Thread: Has God broken his promises? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027362
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Oops. Colossal apologies, hosts. I meant to post this in Purgatory, obviously, not in Heaven.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
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...
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
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
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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...")
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Unless you're a literalist, there's little problem.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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".
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Remember God does not see time as we do.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
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.
Posted by Fuff (# 14655) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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!
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
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.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
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.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
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.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
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.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
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.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
It's a bugger being fully human as well as fully divine, innit?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
And (with apologies for the double post), saying "Jesus said he's coming again, but he hasn't and any attempt to interpret those passages differently is sophistry or trying to wriggle out of it" is, I'd argue, no different a method of interpretation from those who'd, for example, take a conservative line on DH issues based on biblical passages. It's the same assumption that the plain meaning is the only one that counts, just about a different subject.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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?
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.
Some on this thread have tried to say the verses you quoted above do not refer to Jesus' parousia. And they might have some ground to stand on. But if you add the quotes above to the myriad of other such quotes both in the gospels and the epistles (mostly referring to the day of the Lord in the epistles) there can be no doubt that Jesus was expected to return shortly.
Seriously. Any other interpretation is just not good enough.
This leaves the following options:
1) Jesus misunderstood the timing issue.
2) The evangelists misunderstood Jesus and the timing issue.
3) God changed her mind
But your question of "Has God broken his promises"? is altogether another question it seems. Is a promise broken if it is delayed?
If we assume the New Testament did indeed get it wrong, what then? What does this mean for faith?
You then have to go deeper into faith. What is faith? IMV it is essentially trust in God's good purposes for us in the triune God.
So here's where Lamb Chopped's analogy comes in - which I agree with to an extent. I would not say the fault lies with our misunderstanding or a problem on our end. I would say we have understood correctly, but that something has changed.
So. At this point, you can say "God didn't do what God said God would do so therefore is untrustworthy".
Or you can say. "God didn't do what God said God would do back then, but is still trustworthy and must have something else in mind in which I will continue to participate in as a disciple of Christ."
So the bottom line for us is: is it a dealbreaker? Or is our foundation of trust in God bigger than that as per the other evidence available to us?
The lack of the Second Coming used to bother me a great deal. It no longer does so much.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Jesus was human. Of course He misunderstood. And so do we cubed.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
I am a lot more sympathetic to those expressing the view that the bible says things that are hard to deal with and reconcile. Over those that claim that if you squint hard enough it doesn't.
Back when I was catholic I was never confronted with issues like these in the bible. I left the church due do other issues which are not relevant to this thread.
Looking back and re-reading the bible was when I became aware of how clearly it all felt man made to me. Written by humans with human error all over it.
If I had learned about this early enough in my upbringing in some form of bible class, I wonder if that would have nurtured a faith that was more able to survive later challenges. As it was, if I had started discovering this on my own when I still believed It would probably have been a deal breaker.
Not dealing honestly with issues like these makes people want to reject the whole package.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I find them easy to reconcile NOW without squinting at all. Lucky me.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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?
If you can offer any plausible mechanism for that, I'm all ears. What I see is a bundle of sayings which the people of the time took to mean one thing, and acted accordingly, rushing to spread the word. Then many generations later, a whole different set of people started to formalise an official canon, when the claims had already been falsified. I don't see much reason to suppose that the plain meaning to both us and the contemporary listeners was somehow mistaken.
But as I said, this only matters if you assume that these statements are the perfectly recorded utterances of an infallible living god. It's amazing how many Biblical literalists are revealing themselves by trying to invent convoluted rationalisations that would leave William of Ockham distinctly unimpressed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
*cough*
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
*cough*
Could those referring back to the trustworthiness of God in their experience please explain, concretely, what they mean. Otherwise one could just respond "oh no he isn't!"
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Not to dismiss any of the other theories posted here, but I will point out that genea (translated as "generation" in the verse quoted) is translated in other contexts as "time," "nation," and "age"--at least in the AV. And of course St Jerome, in his gloss of the passage, interprets it as "offspring".
For what it's worth.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
C'mon Adeodatus. Don't let this thread die. It's important. I want to hear your thoughts. How do you make sense of it?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Not to dismiss any of the other theories posted here, but I will point out that genea (translated as "generation" in the verse quoted) is translated in other contexts as "time," "nation," and "age"--at least in the AV. And of course St Jerome, in his gloss of the passage, interprets it as "offspring".
For what it's worth.
I hope I've remembered rightly but I think most scholars believe those alternative translations of genea to be a severe stretch. I think the point is that every other usage, maybe bar one, of genea in the New Testament clearly can only mean 'generation', so it's almost certainly meant to mean 'generation' in the passages we're talking about?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
People that rationalise the delay of the parousia use the "one generation" idea in such passages to refer to the overthrow of the Temple in AD 70.
I believe even NT Wright espouses this view.
Possible, but weak considering the other evidence. The "coming on the clouds of heaven" is definitely apocalyptic language and easily relates to the second coming ( as per Acts 1).
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
What I see is a bundle of sayings which the people of the time took to mean one thing, and acted accordingly, rushing to spread the word. Then many generations later, a whole different set of people started to formalise an official canon, when the claims had already been falsified. I don't see much reason to suppose that the plain meaning to both us and the contemporary listeners was somehow mistaken.
I'm not sure I follow you - are you saying there were (or might have been) alternative books, e.g. letters and gospels, that could have been included in the canon and would have given us a truer picture of what really happened in the first few decades after Jesus' time on earth?
My argument is that these statements we're talking about present such an apparently false picture of what really happened that actually it is sensible to look for and look favourably on alternative explanations for the statements (i.e. that they aren't really about Jesus' return).
The fact that these passages make either the first Christians look very dim or Jesus look misled / deceitful makes it more likely for me that actually the early Christians (maybe in the immediate post-resurrection period and certainly after AD70) did understand them to be about the Temple and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But as I said, this only matters if you assume that these statements are the perfectly recorded utterances of an infallible living god.
Indeed, although I don't share your view regarding what William of Ockham would think of these ideas!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
My argument is that these statements we're talking about present such an apparently false picture of what really happened that actually it is sensible to look for and look favourably on alternative explanations for the statements (i.e. that they aren't really about Jesus' return).
The fact that these passages make either the first Christians look very dim or Jesus look misled / deceitful makes it more likely for me that actually the early Christians (maybe in the immediate post-resurrection period and certainly after AD70) did understand them to be about the Temple and so on.
Seriously? You reject the plain meaning because it didn't happen? But they're freaking everywhere!!
quote:
Hebrews 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another - and all the more as you see the day approaching.
Hebrews 3:7 For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay.
James 5:7-9 Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord's coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near. Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
Revelation 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it.
Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:20-21 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen, Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
*cough*
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
*cough*
Could those referring back to the trustworthiness of God in their experience please explain, concretely, what they mean. Otherwise one could just respond "oh no he isn't!"
The trouble here is that we don't know each other IRL, so I can't point to incidents in my life and let you evaluate them. (I'm not going to bring up things like the fulfillment of prophecy, etc. because I'm fairly sure you want eye witness testimony here.)
The second problem is that if you look hard enough, you can always find a different explanation. This fact IMHO is because God refuses to give us the kind of irrefutable proof that would forcibly drag us into faith, removing all choice or free will on our part.
Having said all that--
I'm going to be a fool and do it anyway.
First, I'm still here. By all rights I should have been dead of suicide by age 12. I'll not go into the why's and wherefores here.
Second, my family as a whole is still here, still standing, though sometimes badly badly injured. But by all human standards, we should have been totally destroyed in the swirling chaos of the last 25 years. Deaths, attacks on reputation, job loss, severe illness, finances gone to shit--yet we are still here. And I can say right now it's not because we have any particular strength or resilience--quite the opposite.
Third, my son exists, who ought not to exist by all the laws of medicine. A freak, a fluke--or the hand of God? There's always an alternate explanation. But here he is.
Fourth, I'm still sane. (shut up, you out there!) With all the shit that's happened to me IRL I'm rather surprised at this. I tend to be rather fragile emotionally, just by nature, and I'm not getting a helluva lot of support from anybody (okay, one friend). Desperately clinging to the Lord. But here I am.
Fifth, the people we care for are, by and large, STILL HERE. Screwed up maybe, but here. Twenty-five years of dealing with family abuse, rape, murder, assault, psych responses to torture etc, PTSD, racism, poverty, loneliness, grief, solitude, legal entanglements... Seriously, I would have expected much much MUCH worse outcomes than what we have had. By this point I would have expected several suicides and at least two multiple homicides (family, maybe work). Plus assorted random assaults and single murders.
You don't know these people, and there's no way for you to check what I'm saying--but the outcomes we've been seeing are, as a whole, skewed in a positive direction. They are statistically unlikely.
And I can't help putting all of the above down to the faithfulness of the Lord we've been clinging to, hanging on to his ankles, wailing into his skirts, behaving like frightened toddlers with. Because we don't have what it takes to make any of the above happen. It's got to be him.
That, or a highly unlikely decades-long chain of coincidences. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
And people who have died, whose families have been lost around them, who have remained childless - who have seen decades not of favourable coincidences but of Shit Happening - are they examples of God not being faithful? Methinks you cannot cite the one without accepting the evidence posed by the the other.
[ 22. May 2014, 14:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
[heavy sigh] OF COURSE you were going to say that. Which is why a) I called myself a fool for even trying, b) I indicated that lots of shit happened to us and ours in spite of God's faithfulness, and c) I refrained from drawing precisely the kind of conclusions you seem to think I AM drawing.
I'm not.
The problem of evil is not going to be solved by Lamb Chopped. I wasn't trying. I was simply answering your question.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
God is with us in time and chance. Respect!
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
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?
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?
Jesus came into his kingdom when he ascended and was seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. That happened in the lifetime of the people to whom he was speaking.
In my view the most credible understanding of Matt 24:4-35 is that Jesus is talking about the period up to the destruction of the temple, in response to the disciples' first question in 24:3 '...when will these things be...?' which was provoked by Jesus's observation in 24:2 'there will not be left here one stone upon another'. And the destruction of the temple took place 40 years (a generation) after the time of Jesus speaking (ca.30AD)
Jesus talks about his second coming in Matt 24:36-25:46, (where he speaks of 'that day' in contrast to his referring to 'those days' in 24:4-35), and was in response to the disciples' second question in v.4 '..and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?. There is also a clear discourse marker of contrast and change of subject with the 'But' which starts v.36, indicating the change from answering the first question to answering the second.
No promises broken, but the events of history fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus made of the destruction of the temple, so I have no doubt of the fulfillment of the prophecy of his second coming, and the judgement that will follow.
It is quite possible that the original hearers of his words understood them better than many people today understand from reading the gospel text.
Angus
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[heavy sigh] OF COURSE you were going to say that. Which is why a) I called myself a fool for even trying, b) I indicated that lots of shit happened to us and ours in spite of God's faithfulness, and c) I refrained from drawing precisely the kind of conclusions you seem to think I AM drawing.
I'm not.
The problem of evil is not going to be solved by Lamb Chopped. I wasn't trying. I was simply answering your question.
And I'm clearly failing to understand your answer.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And people who have died, whose families have been lost around them, who have remained childless - who have seen decades not of favourable coincidences but of Shit Happening - are they examples of God not being faithful? Methinks you cannot cite the one without accepting the evidence posed by the the other.
You can always argue one way or the other, since confirmation bias can ease one out of any problems. I don't see any way of resolving it - I see reality the way I want to. Although I suppose hearing that others see it entirely differently might be salutary.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Jesus came into his kingdom when he ascended and was seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. That happened in the lifetime of the people to whom he was speaking.
But that's a going away, not a "coming of the son of man". He goes away in clouds and he comes again in clouds (Acts 1:11). And while Jesus may be enthroned in the Ascension, it is not a coming of the Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. The Kingdom is about a new heaven and a new earth (which he refers to in 24:35)
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
In my view the most credible understanding of Matt 24:4-35 is that Jesus is talking about the period up to the destruction of the temple, in response to the disciples' first question in 24:3 '...when will these things be...?' which was provoked by Jesus's observation in 24:2 'there will not be left here one stone upon another'. And the destruction of the temple took place 40 years (a generation) after the time of Jesus speaking (ca.30AD)
Jesus talks about his second coming in Matt 24:36-25:46, (where he speaks of 'that day' in contrast to his referring to 'those days' in 24:4-35), and was in response to the disciples' second question in v.4 '..and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?. There is also a clear discourse marker of contrast and change of subject with the 'But' which starts v.36, indicating the change from answering the first question to answering the second.
Not so. The one who endures to the end of the age of lawlessness (destruction of the temple) will be saved (24:13) by the coming of the Kingdom (24:14).
Then in 24:22 he's talking of his coming again but tells them it will be obvious (24:27).
Then he goes back to the times of suffering (destruction of the temple) in 24:29 after which (immediately - verse 29) the heavens and earth are shaken and the son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory. Definitely parousia language there.
The "but" you speak of in 24:36 is not the separation of questions because the two themes are closely intertwined (destruction, suffering and the coming). The "but' is no one knows when they will both happen - not just the parousia.
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
No promises broken, but the events of history fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus made of the destruction of the temple, so I have no doubt of the fulfillment of the prophecy of his second coming, and the judgement that will follow.
Even if you dismiss the Matthew 24 - 25 chapters are referring to the destruction of the temple, what of the myriad other references in the New Testament that refer to Jesus' imminent return? I've posted just a few of them above in respones to SCK but there are tons.
How do you dismiss them?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I'm clearly failing to understand your answer.
We're at an impasse, then, because I can't think of any way to be clearer.
[has Lamb Chopped broken her code?]
[ 23. May 2014, 14:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Coming at this from my own idiosyncratic angle:
It is not difficult to write or speak clearly. It is not all that difficult (although Lord knows we can all point to failures) to make your meaning known. This is not rocket science.
You are not telling me that Jesus could not convey his meaning at least as well as you, or I, can. (It is of course possible that there is a purely technical failure -- a failure of the hearers to transcribe properly, the translators into English dropping the ball, Mary Magdalen smashing a serving plate just as a key word fell from the Lord's tongue -- but let's ignore that.)
My idea is, this is no accident. There is a deliberate obfustication, a sleight-of-hand going on. Writers do this all the time (the unreliable narrator and so forth) and know that the words can be made to mean what you want them to mean.
So: What's he really saying?
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's a going away, not a "coming of the son of man". He goes away in clouds and he comes again in clouds (Acts 1:11).
In the prophecy in Daniel of the ascension (7:13-14) the phrase used is: '...there came one like a son of man and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him...' (italics added)
So it is possible that Jesus used 'coming' of the Son of Man to allude to this passage. Also, there might be a difference in usage of 'coming' between C21st English and C1st Greek or Aramaic to refer to movements of people.
quote:
Not so. The one who endures to the end of the age of lawlessness (destruction of the temple) will be saved (24:13) by the coming of the Kingdom (24:14).
I can see nothing in v14 that refers unmistakeably to the second coming, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in a new heaven and earth. I think your understanding is imposed onto the text, not extracted from it.
quote:
Then he goes back to the times of suffering (destruction of the temple) in 24:29 after which (immediately - verse 29) the heavens and earth are shaken and the son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory. Definitely parousia language there.
Matt 24:29-30 certainly uses apocalyptic language, but this style of writing does not have to refer to the parousia - it can be used to refer to other events as well, and the destruction of the temple and the associated suffering of the Jewish people certainly deserves its use.
quote:
Even if you dismiss the Matthew 24 - 25 chapters are referring to the destruction of the temple, what of the myriad other references in the New Testament that refer to Jesus' imminent return? I've posted just a few of them above in respones to SCK but there are tons.
How do you dismiss them?
Please re-read my earlier post, as I did not dismiss Matthew 25 as referring to the destruction of the temple.
There are plenty of places in the NT where the disciples of Jesus are encouraged to live in constant expectation of - and preparedness for - his return. It is something that we should do now, for Jesus might return tomorrow - or in another 2000 years' time.
I'm not saying that my understanding of 24:4-35 as referring to the destruction of the temple is without any problems; rather this understanding minimises the exegetical difficulties in ch 24-25
Angus
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
http://rightwordtruth.com/this-generation-shall-not-pass-till-all-these-things-be-fulfilled/
Does this hold any water ?
“The verb “genEtai = may be coming” and the mood here is the subjunctive mood of the verb, the tense is the second aorist = past imperfect. The subjective mood of the verb is the mood of the idea, in other words it has not happened yet but it will begin to happen and is spoken of as may be coming… The generational application is emphatic and doubly so NOT pass away until what? The indicative mood of the second aorist singular = egeneto and this means “became”… This is the most frequent use of the this verb used 149 times… The indicative mood is the mood of the literal verbal action i.e. it is literally became. If it is becoming it has not occurred yet and the English sense of something past but reference to future is difficult grasp however, the English reader can understand this “beginning to occur” i.e. Verily I say to you that this generation will absolutely not pass away before these things begin to occur”
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I've been away for a week and am probably going to have to catch up with this thread piecemeal, but I'll start with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But your question of "Has God broken his promises"? is altogether another question it seems. Is a promise broken if it is delayed?
If I say, "I'll see you next week" and then vanish for a year, only to turn up with an excuse that "week" doesn't really mean "week" where I come from, I'd say yes, I broke my promise. And rather badly betrayed you, too.
quote:
If we assume the New Testament did indeed get it wrong, what then? What does this mean for faith?
Excellent question. I think for many people it's extremely scary to say "the New Testament got it wrong" (or "Luke got it wrong", or "Mark got it wrong", or of course, the worst of all, "Jesus got it wrong".) Personally, I don't think it's necessarily a dealbreaker. It leaves you with certain problems, like who decides where in the text Jesus gets it wrong and suchlike, but that's probably half a dozen other threads.
quote:
At this point, you can say "God didn't do what God said God would do so therefore is untrustworthy".
Or you can say. "God didn't do what God said God would do back then, but is still trustworthy and must have something else in mind in which I will continue to participate in as a disciple of Christ."
You could also quote him back at himself: quote:
Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. (Luke 16.10, NIV)
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
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".
Going back to this, there's more to being non-literalist than mere selective reading.
For example, the idea that God is promising anything through a character in a biblical story reflects an overarchingly literalist perspective on the place of the bible. The OP sounds like an ostensibly reasonable enquiry, but only if we accept an enormously literalist imposition that traditional Christian orthodoxy makes on rational thought.
If we don't believe there are grounds for believing the Bible is the "word of God" in any literal sense, there really is no problem with broken promises.
[ 25. May 2014, 13:13: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You could also quote him back at himself: quote:
Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. (Luke 16.10, NIV)
What do you mean quoting that?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
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".
Going back to this, there's more to being non-literalist than mere selective reading.
For example, the idea that God is promising anything through a character in a biblical story reflects an overarchingly literalist perspective on the place of the bible. The OP sounds like an ostensibly reasonable enquiry, but only if we accept an enormously literalist imposition that traditional Christian orthodoxy makes on rational thought.
If we don't believe there are grounds for believing the Bible is the "word of God" in any literal sense, there really is no problem with broken promises.
Hello Dave. Long time no see. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Literal interpretation or non-literal interpretation, you're still presented with the problem that the earliest Christians believed Jesus would return soon and the Kingdom of God would come in its fullness.
How do you interpret the fact that they were wrong?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What's to interpret?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Primarily: What now? Where does that leave us in relation to the coming Kingdom of God?
How do we understand what we say each week:
Christ has died
Christ has risen
Christ will come again
[ 26. May 2014, 12:56: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Hello Dave. Long time no see.
Yeah. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But we are still here. It was a shock to see ken had died.
quote:
Literal interpretation or non-literal interpretation, you're still presented with the problem that the earliest Christians believed Jesus would return soon and the Kingdom of God would come in its fullness. How do you interpret the fact that they were wrong?
I don't see what some of the earliest Christians believed about Jesus returning is of more than academic interest. If an essential feature of Christianity is commitment to believing what is true, and the stories of Christianity at best only tangentially reflect the history, this is just a story to be recalled and used if we find it useful. Why should we be surprised (or concerned) if they got this wrong?
quote:
Christ has died
Christ has risen
Christ will come again
This needs a line of introduction to make sense. Something like:
quote:
In the Church's story:
...
But that raises other questions. Like does this literary reference really capture the essence of a worthwhile Christian faith today.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's among us.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
Matthew 10:23
The problem with this verse is that the meaning of “the Son of Man comes” is extremely vague. Given the overall context in which this verse appears, however, it seems clear that this is not a reference to the Second Coming.
This verse relates to the immediate mission Jesus gave the Twelve Apostles to evangelize among the Jews. He states that the Apostles are not to spread the Word to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the Jews. He tells them that they will be persecuted, and when this occurs, they should move on to the next town in Israel. Given this verse’s appearance vis-à-vis such a temporary mission, it is nonsensical to interpret it as referring to the coming of the Son of Man at the End Times. Jesus obviously knows that this will not happen in the timeframe of the short immediate mission He is giving His disciples. Rather, Jesus is likely referring to either His resurrection, or their proximate reunion post-mission (Jesus often refers to Himself in the third-person as the “Son of Man” outside of reference to His Second Coming).
Matthew 16:28:
Personally, I believe this refers to the Revelation of John. This verse does not say, “Before the Son of Man comes in his kingdom.” Rather, it states that one will “see” the Son of Man “coming” in his kingdom. This implies that one of the apostles will have a vision of future events, i.e., the Second Coming. Under the traditional identification of John of Patmos as John the Apostle, he describes in his Revelation the coming of Jesus Christ into His kingdom in vivid detail. “Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever’ (Revelation 11:15).” This would fulfill the prophecy.
Matthew 24:34:
I do not see a significant problem here. The key is that the meaning of “this generation” must be taken in context of Jesus’ overall message in the chapter. Technically, a “generation” can be merely a group of people that “experience the same significant events within a given period of time.” The original question posed by Jesus’ disciples is when and what will the signs be of “your coming and of the end of the age.” Therefore, “this generation” may be just all those living in this “age,” i.e., the age of the proclamation of the Good News throughout the world.
This also explains what would otherwise be seemingly contradictory verses in Matthew 24. For example, Matthew 24:14 states that “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” By the time of the death of the last living apostle, the Gospel had not yet been shared to significant portions of the world, which is a prerequisite for the end of the age. Thus, it does not make sense to think of “this generation” in its narrowest definition.
Furthermore, such a narrow interpretation would also contradict with Matthew 24:36, which says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” If Jesus, the Son, does not know when He shall come again, how could He definitively say, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place?” This statement only makes sense in this context if “this generation” is being used in a broader sense. Thus, Jesus is literally saying “this generation,” or the generation of people living in the age of the proclamation of the Gospel, will only end once the signs He has described have occurred.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Or He's not literally saying anything at all.
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on
:
I have grown up with the theory that in Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 24 he is speaking of the destruction of the temple and the massacre of the Jews - the end of the traditional Jewish way of life, with the temple, sacrifices, etc. It would indeed have been a catastrophe for them, the end of their world. And Jesus was a Jew.
In verse 7, the disciples ask when this will happen, and by following up with questions about the end of the age and Jesus's return have conflated the whole lot. Unfortunately, Christians down the ages have also done this.
I can see that the "end of the age" could mean the end of that particular age in which they were living, in which case it would come to the end with the destruction of the temple and the Jewish tradition of sacrifice and temple worship. This was a long age to come to an end, it had been going since the time of Solomon.
But to make all this equate to the time when Jesus returns ... In verse 8 Jesus warns them not to be deceived by false messiahs or rumours of war - "the end is still to come". Well, we are still waiting for the end, that is, not just the end of the age, but the end of all things.
In verse 9. He seems to be referring again to an event soon to come, speaking of the persecution of those who preach the Gospel. But "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (NIV)
After this, Jesus goes back to speaking of the destruction of the temple (verse 15). Because he keeps going back and forth, at one time speaking about the temple and another speaking about the End, Christians have received a confused prophecy. Perhaps he himself could not separate the two. As I have intimated before, being a Jew he might have equalled the destruction of the temple and the Jewish way of life with the end of the world. Although God, he was human and might not have been able to see beyond that. But he also said "No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (NIV) This implies that even Jesus himself did not know when "the coming of the Son of Man" would be.
I wonder what is meant by this "second coming" of which some Christians are so keen to speak.
To answer the OP, then, my belief is that God has indeed kept his promises, so we must look at them differently from what perhaps the OP is saying.
Some of these verses refer to the destruction of the temple and the Jewish way of life - check.
Some of these verses refer to the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom" = Ascension - check.
Some of these verses refer to a "second coming" - could this refer to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?
Some of these verses refer to "The End" - well obviously our world is finite and whether to one at a time or all at once, the end is coming. But what did Jesus mean by The End? I have read a theory that End does not mean destruction, but Goal. What is that Goal? Surely the coming of the Kingdom of God. Now the Kingdom of God has come, sort of, but not in its fulness. That is what we are waiting, hoping, working for.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye, He covered ALL the bases.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Some of these verses refer to "The End" - well obviously our world is finite and whether to one at a time or all at once, the end is coming. But what did Jesus mean by The End? I have read a theory that End does not mean destruction, but Goal. What is that Goal? Surely the coming of the Kingdom of God. Now the Kingdom of God has come, sort of, but not in its fulness. That is what we are waiting, hoping, working for.
Of course its about the coming of the Kingdom. The point is the Kingdom didn't come. Jesus' gospel was "repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand (near, approaching in the Greek)!"
Everybody seems quite happy to dismiss the Matthew references to refer to the temple, but what about all the others that I mentioned
above?
Nobody has the guts to approach those it seems.
C'mon folks.
I dare you
( and no, Pentecost doesn't cut it. Firstly because alot of these references occur to times after Pentecost in the epistles and Secondly because Pentecost was the beginning but obviously not the end - the Kingdom is not yet here)
[ 30. May 2014, 11:17: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
He IS the Kingdom. His presence is. He is present in the Spirit. The Kingdom is here. We're in it ever since.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
But this aint heaven Toto. God's will is not done on earth as it is in heaven. The grand visions of Isaiah and Revelation of a new earth and a new heaven have not been fulfilled.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
But they are being fulfilled. Do you think the human race hasn't seen any overall improvements in the last two millenia? It seems to me that things are vastly better with regard to how well we can expect people to treat each other.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
But they are being fulfilled. Do you think the human race hasn't seen any overall improvements in the last two millenia? It seems to me that things are vastly better with regard to how well we can expect people to treat each other.
Arguable.
But that's not the point.
That's not the same as the New Testament expectation that the Kingdom was imminent and would come soon in its fullness. That's the whole point of all the urgency everywhere. Repent! The time is nigh! Don't even bother getting married! Time is too short!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Then they grew up.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Well when you grow up you expect broken promises from people. But God? No.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Promises?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
You know. To come again soon. To set things right on earth as they are in heaven. Or have you completely forgotten orthodoxy?
[ 31. May 2014, 11:35: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I embrace it fully.
YOU are the promise.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
No. I am most definitely not the messiah.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You, me, we, ALL others are the chosen, in Him.
It's up to us.
Do we want Him to come or not?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
No it's most definitely not up to us. We participate in the current semi-realised eschatology. We do not bring it about in its fullness. That's God's job.
Jesus did not walk around saying "Repent! The Kingdom of God is up to you to bring about and it'll take thousands of years to do it!"
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
We've been around for two hundred thousand years.
We're half way.
They are just WORDS Evensong.
It is ENTIRELY down to us. The sooner we take responsibility, the responsibility that was given to us, the sooner He comes.
If we keep waiting, He will NEVER come. Like waiting to be happy.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Dude. That's not the New Testament line.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Interesting.
It's my New Testament line.
I am no longer interested at all in projecting on the future from the Bronze-Iron Ages. Even Sharia-Sudan has paused for thought in that. There is always hope in hypocrisy.
Nobody is. Interested.
Apart from those of us - which has been me for nearly 50 years - in infantile denial.
Posted by Andromeda (# 11304) on
:
Interesting thread. I'd been pondering this question myself recently. I found this site had some interesting thoughts. http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm
The issue is not at all resolved in my mind though, and I really ought to do some thorough studying of all these verses.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Su-PERB! Andromeda. Thank you. Jack was ahead of us all in postmodernism as usual.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda:
Interesting thread. I'd been pondering this question myself recently. I found this site had some interesting thoughts. http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm
The issue is not at all resolved in my mind though, and I really ought to do some thorough studying of all these verses.
I had a go at reading that page Andromeda but its very long. Can you summarise the man's conclusions?
He seems mainly focused on the "generation" question. Does he deal at all with the rest of scripture that anticipates Christ's return soon?
Interesting to note C.L. Lewis thought Jesus must have got it wrong.
Posted by Andromeda (# 11304) on
:
Hi Evensong sorry for the late reply.
The author covers/categorises some of the views 'out there' on this topic, first covering the ones he finds less satisfactory then some more hopeful ones going over some pros and cons, criticisms and responses of each:
The unsatisfactory views:
- C S Lewis: Jesus got it wrong (interesting and honest, unsatisfactory probably to Lewis himself as much as anyone)
- Full preterist: the second coming happened in AD 70
- Partial Preterists: Jesus returned in 70 AD, but this was not the final coming of Christ
- Full Futurists: All aspects of the Olivet Discourse are yet to be fulfilled
All of these are discussed and the author gives reasons as to why he finds them unsatisfactory
Partial Futurists (A Hopeful alternative?):
This is the view that the Olivet Discourse contains fulfilled and unfulfilled elements
He provides some scriptural evidence supporting this view and then goes on to present 4 viewpoints within this category:
- The Spiritual Generation Interpretation - recently expressed by Dr.Gerardus D. Bouw. " In this view, Jesus was speaking of the generation of God's children. God does not have grandchildren - he only has sons and daughters. They are made His sons and daughters by virtue of the new birth. Therefore, there is only one generation of the spiritual children of God."
- The Offspring Interpretation - provided by church father Jerome "Jesus was referring to the offspring of man, and in particular to the offspring of Jacob"
- The "Generation I Just Spoke Of" Interpretation - A discussion on whether 'this generation' means 'the current generation' or 'the generation I just spoke of'
- The Inceptive Aorist View - "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" or “This generation shall not pass, till all these things begin to happen.”?
Then the author offer his own thoughts and conclusions.
As I say I still need to do a proper study of all this myself but I will find this article a good starting point when/if I do
Posted by Andromeda (# 11304) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:Can you summarise the man's conclusions?
Oops sorry I didn't really do that did I? I would say he finds something of value in all of the partial futurist views.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
He seems mainly focused on the "generation" question. Does he deal at all with the rest of scripture that anticipates Christ's return soon?
The article only discusses the Olivet discourse, especially Matthew 24:34
[ 16. June 2014, 18:49: Message edited by: Andromeda ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Apologetics can be such fun.
Perhaps a way to resolve some of this is to doubt whether the words attributed to Jesus are actually his own words. Maybe the passage is someone's interpolation of his own hope or his own misunderstanding.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thanks Andromeda.
While I think the Matthew passage is important, there are tons more passages to choose from and a descent discussion needs to incorporate them all methinks.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Apologetics can be such fun.
Perhaps a way to resolve some of this is to doubt whether the words attributed to Jesus are actually his own words. Maybe the passage is someone's interpolation of his own hope or his own misunderstanding.
Yes. That's one option: Jesus got it wrong.
Personally I think God changing God's mind about timing seems the most reasonable option.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I think God changing God's mind about timing seems the most reasonable option.
I think the more reasonable option is to pay attention to what Jesus said, particularly:
“But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
and
“The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I think God changing God's mind about timing seems the most reasonable option.
I think the more reasonable option is to pay attention to what Jesus said, particularly:
“But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
and
“The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."
But Jesus said other things that do not agree with those two statements
The best the first can explain is that while it was considered imminent, the exact hour was unknown. This does not detract from the sense of urgency throughout the NT
As for the second, there are plenty of other examples of scriptures saying Jesus "will come on the clouds of heaven" and "return as he ascended" and "signs of the age". The Kingdom was not a purely internal, spiritual reality. It was physical one where the dead would be raised in the general resurrection.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Now here's another beauty about urgency:
1 john 2:18-28
Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge.
I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and you know that no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.
I write these things to you concerning those who would deceive you. As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he is revealed we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his coming.
You can't spiritualise it or ignore it. There has to be another explanation.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I think it's possible to read all of that, Evensong, through the lens of it being about the AD70 siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple. The 'coming on the clouds of heaven' imagery refers back to Daniel 7, which arguably can be read as Jesus going to the Father, i.e. being vindicated and enthroned, rather than coming from the Father to earth (this was mentioned upthread, wasn't it?).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But Jesus said other things that do not agree with those two statements
Exactly, which means we're left to figure out how they all fit together.
quote:
The best the first can explain is that while it was considered imminent, the exact hour was unknown.
I think the best and simplest way to understand Jesus's statement is that he thought the return was imminent, but he admitted that he didn't know for sure when it would be. Thus, he could have been wrong about how soon it would happen. That and that I think his main point is that we should live as though it could happen at any time. And as others have noted, he may have been talking at least in part about the destruction of the Temple.
As for the return in clouds, sure—that's a both/and, not an either/or in the gospels. The kingdom is here now and he will return at some point. Coupled with the point above—that Jesus may have thought the return was imminent but admitted that he didn't know—I just don't see any real conflict there.
Should we take into account that the gospels were written some decades after the resurrection, so that any statement by Jesus that he was returning soon ("the present generation") already had not happened for some time?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Jesus was THAT human as we keep seeing, a man of His culture 110% reaching up, out, down, in as no man before possibly could due to His divine nature. A man of botched healing, casual racism, a man working it out as He went along. A man of cryptic, hedged, apocalyptic, hyperbolic, aspirational, political, ambiguous, HUMAN promises fully in tune with His divine nature, inspired by the Spirit 110%.
A man who could no more see the future that hasn't happened than God can.
What's the problem?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think it's possible to read all of that, Evensong, through the lens of it being about the AD70 siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple. The 'coming on the clouds of heaven' imagery refers back to Daniel 7, which arguably can be read as Jesus going to the Father, i.e. being vindicated and enthroned, rather than coming from the Father to earth (this was mentioned upthread, wasn't it?).
I don't see the Ascension as a credible interpretation of "coming on the clouds of heaven".
But even if I could, that's still leaves a billion other passages that the fall of Jerusalem would not fit (as I mentioned above - which you did not respond to. The 1 John one can't be either).
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But Jesus said other things that do not agree with those two statements
Exactly, which means we're left to figure out how they all fit together.
Indeed. And its a serious puzzle. One that has perplexed not only the first century Christians, but those of us today.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
The best the first can explain is that while it was considered imminent, the exact hour was unknown.
I think the best and simplest way to understand Jesus's statement is that he thought the return was imminent, but he admitted that he didn't know for sure when it would be. Thus, he could have been wrong about how soon it would happen. That and that I think his main point is that we should live as though it could happen at any time. And as others have noted, he may have been talking at least in part about the destruction of the Temple.
As for the return in clouds, sure—that's a both/and, not an either/or in the gospels. The kingdom is here now and he will return at some point. Coupled with the point above—that Jesus may have thought the return was imminent but admitted that he didn't know—I just don't see any real conflict there.
The destruction of the temple can be used to explain away some references. A partially realisized eschatology can explain away some more. But the sense of urgency and the sheer amount of others cannot fit into those categories.
The delay of the Parousia is a significant problem even in the New Testament (e.g. Hebrews - those that are falling away waiting). Much more so now 2,000 years later.
[ 18. June 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What's the problem?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I know I should wait, but hey. I find this all immensely liberating. A great weight has been lifted from me, is being from many others. We continue in the light of Jesus as His brother James did, Peter, Paul and Matthew: making it up as we go along. The naked Church has done nothing but for millennia in its arrogation of power.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0