the righteous for the unrighteous -
1 Peter 3:18
ehhh, but Jesus' ascension and parallel "coming" referred to in Acts 1:11 was pretty spacetravelesc. Not saying I disagree, and these passages can refer to two separate "comings", but just letting you in on the diatribe that is constantly going on in my mind. I would be sold if I could honestly reconcile v. 31 with 70 AD. Also, this passage in Matthew seems to relate to Zech. 12:10-14 and Rev. 1:7, the former referring to a mourning of repentance, and the latter which was probably written post 70 AD (debatable). Double fulfillment, similar to Antiochus Epiphanes? What's your take, especially in regards to v. 31?
Thanks for the comment bro. Most folks have trouble with v. 30! 31 is more straightforward to me: he will send out his messengers (angeloi - evangelists) and they will gather (key OT eschatological promise) his elect from the 4 winds. I see it as the spread of the gospel to all nations. Though I have not read him here, I imagine France's commentary would be enlightening.For me, Rev 1:7 demands that those who piereced him must still be around and the tribes of the land (ge - not necessarily earth) i.e. Israel will wail. This was all to take place soon (1.1),for the time is near (1.3).Thoughts?
As far as Matt. 24, I don't have too much of a problem reconciling v. 30 with a preterist understanding of the apocalyptic language. I've never thought of v. 31 as referring to evangelists. It's interesting, but I'm not entirely sold especially because of passages like Matt. 25:31-33, saying that when the Son of Man comes in His glory the angels will be with Him and all nations will be gathered before Him. This and other passages about the "coming of the Son of Man in glory", which we know can't refer to 70 AD, sound too similar to Christ's words recorded in Matt. 24 for me to convince myself that the latter is just referring to 70 AD.As far as Rev 1:7, I agree and think this is referring to the tribes of Israel. I think that this is referring to the same events recorded in Zech 12-13. The thing is, in Zechariah God says that this will happen as nations surround Jerusalem to destroy it. He will fight for His people and set about to destroy all nations that come against Jerusalem (12:9)--not use them as judgment against an apostate nation as in 70 AD. "Those who peirced Him" could be referring to the Jewish people, instead of merely the literal individuals who nailed Jesus to the cross. Daniel also uses language that we can probably assume Jesus quoted when he said, "And there will be a time of great tribulation such as never occurred since there was a nation on earth until that time" (Dan 12:1, the LXX is pretty similar the greek in Matthew); however, this is during a time when the elect will be rescued and there will be a resurrection. Because of this and many other reasons, I can't get around pushing this towards the future when there will be some sort of major revival and restoration you know where.And as for Rev. 1:1 and 3, I'm with you. I just don't believe that ALL of the events prophesied in Revelation were fulfilled in John's or his contemporaries' time, and obviously neither do you (i.e. the final judgment). If there is any sort of chronology within the prophecies, obviously we would have to say some would be fulfilled closer to John's time than others. Personally, I am heavily leaning towards believing that John was saying that the time was near when his visions would be played out in history, however in some way they cover a period of time ranging over around 2,000 years.It's funny, I always used to tell myself I would never get into prophecy or any serious study of Revelation (totally unbiblical attitude). I wonder how much of it is just a carnal self effort as if I am just trying to solve a puzzle. Thank God that there really is a Holy Spirit who can correct and illuminate us, and witness to the truth in our hearts. We all need more of this, and if you get it while reading Revelation, please write a book about it.
What about Matt 16:27-28?I'm uncomfortable with indicting a later generation of Jews with the sin/guilt of the generation that killed the Messiah. I think the first 19 chapters of Revelation were referring to the 1st Century. When John introduces the thousand years, obviously that time period extends into the future.I still have many questions, but this approach seems to me to have much fewer problems and gives weight to clear didactic sections within apocalyptic language.I too, am extremely grateful for the illumination of the Spirit. I need much more - and am nowhere close to writing a book on it!!
I'll try to hit on those as quick as possible.As for Matt. 16:27-28, I just can't accept that "the Son of Man coming in the glory of His Father with His angels repaying every man according to His deeds" is referring to 70 AD, especially in light of all of the other verses in the NT which correlate this with a time of resurrection. On top of the fact that these passages talking about the Son of Man were never interpretted as referring to 70 AD in any orthodox circles throughout Church History (Olivet Discourse in some places, yes, but not passages which speak of Christ coming in His glory). Plus a strong preterist interpretation of these passages and Revelation pretty much finds it's roots with Luis De Alcazar- a Jesuit who most likely was reacting against Protestant attacks on the Papacy.And yes, I'll give you v. 28. That and Matt. 24:34 are the passages which keep me from totally dismissing a preteristic approach; however, again, Matt. 24:30 references Zechariah when it says that "all the tribes shall mourn". In Zechariah, this is a mourning of repentance as nations are coming against Jerusalem and God comes and defends it's inhabitants and destroy all the nations that come against the city (Zech. 12). Do you read Zech. 12 as being fulfilled in 70 AD, and if so how? We can't spiritualize the text and say that the "tribes of the earth" who are repenting are the "tribes of spiritual Israel", bc why would they all of a sudden be overwhelmed with repentance for pericing Christ in 70 AD? There are all sorts of other obvious problems when taking this approach to Zech. 12. I'm interested to see your take.As for a preteristic approach to Revelation, there is Ken Gentry's approach which I think totally falls short and sees Israel behind every corner in places where John is obviously talking about Rome. Objective critics see that this is bc of presuppositions which are being forced upon the text (you know we all do it). Jay Adams in my opinion had a slightly better approach for preterists, but he recognized Rome and believed Revelation was touching on the destruction of both Jersualm and then later on the Roman Empire. If I was forced to choose a preterist approach, I would choose Adams', but I would rather not have to choose.I wouldn't be comfortable positting that a future generation of Jews will incur the direct guilt of the crucifixion either. That's not where I think a future fulfillment of Zech. 12 needs to go. As a distinct people, they have been rejected and scattered throughout the nations where they have suffered horrible slander and persecution for over 2,000 years. This is God's judgment upon them as a people, so corporately, yes I think they can recognize their sin as a people of rejecting their Messiah. Plus we know that there will be a restoration because of statements of Paul such: as salvation has come to the Gentiles in order to make the Jews jealous, and that their transgression was riches for the world, yet their "fullness" will be better (Rom. 11:11-12); and that a PARTIAL hardending of the Jews has happened until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom. 11:25). This same Israel who have been hardened, and who will be saved are enemies for now in respect to the gospel, but as a chosen people are still beloved in the purposes of God for the sake of their fathers (Rom. 11:28). In light of this corporate restoration, we have to expect a corporate repentance , which fits with Zech. 12 perfectly especially bc it seems as if that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.Anyway just a few thoughts, could have gone on ranting, but I think I touched on the points addressed.
Hey man,This week is vacation so I will try to get to this next week. A couple things though:What do you do with Matt 16:28?I like Adams too, but don't follow his division of Revelation. I haven't read enough of Gentry but plan to get his big one whenever it comes out.I don't think Rom 11 is talking about the future at all (see this post: http://tinyurl.com/7ushkog)bw
Post a Comment