffing out all that remained of the Byzantine Empire, had overrun most of Greece, Albania and Serbia; presently they would be hammering at the gates of Vienna.2
Sound familiar? Change 1492 to any modern date, and the above description of the world of Columbus would fit just as well today. All the major characters and signs are once again in place, or so it seems.
Prophecy pundits in the fifteenth century were sure that the end was near, just as those five hundred years before them knew it was near, and five hundred years before them.
The end of the world: the idea was taken quite seriously by Europe of the late fifteenth century—not as a mere conceit, not as a metaphor or theological trope, but as a somber, ter rifying prediction based solidly on the divine wisdom of biblical prophecy and the felt experience of daily life. . . .[I]n the words of Joseph Grünpeck, the official historian to the Hapsburg emperor Frederick III, “When you perceive the miserable corrupt ion of the whole of Christendom, of all praiseworthy customs, rules and laws, the wretchedness of all classes, the many pestilences, the changes in this epoch and all the strange happenings, you know that the End of the World is near. And the waters of aff liction will flow over the whole of Christendom.”3
As history attests, it was the end of the world, the end of a stagnant worldview that left people without any future hope. But a mere 25 years later, history took a dramatic change in direction. Through a single act, Martin Luther reclaimed the Bible, the gospel, and culture when he confronted a corrupt church. The rest, as they say, is history.
What makes today’s speculations about the end any more reliable? Why are today’s prophecy writers any more trustworthy? They aren’t. Prophetic texts that applied to the generation of Jesus’ day (Matt. 24:34) are being misapplied to our generation. This is a huge mistake that has significant implications theologically and culturally. Prophecy books like those of Mac Arthur are only adding to the confusion.
1. John F. MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience: Drawing the Line in a No-Fault, Guilt-Free World (Dallas, TX: Word, 1994), 12.
2. Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1942), 3.
3. Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy (New York: Alfred F. Knopf, 1990), 29–30.
It does not mean “cometh” as in a future tense. And it also does not merely mean “came”, completely in the past.
In the Greek the word is elhluqota and the tense indicates an action in that past which has present implications. “Is come” or “has come” are both appropriate when properly understood.
John was countering those who denied the physical resurrection because they denied Christ had come in the flesh.
It says nothing about a future coming, unless you need to read something into the passage.
I don’t think that’s a SUFFICIENT explanation—given the wording and the context.
OK, this is the kind of response that causes me to put you back in my "ignore" box.
When you can deal with the text give me a holler.
Where do you find that in the Bible? What is your authority?
As I said before, only literalist futurists need to invent two of everything to work their schema when one will do for everyone else.
i don't subsribe to the theory, so you need a better argument from Scripture.
There you go again, Brother.
Trying to confuse the set concrete with facts.
But it’s pretty plausible.
It is evidently the case that John was a teen/late teen—perhaps 16 years old when called by Christ.
Given his full life; adventures being boiled in oil and exiled to Patmos . . . it is exceedingly plausible that John penned the prophecies after the fall of Jerusalem.
I don’t take such historical things as holy Writ. But there’s enough reasonable scholarship about John’s life, imho, that this issue is a pretty settled one.
Except, of course for those with pet hobby horses to go around and pet axes to grind.
I have very similar feelings.
I’ve been waiting quite a number of years to observe balanced, fair-minded, accurate dealing with the text on the other side.
Seems plain enough in Scripture, to me.
There happens to be . . . drum roll . . .
HEAVEN . . . as distinct from . . .
earth . . . and also . . . as distinct . . . from . . . drum roll . . .
HELL.
I suppose it could be postulated that David’s Kingdom = identically Christ’s Kingdom . . . though I don’t know a Scripture that comes close to explicitly and clearly stating that.
But GENERALLY SPEAKING, MOST folks construe David’s kingdom as at least SOMEWHAT earth-bound with it’s center in . . . drum roll . . .
JERUSALEM.
Now, I suppose David could sit on bean bags. He could conceivably sit on the royal arse of a royal donkey. It’s possible he might bounce around the . . . uh . . . throne . . . room . . . on a pogo stick . . .
Or, he might even use his presumed eternal life supernatural powers and kind of hover above the floor mosaic.
Maybe he would have a great old fashioned porch swing to sit on.
Or perhaps a new fangled big bag of air gel.
Perhaps Tempurpedic would construct a special foam chair.
Or maybe he’d ask Saint Joseph to construct a special chair out of Jerusalem olive wood.
But I think that the reality is
THAT WHEREVER DAVID AND/OR CHRIST SAT
would be considered a THRONE.
Thankfully, I don’t suppose we’ll need bide’s in eternity.
In short, the little ditty about two of everything stikes me as childish and absurd.
bide’s = bidet’s
And yet John uses the same word in Revelation 1:7 to describe His future coming:
"Behold, He cometh with clouds and every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him."
If you are trying to assert that the phrase “I came yesterday” is identical to “I will come tomorrow”, I can see your problem.
In Rev. 1:7 the word is ercetai.
In 1 John 4:3 it is elhluqota.
"came", "come", "coming", "and "will come" all have different meanings. In Greek there is even more subtlety in the tenses.
The tense of the Greek verb in 1 John 4:3 is not a future tense. To assert otherwise is simply a denial of the text.
Where do you find that in the Bible? What is your authority?
History and every credible writer on the subject.
Are you trying to tell us out here that the Book of Revelation was written before 70 AD??? Pullleeeaaaasssse --- you are about to lose all credibility.
Obviously you have not read "every credible writer" on the subject. What you are articulating is merely the party line for the late date side .
It is a matter of credibility, and so I will not comment further on your superficial grasp of the subject matter until you can demonstrate a familiarity with the case from both sides.
But He will come in the flesh in the future as indicated there in Revelation 1:7, right???
You won't because you can't. There are no credible sources on the other side --- none.
I've already told you that He will come again in the flesh "at the last day" to resurrect and judge all men, as it is written in the Scripture.
"Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11)
That is not the issue that got us started down this path.
What got us started down this path was your bogus claim that anyone who denied the literalist futurist theory on the return of Christ to set up a kingdom on earth centered in old Jerusalem with a carnal throne for a literal 1000 years was “antichrist”.
That is just not true, and now you know it.
That is the first time I have heard such a thing said of Dr. MacArthur.
When you are ready to talk about it intelligently, I'm here. Until then you can save your unsubstantiated comments. They don’t work on me.
That’s funny. I know alot of Jews that seem as spiritual if not more than Christians. And they’re not in Christ.
Aw shucks.
These wonderful spiritual Jews you know — what is their end if they are not in Christ?
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.