The Things that Must Soon Take Place
Probably most ignored in the book of Revelation are the words that appear at the very beginning and at the very end of the prophecy:
The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place…Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. 1:1-3
And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. 22:6
As I have pointed out before, the book of Revelation was written to seven churches that were in Asia at the time the prophecy was revealed. Jesus told those churches, the very churches that were in Asia at that very time, that the things he was revealing to them had to happen soon. He assured those same churches that the time was near.
Imagine someone in one of those churches at the time who, after reading these words, would have been so bold as to say that the things prophesied in the book were going to happen much later or saying that the time of their fulfillment was far off. Wouldn't such a person have been directly contradicting the words of Christ? Yet, somehow, the majority of today's evangelicals would say that such a person would have been correct.
It really is as simple as this: Jesus said that the prophecies were soon to come to pass; most of us say that they were not. How can this be?
44 comments:
or imagine as paul discussed, what if there were some people who were claiming the things which were to come to pass had already occurred?
for a brother to state, "this isn't happening for another 2,000 years" may have been accurate, but would have been ignoring the approach the Lord desired them to take.
i awake every morning aware it may be the last time i wake up this side of glory. God MAY take me home today (death or rapture) but it is totally His choice. i'm to live every day as it may be my last, but He has been no less faithful to me if He gives me many more.
I do appreciate the reminder of Paul's warning. Certainly, ignoring God's revealed timetable can be very dangerous, in either direction (Ezk.12:21-27).
I have difficulty seeing how the approach the Lord desired the Asian Christians to take can be in any way separated from the truth of the promise upon which he was having them base that approach.
What would you say if, 38 miles into a 2012 mile road trip, in order to get my children to behave a certain way, I told them we were almost there? Wouldn't that be proof that I really was a lawyer?
Again I say, a brother who would have said that the things wouldn't be happening for another 2000 years would have been doing much more than merely ignoring the approach the Christ wanted him to take; he would have been denying the promise Christ had just given him. I don't see how he may have been accurate.
You say that the Lord MAY take you home any day, and well he may, having given you no revelation one way or the other. But Christ promised the churches in Asia that his prophecy MUST soon come to pass. Christ having promised it, how is it possible for it to have happened otherwise?
although He has told me my life is a vapor....though there are days i FEEL like it has dragged on and on. if i die tomorrow, some will use the fact that i was only 32 to teach the concept that life is a vapor. however, if i die at 112, shouldn't we still say the same. what is 112 years?
my perception does not change the truth of reality....and eventually my perception will be conformed to reality. (can't we assume that methuselah now views his 969 years on earth as just a brief blip?)
your car trip analogy breaks down for passengers and driver are finite. perhaps, picturing a bus driver, who continually makes the 2012 mile trip over and over again. therefore, when the children ask, "are we almost there?" the perception of the driver (and reality is) we are quite close.
there's also the element that we are not evesdropping on the letter to the 7 churches. we are not reading someone else's mail. we are reading letters intended for us as well.
If Christ were to reveal to you tonight that your death must soon take place and that the end of your life was near, would you think he was merely informing you of his own perspective or would you think that he was revealing something to you which he expected you to understand?
Would you really think, in light of such a revelation, that you might possibly live another 90 years? If so, on what grounds?
Perhaps The driver in my analogy is infinite, but the intended recipients of his message were certainly finite. Shouldn't we assume that in choosing the words soon and near he was speaking perspicuously, in language he expected his audience to understand? Had he ever before used such words to mean "thousands of years after you all are dead"?
Then the Revelation doesn't really apply to us today?
If it was soon, then it must have happened only to and for the ones that he was talking with. Therefore, what is there for us?
I do believe that because of the very nature of the promise that the prophecy would soon take place, we should not expect it to take place later. But I do not believe that this makes Revelation any less applicable to us than any of the other prophecies concerning Christ.
Consider Isaiah 53:7:
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before it's shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Do we have to believe that Christ will be crucified again in order to believe that Isaiah is speaking for our benefit? Does the fact that this prophecy has already been fulfilled make it any less applicable to us?
Consider these as well:
Do we have to believe that Paul is coming to visit us soon in order to believe that I Corinthians applies to us? (14:9) or I Timothy? (3:14)
Do we have to believe that Paul will send Timothy to us soon to believe that Philippians applies to us? (2:19)
De we have to believe that Peter is still alive in order to believe that II Peter still applies to us? (1:14)
Do we have to believe that John hopes to come see us soon in order to believe that his third epistle applies to us? (1:14)
The fact of the matter is, that though all scripture is written for our instruction, it is very rarely directed toward us in the exact same way that it was directed toward its original audience. I believe our interpretation of scripture is often led astray by our failure to fully appreciate this fact.
I'd say it really is as simple as this: "God is not slow concerning His promise, as some men count slowness."
It is not possible to contradict Christ's own Words when we preach Christ's own words, live according to Christ's own words - and not try and force God's ways into mans's ways.
Yes, that certainly is a relevant passage, and one of the few checks in my mind about this whole matter.
As far as preaching Christ's own words, I agree; it probably is simpler than I'm making it.
On the other hand, if I were to preach that Christ is going to be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and that they were going to condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and that he was going to be raised on the third day, would I really be preaching the words of Christ?
i find it ironic that you are appealing to promises as they would be understood by the reader, but are willing to adjust numerous old testament prophecies to have an application which would not be understood by the old testament reader.
numerous places in Scripture tell us the original audience didn't get the full picture. (romans 4, romans 15, 1 peter 1). there may have been more to it, but there was never less.
again, Jesus has told me He is coming to get me soon (in the Scriptures) and that my life is a vapor. therefore, i do not consider Him negligent if that is 90 years from NOW. reality (not my perception) is that 90 years is a VERY short amount of time.
my impatience does not mean He is being slow.
:) I wondered how long it would take you to say that.
Let me ask this of all: how, in general, ought one to go about discerning what a particular scriptural use of a word means?
The answer would seem to fall within the confines of Paul's warning to Timothy: "do not wrangle about words to the ruin of the hearer."
So I would suggest that one ought not to use a framework outside of the Bible to discern the Bible. "What-if scenarios" are rarely, if ever, helpful to discernment, and that's what most eschatological thinking is based on.
On that basis, I think the Bible can make its own case plainly and simply to those who have ears to hear.
When I have taught Revelation, the preface has always included a short discussion about the fact that we are speaking in the presence of angels who long to look into the redemptive process. Therefore, I have no interest in looking like an idiot in front of angels who already know more than I do about the facts of the Revelation. Therefore, in order to promote discernment and temper conjecture in my own study, I try to remember that if I don't understand the point of a prophectic passage, conjecture is not going to help. Like Daniel, the words may have to remain sealed up until the proper time.
But I am content with that because I can know that some measure of idiocy on my part is mitigated when I successfully avoid drawing conclusions that may be 180-degress out from the truth. And, at the same time, I do not feel "cheated" that I don't understand portions of the subject.
The one thing I think is key to discernment is guarding against the integration of conjecture into understanding. Study, investigation into the text, and testing one's understanding may utilize some measure of questioning, conjecture and thinking - but the distance traveled on that road must be kept very short.
A word fitly spoken, brother.
I do believe that if we're ever to understand the scriptures, especially the difficult portions, we must do so by confining ourselves as much as possible to the text itself, comparing scripture to scripture to understand the meanings of words and phrases (words and phrases, for example like "soon", "the time is near" or "a thousand years").
I also appreciate your reticence about rushing into rash interpretations. I must point out, however, that while Daniel was told to seal up his prophecy because it was for the time of the end, John was told to do just the opposite because the time was near (22:10) which indicates to me not only that the book refers primarily to events to be fulfilled in the immediate future, but also that the book was intended to be understood by its original audience (it was, after all, supposed to be a "revelation")
Thanks so much for your comments. I will be more cautious about my what-if conjectures.
actually, rereading the post and specifically the "simple" statement...i think is where the error lies.
i believe your statement causes a false dichotomy.
i do not seek to say anything contrary to Jesus. (typically, a good rule in life, wouldn't you say?)
Jesus said that prophecies were soon to come to pass.
I say those prophecies are soon to come to pass.
(now wait, you will protest, by not having happened within 2,000 years, i am thus saying that they didn't come to pass soon.)
except that i believe that under the gauge of eternity, and in light of the total pain and agony for the unregenerate, coupled with the inexplicable joy and glory to the regenerate...that we will all look back (20 minutes, 20 years, 20 centuries) and say, "Wow, that was fast."
would 50AD have been too soon?
would 75AD have been too late?
it's not really my call.
Do you agree that the prophecies were soon to come to pass even when Jesus first announced them to the churches of Asia?
whose soon?
yours or Jesus'
How about the saints of Asia's soon?
As Danny has suggested, to ask whether something is "soon to take place" begs the question: from whose point of view?
So I will embark on a complete reversal of my "conjecture" lecture and even reference a pagan source to suggest something for your consideration. (Horrors...I must be emerging...)
Have you ever watched Star Trek TNG and the character "Q"? His alien character, whose objective was to portray omnipotence, often made a point of needling the humans for their narrow perspective of time, and the linear way in which they view the nexus of what is time and anti-time. I sometimes think that Gene Roddenberry articulated the ramifications of God interposing Himself into the universe better than most theologians do. My point being that theologians rarely elevate their hearers to consider that Genesis is an alpha point in infinity (which itself blows a brain fuse) and Revelation is the omega point. This consideration is vital to attempting an answer to your question. Even John observes the enormity of this reality in Revelation 20:11.
You know that I am not suggesting that Star Trek is a reason to consider this perspective; but it is a visual help for those not inclined to consider the quantum relationship of time and non-time. It's easy to deal with the concept in Genesis; but Revelation forces us to recognize the temporal qualities of our finite existence "within" that which is infinite. At some point, eschatology must paradoxically track simultaneously on two planes: the finite and the infinite. When you read Daniel, Zechariah, or Ezekiel you cannot help but see that this is true.
Jesus Christ is the only being who existentially experiences time (finiteness) and anti-time (infinity). From His perspective, nothing is a "long time" and 2 Peter 3 confirms this in the context of the parousia! I would therefore theorize that everything for Jesus rides along an event continuum that is fundamentally different than the calendar as we know it. The viewpoint can only be Jesus', and whether it is one day or a thousand years, as Peter says, it is in fact "soon to come to pass"!
Whoa. You just took me through a whole pack of brain fuses. (do fuses even come in packs?)
Yes, indeed, "from whose perspective?" is really the question.
It is obvious, I'm sure, that I believe Christ was speaking to the Asian saints with language that he intended them to understand--from their perspective.
This belief is rooted, I suppose, in some of my fundamental assumptions about revelation in general. I do assume, perhaps without adequate grounds, that when Christ undertakes to reveal truth to man (in this case the timing of a particular prophecy) he does so in such a way, not as to needle his audience about their finiteness, but as to make them understand him.
Christ could very easily have told the Asians that whenever these things would happen, it would seem to him to be soon. Without seeing any such qualifier, I'm afraid your explanation leaves me somewhat Lost in Space (sorry, wrong show).
I suppose now might be as good as time as any to ask you gentlemen: why not just take Jesus' words in their natural human sense?
i don't know why we have to make your assumption. is it not a consistent pattern that God revealed through the Scriptures truth which the original audience got somewhat, but may have missed or distorted the ultimate, glorious meaning? doesn't the new testament confirm that this was the case multiple times?
using your line of reasoning....
if you told me that you'd see me soon, (and with the fair coming i could assume that to be within a week) yet you did not see me for almost FORTY years...would i have grounds for saying you misrepresented?
therefore, if we are simply considering the asian saints' time frame (especially under the heat of persecution), can't we assume that 40 years would not feel soon to them? wouldn't this be the argument that peter is making?
therefore, it seems you are already willing to accept that soon can't mean what we typically equate it to mean in conversation.
no typical conversation refers to 40 years as soon, unless a much bigger time table is in mind.
why not just take Jesus' words in their natural human sense?
There are a number of things throughout the Bible that simply cannot be understood in their natural human sense. One that comes to mind is John 6:51-53. Hebrews 11 is another good list.
Jesus was careful to explain to the disciples that His teaching was from the Father, and that the entire scope of His teaching was concerning another Kingdom. That being the case, the words to Isaiah are paramount: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are you ways my ways."
When it comes to the Revelation of Jesus Christ (which is far more than just the book by that name), we have been made privy to some of these higher thoughts and higher ways.
Faith is the key to understanding. The entire "faith enterprise" necessiates a thinking that is beyond the existential, and rooted in the revealed Word of God. The natural sense may often be incomaptible.
The natural sense may often be incomaptible.
Indeed it may, but is it here? And if so, why?
Yes, it is here, and for the reasons I have already outlined.
Again, Peter is all over this in 2 Peter 3. Peter says in verse 1 that he is trying to "stir up your mind". Peter knows that our minds frame God's plans in terms of human reason. That is fatal to a proper understanding of the parousia. It is why dispensationalism is full of incongruent nonsense; it is why preterism is disjointed in is understanding of Israel and the Church. At some point, the Christian needs to embrace the fact that this is, indeed, a "mystery". Those things which say what they mean, and mean what they are are not in conflict with those things that require the mind of Christ to accept in faith.
The natural sense (v. 3) by itself has no other choice than to respond (v. 4a) with "Where is the promise of his coming?" That is, in some sense, what you are asking, because you are trying to validate what those men 2,000 years ago heard in light of the fact that we are still here where "things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation" (v. 4b.)
(Obviously, Peter is talking in the extreme about scoffers; you are not a scoffer, and I hasten to make that clear.)
Peter is coming from a view that illustrates what happens when human reason is applied to the timing of the parousia. The progression inevitably takes the prophecies (v. 2) and frames them within the time that has passed without seeing fulfillemnt (v. 4), overlooking the fact that time and human reason is not the point (v. 5-8)!
Again, Peter is dealing with the parousia, and his admonition is directly focused on the supernatural events we are waiting on; he explicitly tells us that time, as we comprehend it, is not a factor for the reasonability of these things (v.9-14.) Rather, it is the garce of God desiring repentance among men.
Why? Because once the parousia commences with the Glorious Appearing, repentance may be impossible.
The translation of all this for those saints 2,000 years ago or for us today is verses 14-15:
"Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation..."
Pardon my spelling and grammar; I was on a conference call at the same time I was typing.
Didn't even notice. :-)
One more comment from me in this thread (to which unlimited responses are welcome) and I believe I'll move on to my third point.
You gentlemen avoid the conclusion of an already-fulfilled Revelation by interpreting the "soon's" and "near's" and "quickly's" spread throughout the book as referring to Christ's infinite perspective.
Will the same method work for the "some standing here who will not taste death before's" or the "this generation will not pass away until's" which appear elsewhere in scripture? Or is some different method necessary to avoid the conclusion of fulfillment in those instances?
When Christ said "here", was this, perhaps, his way of saying "in some other place" or when he said "this generation", was that his way of saying "some other generation?"
And one more thing (as always): if "time, as we comprehend it, is not a factor for the reasonability of these things" why, instead of my being required to believe by faith that "soon" and "near" mean "two thousand years", are you not rather required by faith to believe that they have already been fulfilled?
You gentlemen avoid the conclusion of an already-fulfilled Revelation
No, we do not avoid it because an "already fulfilled revelation" is not there to avoid. Christ has not yet returned in His glory.
If he had already returned, the Church would be united with Him as His bride. As I have asked you before, if Christ has already returned, what are you and I? Are we Christians? Are we part of the Church? Are we part of the Bride? I believe Looking Upward essentially asked the same thing in his comment above. That question cannot be avoided; it must be answered first before you proceed to embrace a partial-preterist view.
Are we a preterist's variation on Joseph Dillow's imaginative theory of servant kings, perhaps presently cast into a allegorical "outer darkness" for a future, undocumented redemption?
Why does ethnic Israel still exist? Why hasn't anyone annihilated them by now? Other nations have ceased to exist, or failed to come back after centuries of oppression. If the Revelation has occurred, if there is now neither Jew nor Greek, why does that postage-stamp country continue to persist? Why is it still the central focus of the news?
Why has't an end to sin been achieved as promised in Daniel 9:24?
If the Revelation is fulfilled, why is there still a sun and moon? Why are the former things still part of our memory? Why are there tears? Why is there still death?
If the Revelation is fulfilled, where do Christians (or whatever we are) go when we die? Do we await a judgment as Paul said, or did that apply only to the Christians of 70AD? And do we even have a Blessed Hope if the Glorious Appearing already ocurred in 70AD? Doesn't it follow that no Christian since 70AD (or whatever we are) will ever "look up" because their redemption is drawing nigh?
How much of scripture is rendered moot by a fulfilled Revelation?
When did all the nations start bringing their tribute to Jerusalem, as is required during the Kingdom? Or why, since that tribute-bearing is obviously not occurring, do the nations still have rain?
If the Revelation is fulfilled, is there still a golden censer before God's throne which contains the prayers of the saints? If there is, then the Revelation is not fulfilled because an angel throws down that censer as part of the fulfillment of the Revelation - and the prayers of the saints are finished as they stand united in the presence of the Lamb. But if Revelation is fulfilled, as you suggest, then the censer must not be standing before the throne since it was thrown down during the fulfillemnt of the Revelation. The latter is sad news for you: your prayers are in vain.
No, there is too much biblical support for a future Revelation of Jesus Christ than there is for a past one. These questions clearly expose some of the points that cannot continue to be avoided by preterist-like views.
why...are you not rather required by faith to believe that they have already been fulfilled?
Because there is zero biblical text that suggests that any member of the Body (or "Bride") of Christ would be living on the earth after the parousia of Christ!
You use the term faith...if the Revelation has already been fulfilled, what is being hoped for, and what is not seen that would require the substantive evidence called "faith"? In other words, what are we hoping for? What is there that is unseen, if the Revelation has been seen already? Who needs faith if the Revelation is fulfilled?
Regarding your middle two paragraphs: I think the Apostle John is one example of someone who did not die before he saw the Son of Man coming in His glory. In fact, Jesus pointed out to Peter that if he wanted [John] to stay alive until He comes, it was basically none of Peter's business (see John 21:20-24). He really saw and experienced it, and he wrote about it.
And, when Jesus spoke of "this generation", I agree with those who say "this" refers to the generation that sees all those things (i.e., Matthew 24:15-ff) come to pass. It is compelling that Matthew 24 even contains the phrase "Let the reader understand." Why the reader?
No sir, I know how you roll; I'll have just started answering point 31 and you'll disappear
??!
Ha! Sorry for being so cryptic.
The last time I plunged into a point-by-point refutation of one of your scatter-gun blasts I ended up apparently talking to myself after who knows how many installments.
The link is back to that discussion, where you can read me tapping my mic at the end. (Can that really have been two years ago?)
sigh...
I apologize for the "scatter gun blasts", which were only intended to point out the breadth of the impact your view (whether it is fractional, partial or full preterism) has on the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
For starters, in the post you link back to, you did not "refute" the question about who Jesus was talking to when he said, "I go to prepare a place for you."
You went down the same path, that Jesus was talking to his disciples, that He was going to heaven (to prepare a place), and that the disciples would be received by Him. In your answer, you "deferred the issue of Jesus' audience" and "assumed for the sake of the present point that he's at least talking to his disciples." We knew that already! Where is the answer, to the question?
Is Jesus preparing a place for us or not? If He is, is He going to receive us unto Himself? If so, how? And when?
But if that statement was directed to His disciples, then using your hermeneutic, where do we live in eternity and how do you know?
Who are we?
That question has never been answered; it is the question I keep asking in one form or another.
Your argument is based on defining who "you" is. I desire that you should tell us who "we" are.
Oh, how amazingly difficult it is to untangle this mass of hundreds (I'm sure) of differing underlying assumptions each of us is bringing to (I'm sure) as many different texts. I hope we live long enough to work through a quarter of them.
I will try to begin to begin to begin to answer your question this way: since I do not believe that Revelation describes the final return of Christ until the very end of the book (at a point well beyond that things that were soon to take place), my belief that most of the events prophesied therein have been fulfilled does not give me a view of our present state much different, I would imagine, than yours.
Who are we? We are, for starters, the church, in whom God will receive glory throughout all generations unto the age of the ages.
Again, I suspect that many of our differences come down in large measure to this: I think we agree on what the end will ultimately look like. We both agree as well, I think, that some things Jesus prophesied were to happen soon and others were to happen later. It appears to me that I put more prophecies in the former category than do you and perhaps that I attach less history-ending, world-changing significance to some, but only some, of those events than you do.
I know I'm about to repeat myself here but I'm seriously struggling to put my thoughts into words. I believe there are many passages of scripture that are typically interpreted as predictions of the final consummation of history and the end of the world, that were actually just intended to refer to events in the more immediate future, events that, though redemptively extremely significant, were not supposed to end the church or the world as men knew it. To me, these are indicated by timing language, language which, taken in its natural sense, points to more immediate fulfillment.
Underlying all these things is an overwhelming myriad of hermeneutical issues that I presently lack the spirit to even begin to address.
All that to say, there's an awful lot of work to be done here. I very much appreciate your patient willingness to engage thus far, and I really hope that I'll be able to maintain your interest and participation. Obviously I think I'm right and that you're wrong; obviously you think your right and I'm wrong. I'm sure it seems at times to each of us that the other is an intractable kook, but I won't walk away if you don't.
I messed up my comment and am respting it...sorry.
_____
since I do not believe that Revelation describes the final return of Christ until the very end of the book
I might agree with that.
some things Jesus prophesied were to happen soon and others were to happen later.
Which brings us back to "soon" or "later" relative to what? Is "soon" relative only to the hearers in the company of Jesus? Or is it relative to the "reader" of Matthew 24? Or both? Or is "soon" not relative to the calendar, but instead relative to God's plan? Again, I'm not looking for opportunities to load the shotgun, but your view has to iron out those wrinkles and tell us why.
My view takes the positon that it is all soon relative to God's plan, and that our reference point in time (or the disciples') is the wrong reference point from which to measure whether God is being slow concerning His promise. That's Peter's point: God is not slow - or late, or later - simply because time has quantitatively past. Peter's words tell us that the promise of His coming is not "slow" as "we count slowness": God is not late. This explanation implies that those people were using the same logic as you, that "soon" means relative to the context of the person hearing the original statement about Christ's return. Peter takes a giant leap and re-orients their thinking by equating one day to a thousand years in order to show that our perspective of time, and our perception of a delay, is immaterial. That leaves only one option: the perspective of what is "soon" must be outside of time. It is gracious, I think, for God to have inspired this explanation for us who live 2,000 years later.
In Acts 1, the disciples appear to be suprised that Jesus wasn't setting up His kingdom as they obviously expected Him to soon do. In fact, He leaves! What was wrong with their "understanding"? You seem to suggest that timing issues spoken to that generation should have been fairly clear to them, and yet apparantly it was not.
When the Bible says, "Now is the appointed time, now is the day of salvation", how long is that day? When those words were written were they written for that "now" generation? Did "now" conclude when that generation died? If not, why not? This is the kind of wrangling that your hermeneutic requires ad inifinitum.
Preterism and pretribulationism (I reject both, as you know), if they are known for anything, are known for their exhausting hermeneutical nuances. So I can appreciate if you do not have the spirit to delve into the hermeneutical issues. But you must! Either you have a compelling scriptural case, or you don't.
The Bible answers your question about how to deal with what was soon to take place, even though it has not yet taken place. (*) With 2 Peter 3 as my scriptural basis, I maintain that a perceived delay in Christ's coming does not militate against the meaning of "soon", because that perceived delay is measure in terms of "quantifiable slowness". Moreover, Peter exhorts us as to how we should interpret this delay: he says to view it as God's patience, and to count that patience as salvation. Therefore, in 2008, we are not suprised that we continue to wait for Christ's soon appearance since "now" is the day of salvation.
The (*) in the paragraph above is intended to show where the second question is inserted; the second question being, "Who are we, if Christ's return has already taken place?"
I hope we live long enough to work through a quarter of them.
and david and i hope the Lord comes for His bride before we get through a tenth of them!
;-)
I am willing to concede that, taken by itself, the argument concerning the "soon" and "near" language in Revelation is not the strongest proof for my position. I am content to abandon this particular line of reasoning for now, not because I think it is void of probative value, but because it's clear that it's not going to get me very far with you gentlemen.
I must admit agreeing with you to the extent that Peter's words do make this particular issue at least debatable, and I can see you point that the Revelation language could reasonably be taken to be merely describing Christ's perspective on the matter, though as you probably have gathered, I really don't think in this context that it does. I will also admit that your remarks about the tendency of many original scriptural audiences to misapprehend Christ's meaning bring up points to which I may not have given adequate consideration. You are both right that it certainly happened an awful lot.
Now I do want to point out again, as we've already discussed, that this treatment of the somewhat ambiguous "soon" language will not work upon the other passages where Christ speaks of certain events taking place, not generally sooner or later, but rather in specific relation to certain other discernable historical events. For example where he said that some persons who were standing there with him as he was speaking would "not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28) or that the disciples would not "have gone through all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt. 10:23) or most famously, that "this generation will not pass away until all these things (including the coming of the Son of Man v. 30) take place (Matt. 24:34).
Now we can debate, as I'm sure we eventually shall, whether saying these things happened, but only from John's perspective, or whether saying that by "this generation" Jesus was referring to some generation other than the one he was addressing are less hermeneutically-exhausting ways of dealing with these passgages. (they strike me as rivaling triple back-flips with a double twist).
But my only point at this juncture is that the "relative to Christ's eternal perspective" line of thought is not, by itself, sufficient to explain the many different kinds of indications spread throughout the New Testament that some very important prophecies were going to be fulfilled within that generation that was living during the time of Christ and his first apostles.
I guess what I'm saying is that by flying the white flag on the singular point of the "soon" language, I'm really not giving up that much. If I have a lot of explaining still to do, which I acknowledge I do, I think you brothers have just as much.
Yes, brother David, I know that I must deal with the hermeneutical issues, and by saying I presently lacked the spirit, I didn't mean that I was tired of thinking of them myself, but rather that I was wearying of thinking of ways to try to explain and prove what, to me appears the simplest and least contorted method imaginable, to you who insist that it is so complicated. I think in several ways we are still almost speaking foreign languages to one another. I've no intention of passing up the challenge, but some of us need more than three hours of sleep per night :)
Again, I want to add that I am unable to express how appreciative I am to find brothers who are willing to go beyond sound-byte theology and truly honestly wrestle with the depths of these matters.
great discussion and as usual I'm late - but Brad - back to your original pondering of what "soon" could or should mean I would have to appeal to Jesus' own words that we must live prepared (parable of the 10 virgins just to name one example) and to 2 Peter 3:8 where, among other things, we learn that God exists outside of time as we know it.
And didn't Peter prophesy (2 Peter 3:4) that in the last days scoffers would come questioning the fact that because much time has passed since His promised coming - then it must be false - thus the scoffing?
Putting all of this together would seem to indicate to me that God is not concerned with our definition of the word 'soon', nearly as much as conveying to us that we need to be sure that we've got our stuff together in preparation for that time, i.e., live wisely, live prepared.
ahhh...Eric the 'thread-killer' ;^)
I think we all temporarily ran out of steam. Want to discuss Spirit baptism? 8-/
lol, sure. Either that, or I can surf around to various blogs and kill other threads ;^)
One final thought on the "soon" thing before we (I) move on ;^) - I would imagine in a culture 2,000 years ago - whose main mode of transportation is walking - 'soon', as a time frame, would mean a considerably different thing that it would today.
Any way...that's all I got to say about that ;^)
or we're all at the Great Darke County Fair!
(or consequently died from fried twinkies in the arteries)
Well, everyone but David, though I do think I saw a couple of his kids there.
Alas, I have been working and not at the fair.
But my youngest two were there on Monday with my parents.
Post a Comment