|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Has God broken his promises?
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10.23)
quote:
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16.28)
quote:
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24.34)
Never happened, did they?
Oh, I'm perfectly aware of later generations' rationalisations and reinterpretations of the promises attributed to Jesus by the gospel writers. But I'm also pretty darned sure that the first generation of Christians took them at face value - and died disappointed.
You see, if Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," and it turns out that "generation" means "a couple of thousand years and counting", isn't that a bit like me saying, "I'll give you a hundred pounds next week" - and then next week saying, "Oh, did I say that? Sorry - cos where I come from, 'week' means a hundred years. And 'hundred pounds' means 'this piece of marzipan."
So. Has he broken his promises?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Oops. Colossal apologies, hosts. I meant to post this in Purgatory, obviously, not in Heaven.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Don't think so, though you'll probably bite me for making excuses. I suspect he was talking on several levels at once, and the "before this generation passes away" refers not to the final coming, but to something else, like the Resurrection.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Don't think so, though you'll probably bite me for making excuses. I suspect he was talking on several levels at once, and the "before this generation passes away" refers not to the final coming, but to something else, like the Resurrection.
So far it's sounding like sophistry...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Oops. Colossal apologies, hosts. I meant to post this in Purgatory, obviously, not in Heaven.
Ah. Wondered.
Off you go, then.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Oops. Colossal apologies, hosts. I meant to post this in Purgatory, obviously, not in Heaven.
Ah. Wondered.
Off you go, then.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Thank you, Firenze. Nothing takes the edge off a nice bit of cynicism like posting it on the wrong board.
Lamb Chopped - yes, "he was talking on several levels" is a venerable rationalisation of this problem. But if anyone else spoke like that - saying one thing that has a plain and obvious meaning, while actually meaning something very different and non-obvious - wouldn't we call it dishonest?
("I did not have sex with that woman...")
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Unless you're a literalist, there's little problem.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Unless you're a literalist, there's little problem.
Well, I don't think non-literalist means "if you don't like it, chuck it out". I think it means more something like "wrestle with it to see if it makes sense".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Remember God does not see time as we do.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Unless you're a literalist, there's little problem.
Well, I don't think non-literalist means "if you don't like it, chuck it out". I think it means more something like "wrestle with it to see if it makes sense".
Yes. Which is precisely what Christians throughout the centuries have done-- that process that you refer to as "later generations' rationalisations and reinterpretations".
So... another irregular verb?
You wrestle with it.
I try to figure it out.
They rationalize and reinterpret.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So... another irregular verb?
You wrestle with it.
I try to figure it out.
They rationalize and reinterpret.
Fair point. Except that my point really is, yes, I'm aware of the traditional attempts to wrestle, figure out, rationalise or whatever ... I'm just not sure any of them actually work.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10.23)
quote:
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16.28)
quote:
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24.34)
I don't know about the first one, but have you heard the idea that the latter two passages are actually about the destruction of the Temple, as the final confirmation or vindication of Jesus' claims to be the new locus for God's presence in the world.
I wrote an assignment a couple of years ago about the parallel passage in Mark's Gospel Mark 13 and I found it fascinating that the apparent world-ending language in Matt 24:29* is very closely mirrored in at least three Old Testament passages which describe the fall of various nations or cities (including Jerusalem itself in Joel 2, esp v10, 31)
*The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Remember God does not see time as we do.
Yes he does. Or rather is able to. And in fact was, when he spoke the words in the OP.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuff
Apprentice
# 14655
|
Posted
If "The Son of Man" means Titus, the son of Vespasian, these prophecies have obviously been fulfilled to the letter.
I can't see how it works with Jesus as Son of Man unless He was the One directing Titus as God directed Nations against Israel during Old Testament times.
Posts: 22 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Jesus spoke in metaphors.
So God doesn't break His promises. It's just that it's hard to understand what these promises mean. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, as I said, I knew you'd get me. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But the real problem is not inerrancy or whatever. It's that this is a person speaking whom I've always found to be very very truthful. Even in the unlikely things, whenever it is testable, I've found him truthful (for example, statements about human nature and etc. which initially seemed unrealistic or grim). So I'm facing much the same dilemma as I'd have if my sister D told me something that on the face of it was impossible--D's past behavior is such that I'd be inclined to doubt my own understanding before thinking that she had either lied or broken a promise. So with Jesus.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know about the first one, but have you heard the idea that the latter two passages are actually about the destruction of the Temple, as the final confirmation or vindication of Jesus' claims to be the new locus for God's presence in the world.
Just to choose this among the various rationalisations available, is it that these sayings were about the Temple, or is it that, the plain meaning having failed, we feel obliged to make them about the Temple?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think the "later generations reinterpretations" is simply trying to understand what he was saying. By dismissing this, and insisting on one interpretation, and then rejecting this, I think you are being disingenuous.
What we have is a snippet of a discussion, as recorded by a writer. We may have missed some important context of this - as may the writer, trying to put his own interpretation.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...is it that these sayings were about the Temple, or is it that, the plain meaning having failed, we feel obliged to make them about the Temple?
The former, from what I remember - certainly regarding the 'sun will be darkened' language, the claim is that 1st century Jews would readily have understood it to be a warning that the current era or system (i.e. the Temple, I'm saying) will end soon.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All fulfilled more than in the following:
Matthew 10:23 He came in the Spirit in three years.
Matthew 16:28 in the next verse. And above.
Matthew 24:34 ending 37 years later. Within the lifespan of many of his hearers.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think what I'm picking up from this thread so far is the impression that, when we hear something that comes to us as a promise from God, we'd do well to read the small print.
The question first came to me some time ago when I considered the possibility of the disappointment of that first generation, who do seem to have taken these promises in their "plain meaning". Paul, for instance, gives the impression that he thinks his generation is the last - "We shall not all sleep" [i.e. die] (1Cor. 15.51). Doesn't it strike anyone as being rather cruel of God to raise expectations like that, only for a later generation to realise/decide that he meant something different?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think what I'm picking up from this thread so far is the impression that, when we hear something that comes to us as a promise from God, we'd do well to read the small print.
I'd first say that we'd do well to seek an understanding of the context into which the promise was made, in order that we might more accurately grasp what the promise actually meant at the time.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
As Ads said though, the first generation of Christians certainly thought Jesus would return in a few decades, within their lifetimes. Paul gave this as a reason for not bothering to marry. If they got it wrong, how much context is going to enable us to get it right?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Adeodatus - I don't think it could possibly mean what I think you assume it means. (And to be fair what a lot of commentators seems to think it ought to mean).
This is another of those Danielic "Son of Man" passages isn't it? But when the "son of man comes with the clouds of heaven", he is approaching the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.
It's not about the second coming - that would be coming in the wrong direction! It's Jesus speaking about God vindicating his entire project (see under Ascension, celebrated in a shack near you shortly).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Just to add - I also agree with SCK. Though those passages are the various versions of the Olivet Discourse. But its relevant as the genre in both is apocalyptic, and whatever else you do, interpretation needs to take the genre into account.
Interpreting Revelation with surface literalism has led to all sorts of fun down the ages.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Doesn't it strike anyone as being rather cruel of God to raise expectations like that, only for a later generation to realise/decide that he meant something different?
That's one way to look at it.
It was similarly cruel for Him to give the Israelites the impression that they would rule over all people forever. Or that the Messiah would lead them in this glorious effort.
I think that we agree that God had something else in mind.
It seems reasonable to me to think that God was appealing to their natural self interest, and that without such promises there would have been less interest in carrying the project forward.
I think that something similar is going on with Jesus' predictions of apparently imminent and dramatic events. They sparked interest in the message, and an idea that this was something huge and important, for people who were neither well educated or sophisticated.
The church has come to realize over time that these imminent predictions were not what they seemed.
Doesn't it make sense that something involving the long term spiritual future of the entire human race would have a wider scope than a narrow understanding of these predictions would suggest? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As Ads said though, the first generation of Christians certainly thought Jesus would return in a few decades, within their lifetimes. Paul gave this as a reason for not bothering to marry. If they got it wrong, how much context is going to enable us to get it right?
Yes, true... Or maybe not - can anyone outline or link to an argument against the idea that all / most of the early Christians thought Jesus' return was imminent?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As Ads said though, the first generation of Christians certainly thought Jesus would return in a few decades, within their lifetimes. Paul gave this as a reason for not bothering to marry. If they got it wrong, how much context is going to enable us to get it right?
Yes, true... Or maybe not - can anyone outline or link to an argument against the idea that all / most of the early Christians thought Jesus' return was imminent?
Fairly sure N T Wright argues against the view that the early church expected the second coming very soon - certainly he'd agree with the view that Jesus wasn't talking about his own second coming and that the last of the verses quoted is about the destruction of the Temple. I haven't got any of his books to hand, though, so I can't quote where he says that at this moment, though.
[ 16. May 2014, 10:38: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Ah, thanks Stejjie. I'm sure you're right about NT Wright - indeed, I drew heavily on his work for that essay I mentioned a few posts ago. I've got several of Wright's books (including the first three of his 'Christian Origins' series) so if this thread is still going later I'll look up what he says about the expectation of Jesus' imminent return. No time now, sadly!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think it would be fair to say that some Christians thought the return of Jesus was imminent. The passage towards the end of John's gospel where the writer has to add a comment when Jesus says "what if he is not to die before I return?" (or some such) - to say that wasn't actually a promise - does at least let us infer that some were seeing it that way.
Various sects have of course also seen things this way down the ages, but that's a bit different.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's also the fact that he told them to preach the Gospel to all nations before he came, and a moment of thinking would tell them that the task was so large it would not likely be completed in their lifetimes. So that would weigh against the "he's coming in the next few years" mentality, for anybody who stopped to think. Heck, we're not done yet!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Ah, thanks Stejjie. I'm sure you're right about NT Wright - indeed, I drew heavily on his work for that essay I mentioned a few posts ago. I've got several of Wright's books (including the first three of his 'Christian Origins' series) so if this thread is still going later I'll look up what he says about the expectation of Jesus' imminent return. No time now, sadly!
I'm on volume 4 at the moment, on the chapter on eschatology. He hasn't mentioned anything like a 2nd coming so far. Only a few denials about 'apocalyptic' being interpreted as the end of the space-time universe. It's far more about the doctrine of election.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
The best book on this I read was by Oscar Cullman and I think it's his Christ and Time.
Anyhow his thesis is that yes, the first generation of christians did believe that the end was immanent, as reflected in Paul's words in Thess. But over time there view matured with no evidence of this being a trauma. It was certainly less that the problems of dealing with OT laws on food and circumcision.
mind you there is that scripture in Jeremiah "and you shall know my breaking of promise" and this was always believed by the Reformed to be a key section (see e.g. Patrick Fairbairn). The idea being that ALL God's promises and threats (e.g. Nineveh are implicitly conditioned by how people are acting and what is generally going on. So Ninevah repented and the threat was removed (and yes I know it's not literal but that's of no account).
So the promises about answers to prayer would be similarly conditioned.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
It all becomes much easier once you accept that you're talking about half-remembered, embellished and frequently retold stories that weren't recorded until long after these claims were supposedly made. New religious sects need a sense of urgency to breed rapid growth in the early stages - those that lack it are the ones that didn't survive.
It's a classic sales pitch - one time only, last chance, and so on. It only causes any problems if you assume that the claim was actually made by an unimpeachably honest and omniscient demigod. I have no need for that hypothesis.
The only question is why you'd write down such a claim at the point when it was well on its way to being falsified. I suspect it's partly because Paul said something similar, in his own little fit of zealotry, and partly because it had become embedded in the oral stories by that point. Also, by the time anyone notices that it was a big fat lie, all the people who might have been feeling particularly angry about that will be dead (obviously), and Clever Theologians can get on with explaining why it doesn't really mean what it says, and why black is white, and so on.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The only question is why you'd write down such a claim at the point when it was well on its way to being falsified. I suspect it's partly because Paul said something similar, in his own little fit of zealotry, and partly because it had become embedded in the oral stories by that point. Also, by the time anyone notices that it was a big fat lie, all the people who might have been feeling particularly angry about that will be dead (obviously), and Clever Theologians can get on with explaining why it doesn't really mean what it says, and why black is white, and so on.
Notwithstanding your dig at 'Clever Theologians', isn't it just as likely that these claims were included in the nascent Bible precisely because they 'don't really mean what they say'; i.e. the standard contemporary meaning is in fact not what was meant originally?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses prediction
of the second coming in 1914. The prediction
failed but now they claim it does no longer
mean what they said it meant.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses prediction
of the second coming in 1914. The prediction
failed but now they claim it does no longer
mean what they said it meant.
Really? In what way? One is first century Jewish reference to the coming of the son of man to the Ancient of Days, couched in a genre that has no direct parallel in current English usage. The other is a prediction by a millenarian sect as to when God's kingdom would be fully established on earth, whatever they meant by that.
In what way are they the same sort of thing? Why do you think they refer to the actual same event? (If I may express it in that rather clumsy way). You are clearly very convinced.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Well If the Witnesses manage to survive 2000 years
and we find references to this prediction would we interpret it differently?
Why does "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Matthew 24.31
not mean what it says? Reading Matthew 24 in context you see it refers to the "end times".
Matthew 24.21
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be"
There was a retcon of the meaning of this in subsequent years, I don't see a way out of this conclusion.
Of course what does it mean is a different issue but the retcon is clear.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Anyhow his thesis is that yes, the first generation of christians did believe that the end was immanent, as reflected in Paul's words in Thess. But over time there view matured with no evidence of this being a trauma. It was certainly less that the problems of dealing with OT laws on food and circumcision.
This is interesting, because I'd always assumed that it would be significantly disturbing for Christians when it began to look as if the promises weren't going to be fulfilled.
I think to really see what I'm getting at here, I have to invite us to imagine we have nothing invested in the outcome of the question - that it doesn't matter if, say, we come to the conclusion that Jesus was wrong, or that his God went back on his promises.
Once we imagine ourselves into that position, does it not actually make more sense to look at these sayings and come to precisely those conclusions, before we consider the possibility that Jesus was using language in a non-straightforward way?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
I think to really see what I'm getting at here, I have to invite us to imagine we have nothing invested in the outcome of the question - that it doesn't matter if, say, we come to the conclusion that Jesus was wrong, or that his God went back on his promises.
Once we imagine ourselves into that position ...
Well, sure it would, because you've totally changed the basis of the whole issue in that case. The problem becomes nonexistent.
Look, let's take a similar case. Suppose a married man begins coming home late several nights a week. When asked why, he says "oh, work," and turns the subject. He seems abstracted and distant during the time he is home, and rushes to pick up his cellphone whenever it rings.
Now, if this is just some guy on the street, it's easy enough to include sexual infidelity high on the list of possibilities. We don't know him, and the explanation is certainly plausible and is statistically speaking rather likely.
But if this is your own husband, and you have always had a close, trusting, loving relationship, and you know that his integrity has always been unquestionable--well, then, the infidelity hypothesis is going to go way, way down the list. This is where a different kind of logic comes into play--the logic of personal relationships. We are still judging based on evidence--but part of the evidence we are considering is precisely the evidence of character and past behavior.
If I were dealing with a guy who had a track record for infidelity, that's pretty much the first thing I'd consider. For some random guy, it'd be one among four or five possibilities. For my own husband, no. Past experience and knowledge rules it out.
And so it is with Jesus Christ. What knowledge I have of him--the knowledge of acquaintance, not of mere facts--tells me that he doesn't break promises. His integrity is past questioning--certainly by me, who have had nothing but faithfulness from him. If it looks in this one case as if he has broken a promise, I'm going to hunt for the problem on my end--in misunderstanding.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10.23)
quote:
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16.28)
quote:
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24.34)
Never happened, did they?
Well of course they didn't. What do you expect? He come to His creation to tell them the good news, and give them promises of the glory to come, and what did we do? We bloody crucified Him didn't we. Then 100 generations of theologians tried to justify our actions as the fulfillment of His will.
Of course he didn't keep his promises. He found us unworthy of them. Just as he chucked the Hebrews out of the promised land for their disobedience, so he's withholding these promises until we can show that we understand what He was talking about.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10.23)
quote:
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16.28)
quote:
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24.34)
Never happened, did they?
Well of course they didn't. What do you expect? He come to His creation to tell them the good news, and give them promises of the glory to come, and what did we do? We bloody crucified Him didn't we. Then 100 generations of theologians tried to justify our actions as the fulfillment of His will.
Of course he didn't keep his promises. He found us unworthy of them. Just as he chucked the Hebrews out of the promised land for their disobedience, so he's withholding these promises until we can show that we understand what He was talking about.
I have not had my coffee yet. Please tell me you are being very sarcastic.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Hairy Biker wrote:
Well of course they didn't. What do you expect? He come to His creation to tell them the good news, and give them promises of the glory to come, and what did we do? We bloody crucified Him didn't we. Then 100 generations of theologians tried to justify our actions as the fulfillment of His will.
Of course he didn't keep his promises. He found us unworthy of them. Just as he chucked the Hebrews out of the promised land for their disobedience, so he's withholding these promises until we can show that we understand what He was talking about.
But all of that is intended to happen, isn't it? We are created to not understand; we are intended to kill Jesus, aren't we? Or is that just adding to what 100 generations of theologians have said?
Oh, hang on, am I missing the sarcasm also?
[ 17. May 2014, 08:01: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, let's take a similar case. Suppose a married man begins coming home late several nights a week. When asked why, he says "oh, work," and turns the subject. He seems abstracted and distant during the time he is home, and rushes to pick up his cellphone whenever it rings.
Now, if this is just some guy on the street, it's easy enough to include sexual infidelity high on the list of possibilities. We don't know him, and the explanation is certainly plausible and is statistically speaking rather likely.
But if this is your own husband, and you have always had a close, trusting, loving relationship, and you know that his integrity has always been unquestionable--well, then, the infidelity hypothesis is going to go way, way down the list. This is where a different kind of logic comes into play--the logic of personal relationships. We are still judging based on evidence--but part of the evidence we are considering is precisely the evidence of character and past behavior.
All very true. But isn't there a place in all of these circumstances for stepping back from our emotional involvement - sooner or later - and taking a dispassionate look at the evidence?
(And now I'm kicking myself because I'm not going to have much posting time over the next few days, but I will try and keep up with this thread as and when.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Indeed. I feel far more disconnected from the supposed faithfulness of God than LC here; in what way has he always been faithful LC? What's he promised; what's he delivered? I'm not sure I know what you mean.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that something similar is going on with Jesus' predictions of apparently imminent and dramatic events. They sparked interest in the message, and an idea that this was something huge and important, for people who were neither well educated or sophisticated.
My bold and please pardon the tangent.
What evidence do you have they are less sophisticated than any other group of people?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
]All very true. But isn't there a place in all of these circumstances for stepping back from our emotional involvement - sooner or later - and taking a dispassionate look at the evidence?
AAAAAaaauuuuugghhhhh! I'll type more slowly. Our knowledge of the person, both character and past behavior, IS part of the evidence. To leave out what you know personally, simply because there is an emotional tie, is to leave out the larger half of the evidence available and thus to distort the case.
What would you think of a woman married twenty-five years to a humanly speaking blameless husband (well, yeah, he does that irritating thing with his socks, but still), one who has acted with integrity in all his dealings, both marital and business, one who clearly loves her dearly as she is the first to admit--
What would you think if such a woman, married to such a man, were to say, "Well, he's been coming home late for the past three weeks and just saying 'work' when I ask him; he lunges for the cellphone when it rings; I think it's time to sic a private detective on him so I'll know who he's cheating with"?
I mean, hello. There are other alternatives that explain the observed facts plus the evidence of his observed character far better than infidelity. He could, for example, be facing serious trouble at work, of the sort that might lose him his job, and be reluctant to worry his wife with it (stupid, yes, but not immoral); he lunges for the phone because the work situation is delicate and fast-changing. He could conceivably be in serious financial trouble he doesn't want to discuss yet, and the late nights are overtime work, and the phone thingy is his financial advisor/lawyer/what-have-you. He could be facing a potentially serious health crisis, be going in for testing during the day and working late to make up the hours. I think it's fairly clear he's hiding SOMETHING, the lunkhead; but the something doesn't have to be sexual infidelity. And it doesn't have to be incompatible with a faithful, loving marriage.
So with Jesus. Clearly the first answer that leaps to mind (for anybody not acquainted with him) is that he got it wrong, God broke his promise, etc. etc. But throw in the evidence of character and the puzzle pieces no longer fit. Then we're forced to go looking for something that fits ALL the evidence, not just the verbal evidence.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're divided by a common language here. ALL God's promises are fulfilled in Christ. Watch the best film ever made. The Tree of Life. I just picked up Thomas Merton's The Inner Experience: Notes on Contemplation. Straight away I was disappointed. He reminded me of Francis Schaeffer whose collected works I abandoned after the first page. Critical of generalized others. BUT, then he got me. He promised NOTHING. No answers. NOTHING. THAT is cool. I keep it by the toilet, started reading it yesterday morning. Can't wait to 'go' again!
What's this got to do with the promises of God? EVERYTHING. There IS only one thing. There are NO promises of God beside Christ. There are no promises of God beside grace. There is no timetable, no prophecy, no future. There is only NOW until we transcend. In Christ.
For 40 years I was a God the Killer fundamentalist. I've defended Him here until a couple of years ago at most. The language of Jesus is OURS. Used against itself. He solves our Rubik's cube. A 2000 year old one that was 2000 ... 200,000 years old in the making.
The language of promise, like the language of punishment, of judgement is Bronze Age. The past 4000 years of history is our childhood, our unrecallable infancy is a hundred times that. Our evolutionary gestation a million times that.
WATCH THE FILM.
Just yesterday, in my rumination, in my intrusive thinking, in my cursing myself for my sin the Spirit affirmed that grace takes a LONG time in creation's terms.
God has fulfilled ALL His promises to me. To us ALL. From the beginning.
In Grace.
Watch the film.
[ 17. May 2014, 14:56: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
I'm not sure "I'm coming again very soon" is a plain and obvious meaning of what Jesus said. In the case of the first quote, that interpretation doesn't even make much sense, given the situation: Jesus is sending out the disciples on a sort of advance mission to spread the message to the towns and villages around about. Jesus has said nothing yet about his death and resurrection (and it's clear when he does tell the disciples about it that it makes no sense at all to them). So, he's given no hint about "going" anywhere yet, never mind "coming back again" - so for him to start suddenly talking about a "second coming" simply makes no sense.
(And also note it's "comes", not "comes again".)
Before turning to the other two, there's the "Son of Man coming" reference in all 3 of the quoted passages (all right, it doesn't appear in 24:34, but it's there just a few verses back). I'd put money on the fact that the people of Jesus' time wouldn't have just interpreted that as Jesus talking about himself: I'd bet that they heard a reference to Daniel 7 and especially verse 13 - because, I guess, it was one of the great revolutionary and hope-filled passages/verses for Roman-occupied Israel: "We will be vindicated before God and we will be free and our God will show Himself to be the one true God". And in that passage, the "Son of Man" doesn't come down to earth, but comes to the "Ancient of Days", to the Father in Heaven. So, if that's what Jesus is hinting at here, if that's the passage he's echoing when he speaks of himself as "the Son of Man coming", then he's not talking about him coming to earth at all: he's talking about him returning to the Father vindicated and vindicating his people. Perhaps referring as much to His death and resurrection? The destruction of the Temple (as a sad vindication of all he's been saying of the state Israel's in and the way it's headed)? All of this rolled into one? If the direction of travel is God-wards, then I don't think it's (primarily) about Jesus coming to earth again.
Soooo (trying to stop this going on too long...), I'd argue that neither of the second two are about Jesus' second coming either - at least not primarily. The Matt 16 one comes straight after Jesus' 1st prediction of his death and resurrection and right before his transfiguration (at least in terms of Matthew's narrative): perhaps he's talking about some combination of those? And the Matt 24 one, as has been pointed out upthread, we're talking apocalyptic here and it's always dangerous to just read the surface meaning as the main thing: as SCK has suggested, it might well be about the destruction of the Temple as much as any "second coming", an event which surely did happen and within the lifetime of many of those who would've heard what Jesus said.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
