The Man of Lawlessness

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, my mistake...Matthew 24 was the text I was referencing. Yes, the disciples themselves were not asking about Jesus 2nd coming. I wasnt saying they did. My point was that Jesus does include dialogue referring to the 2nd coming. Surely you would agree that Jesus often referenced things that the disciples did not understand at the time. Frequently in his ministry he made comments that would not make sense to his disciples until after the resurrection, but that certainly did not stop him from making them. He even told the scribes, "destroy this temple and I will raise it up on the third day." Obviously there was no way they or his disciples would have understood his meaning until after his resurrection.

Personally I think it is impossible to suggest that Matthew 24 does not reference the 2nd coming. Look at the context in Matthew 25 directly following that discourse. Now clearly, these parables highlight the return of Christ. The wicked servant, ten virgins, talents and sheep and goats all point to the second coming of Christ. Remember, the book of Matthew was written by Matthew and his voice (not only the voice of Jesus) is being portrayed through his Gospel. He has arranged the life and messages of Jesus in a way to make a specific point to his audience. This is not to say that Jesus and his disciples did not have an immediate historical context in their discussions, but it is clear that Matthew understood a broader message behind the words of Jesus post-resurrection/ascension that is clearly being communicated in this text.

So, yes, the disciples focus was on Jesus establishing the Kingdom of God NOW. But their question was multi-layered (even though they did not realize it). They want to know about 1) when these things will be (destruction of the Temple) 2) the sign of his coming 3) the end of the age. In their minds, these all were likely one and the same event. However, their limited understanding should not lead us to think that Jesus was not willing to speak beyond what they could understand at the time. Although they would not have known that the "sign of his coming" and the "end of the age" were post resurrection events...surely Jesus did. So, yes, Jesus focuses on the destruction of the Temple...but this is not his only focus here. The destruction of the Temple is merely a microcosm of global judgement in my opinion.

I disagree that it was the "Day of The Lord" that all the previous "Day of The Lord" references spoke of. Paul uses the "day of The Lord" to refer to the Second Coming (cf. Phil. 1:10; 2:1) and uses that phrase interchangeably with: “the day of Christ”; Phil. 1:6: “the day of Jesus Christ”; 1 Cor. 1:8: “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”; 2 Cor. 1:14: “the day of our Lord Jesus”; or, as in 1 Thes. 5:2; 2 Thes. 2:2; 1 Cor. 5:5: “the day of The Lord." The Second Coming, not the destruction of the Temple of 70AD is the culmination of "Day of The Lord" talk in the OT and NT.

I also disagree that 70AD was the day the old covenant came to an end. The book of Hebrews was almost undoubtedly written prior to 70AD and it clearly states that the Old Covenant had already passed away in place of the New. While 70AD might have been judgment on continuing sacrifices that ignored the sacrifice of Christ, it was not the time when the Old Covenant was replaced with the New. The New Covenant was established by the blood of Jesus and immediately old sacrifices and the Temple system was made obsolete. It did not take 70AD for that transition to take place in my opinion.

Again, I think your claim on 2 Thessalonians has some strong points, but I remain unconvinced that this "coming" and "gathering of saints" and "glorious appearing" is not all referencing the same event: the 2nd coming. In fact, Paul employs the exact same phrase (parousias ton kuriou) "coming of The Lord" in 1 Thess 4 as in 2 Thess 2:1. Also, chapter 1 is clearly speaking of Jesus being "revealed from heaven with mighty angels." So, I highly doubt that Paul would use the phrase "parousia of The Lord" when speaking of the Second Coming in 1 Thess 4, then in 2 Thess 1 speak of Jesus coming with mighty angels, only to use the phrase "parousia of The Lord" in chapter 2 in reference to the first coming and preaching of the Gospel. The context simply does not allow it in my mind.

Anyway, I am really enjoying the discussion. It is very insightful.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Wormwood said:
Veteran,

You should not be so quick to hand out such judgments and labels. For one who claims the Scriptures are so simple to understand, you sure don't seem to speak as one who understands them.

Matthew 24 speaks of false prophets and false messiahs...not a Satan-filled Antichrist who unites the world governments and sets himself up in the Temple as God. Revelation 13 does not say anything about an "Antichrist." You may insert that concept into the beast, but this is not expressly taught in that passage. There are a host of scholars who have spent their entire lives serving The Lord and studying His word who disagree with you that the meaning of the beast in Rev. 13 is this Antichrist figure.

If I am decieved by "mans doctrines" then that means the church for 1800 years was decieved by such doctrines as no one held this dispensational view of yours until the 1800s.
The early Church fathers even understood Apostle Paul to be speaking of a specific Antichrist figure coming to play God. And how long ago did they live? There is no other way those 2 Thess.2 verses read. Simple as that. Either one is blind to it or they choose to listen pop doctrines of men today.

II Th 2:1-12
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him,


The subject time is of Christ's second coming and His gathering His Church to Him.

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Don't be fearful nor troubled by spirit, nor word (of others who say different), nor even by a fake letter as if from Christ's Apostles. The day of the Lord is at hand. This is so... simple.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Don't let any man deceive you (Christ's same warning in His Olivet Discourse). That day of the Lord shall not come except an apostasy happens AND the 'man of sin' is revealed, the 'son of perishing'. Let's see, who has already been judged and sentenced to perish in the future "lake of fire"? That's easy, the devil himself, and his angels. They're the ONLY ones already judged and sentenced to 'perdition' in that lake of fire as of yet. Not even Judas has as of yet. It's SO... easy!

And who... did the very first sin to deserve that title "man of sin"? The devil, when he first rebelled against God prior to the time of Adam. God shows the devil has the image of man in Isaiah 14. Apostle John said the devil sinned from the beginning (1 John 3:8).

And just what... is that false one coming to do? He's going to sit in a temple proclaiming himself as God, and exalt himself over all that is even called... God, or that is worshipped, just as I said before. That is the very same sin the devil did in the beginning against God per Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. The devil wanted to be GOD instead of the heavenly cherub which God created him as. The Biblical temple traditionally referred to in this context is a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, for some other kind of temple would not suffice for the devil wanting to be worshipped by the whole world as God. The pseudo-Christ of Matt.24:23-26 which Christ warned of for the end is this same "man of sin" and "son of perdition".

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Paul had already warned them about this order for Christ's coming before. False brethren crept in were distorting this, JUST LIKE THOSE SAME KIND OF FALSE BRETHREN STILL DO TODAY among Christ's Body.

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


The mystery of iniquity is about the subject of the "many antichrists" of John in contrast to this singular Antichrist who they follow. It's also about the subject of the "tares" of the field which Jesus explained to His disciples in Matt.13. It's also about the "workers of iniquity" of the Psalms. It's about Satan's own servants here on earth. The one witholding is the Archangel Michael, until the war in Heaven of Rev.12:7-9 and Dan.12:1 occurs in our near future, casting that Wicked one out of Heaven to this earth for the end. When you study all... of God's Word as written, this... is what you get from Paul's warning here in 2 Thess.2.


8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


Even the KJV translators capitalized "Wicked" here in the singular tense to show this is about the coming of a specific Antichrist. The power of this "Wicked" one is with the power of Satan, using signs and lying wonders to deceive, the very same warnings Christ gave in Matt.24:23-26 about the pseudo-Christ (Greek pseudo-christos translated as "false Christs" in the KJV. It's actually in the singular tense per the Matt.24:23-26 context).

These signs and lying wonders are the same working of the "another beast" dragon of Rev.13:11 forward that is to come working miracles in the sight of men, meaning upon this earth in plain sight.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(KJV)


Because those who refuse the simplicity in God's Word about this matter, this "strong delusion" event will especially be prepared for them, deceiving them.

So who do you want to listen to brethren? The false prophets who try to say this event Paul warned of isn't about the coming of that false Wicked one at all? These who would speak against Paul's warning there are nothings; Paul's warning there is also our Lord Jesus' warning for us in these last days about the appearance of a specific pseudo-Christ coming to sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem working wonders and great signs so powerful that IF it were possible it would deceive even Christ's very elect.

The_highwayman said:
The word anitchrist is not found anywhnere in the Book of Revelation and only mentioned 4x in the Bible. 3x In 1 John & 1x in 2 John. Anitchirst in revelation is another man made up term. ANYTHING that denies itself against Jesus CHrist is an antiChrist, in fact John gives you the definition of antichrist in 2 John 1.7

Why is this important and very relevant? because even the Devil/Satan and demons know that Jesus came in the flesh. Therefore, they are no anti christs per the definition the BIble gives in 2 John 1.7

The devil, the beast and the false prophet are the satanic trinity, which counterfiet God's own trinity. So for you oneness folks pay attention here, because the Book of Revelation, actually proves the trinity, although the word is never, ever mentioned in the Bible.

We should stop saying antichrist, when that spirit, is and has been in the present age since the fall of man.
Now THAT'S surely a new twist on foolishness!

The title of 'antichrist' cannot apply to Satan simply because he KNOWS Christ Jesus is legit???

Keep going and pretty soon you'll even have Satan wanting to be saved by Christ Jesus!


Since the false doctrines of men deny this matter, here we go again in having to explain it to deceived brethren that listen to those idiots!

I Jn 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist (singular) shall come, even now are there many antichrists (plural); whereby we know that it is the last time.
(KJV)


The word "antichrist" is made up of TWO Greek words: anti and Christos.
Greek 'anti' can mean 'against', or 'instead of', or 'in place of' (Strong's 474).
Greek 'Christos' always means... Christ, singular (Strong's 5547).

John's first mention of "antichrist" is in the SINGULAR TENSE, about a SPECIFIC antichrist. John's later phrase "many antichrists" is PLURAL, about more than one antichrist. That's why Greek polus ("many") is attached to it!

Thusly, the word "antichrist" is a GENERAL DESCRIPTOR, and NOT a title belonging to only ONE chapter of ONE Book of God's Word! This is why... the early Church fathers used that word Antichrist when declaring the coming false one Paul spoke of in 2 Thess.2!

Too bad the false prophets don't like it because that word "antichrist" can be applied to the specific pseudo-Christ of Matt.24:23-26 and "another beast" "dragon" of Rev.13:11 forward that Jesus warned us about. Too bad they don't like how it can be applied to the "another Jesus" Apostle Paul warned us about in 2 Corinthians 11 in relation to the devil disguised ("transformed") as an angel of light!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan57

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
I am really enjoying the discussion.
There is nothing I love more than talking over these things with fellow believers.

I'm headed out and will have to save a more thorough response for this evening, but allow me to leave you with this thought.

I agree absolutely that the New Covenant was instituted at the Cross. But consider ... the 40 years between the beginning of the New Covenant and the end of the Old Covenant was a period of grace God gave to the Jews to allow them to hear the Gospel and be saved before the nation was judged and destroyed. Remember, the Gospel was "to the Jew first" and was to be preached "beginning in Jerusalem, and then in Judaea, and then in Samaria, and then to the corners of the earth." And everywhere Paul went, he always went to the synagogue and preached the Gospel to the Jews first.

So God allowed the Old Covenant to continue until the Gospel had been preached throughout the world and Jews everywhere had opportunity to hear the Good News and believe and be saved, and then the end came, th e nation of Israel was destroyed and the Mosaic Economy came to an end.

In his letter to the Hebrew Christians Paul said the Old Covenant was passing away, not that it had already passed away.

Looking forward to talking these things over more fully this evening ...

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Rocky Wiley

Active Member
Aug 28, 2012
929
156
43
83
Southeast USA
Pilgrimer said:
I assume you mean the Mt. Olivet discourse of Matthew 24? But what exactly is the nature of the questions the disciples asked Jesus? I know the popular view is that they were asking Jesus about his 2nd Coming, but that is simply not possible.


They weren’t asking about Jesus’ 2nd coming, they didn’t even know yet that there would be a 2nd coming. They were asking when would the Temple be destroyed, and what sign would there be that Jesus, the Messiah, had come! That’s why Jesus’ answer is so intimately connected with their personal lives and what they would experience and what events they would live to see.





It was the final day to which all the previous “Day of the Lord” talk pointed … the final day for Israel and the Old Covenant age that came to an end in the days of the 1st coming of Jesus.


I don’t think they were alarmed that they might have missed the Day of the Lord, they were alarmed that it was at hand! Paul was reassuring them that this great and terrible day would not come until first there was a revolt and a bunch of lawless, wicked men were revealed who would be damned for rejecting the truth of the Gospel of Jesus and thinking they would, by their own power, establish a messianic kingdom that was the fruit of their own vain imagination. It did not end well for them.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Hi Pilgrimer,

Very informative posts from both of you. Can't see though how the disciples can ask about his coming and the end of the age and still not be talking about establishing his kingdom. That being what he came to do and would fulfill all of prophecy. Why would he need to return again?

Covered by his blood
 

The_highwayman

New Member
Jul 22, 2013
50
0
0
veteran said:
The early Church fathers even understood Apostle Paul to be speaking of a specific Antichrist figure coming to play God. And how long ago did they live? There is no other way those 2 Thess.2 verses read. Simple as that. Either one is blind to it or they choose to listen pop doctrines of men today.

II Th 2:1-12
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him,


The subject time is of Christ's second coming and His gathering His Church to Him.

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Don't be fearful nor troubled by spirit, nor word (of others who say different), nor even by a fake letter as if from Christ's Apostles. The day of the Lord is at hand. This is so... simple.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Don't let any man deceive you (Christ's same warning in His Olivet Discourse). That day of the Lord shall not come except an apostasy happens AND the 'man of sin' is revealed, the 'son of perishing'. Let's see, who has already been judged and sentenced to perish in the future "lake of fire"? That's easy, the devil himself, and his angels. They're the ONLY ones already judged and sentenced to 'perdition' in that lake of fire as of yet. Not even Judas has as of yet. It's SO... easy!

And who... did the very first sin to deserve that title "man of sin"? The devil, when he first rebelled against God prior to the time of Adam. God shows the devil has the image of man in Isaiah 14. Apostle John said the devil sinned from the beginning (1 John 3:8).

And just what... is that false one coming to do? He's going to sit in a temple proclaiming himself as God, and exalt himself over all that is even called... God, or that is worshipped, just as I said before. That is the very same sin the devil did in the beginning against God per Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. The devil wanted to be GOD instead of the heavenly cherub which God created him as. The Biblical temple traditionally referred to in this context is a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, for some other kind of temple would not suffice for the devil wanting to be worshipped by the whole world as God. The pseudo-Christ of Matt.24:23-26 which Christ warned of for the end is this same "man of sin" and "son of perdition".

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Paul had already warned them about this order for Christ's coming before. False brethren crept in were distorting this, JUST LIKE THOSE SAME KIND OF FALSE BRETHREN STILL DO TODAY among Christ's Body.

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


The mystery of iniquity is about the subject of the "many antichrists" of John in contrast to this singular Antichrist who they follow. It's also about the subject of the "tares" of the field which Jesus explained to His disciples in Matt.13. It's also about the "workers of iniquity" of the Psalms. It's about Satan's own servants here on earth. The one witholding is the Archangel Michael, until the war in Heaven of Rev.12:7-9 and Dan.12:1 occurs in our near future, casting that Wicked one out of Heaven to this earth for the end. When you study all... of God's Word as written, this... is what you get from Paul's warning here in 2 Thess.2.


8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


Even the KJV translators capitalized "Wicked" here in the singular tense to show this is about the coming of a specific Antichrist. The power of this "Wicked" one is with the power of Satan, using signs and lying wonders to deceive, the very same warnings Christ gave in Matt.24:23-26 about the pseudo-Christ (Greek pseudo-christos translated as "false Christs" in the KJV. It's actually in the singular tense per the Matt.24:23-26 context).

These signs and lying wonders are the same working of the "another beast" dragon of Rev.13:11 forward that is to come working miracles in the sight of men, meaning upon this earth in plain sight.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(KJV)


Because those who refuse the simplicity in God's Word about this matter, this "strong delusion" event will especially be prepared for them, deceiving them.

So who do you want to listen to brethren? The false prophets who try to say this event Paul warned of isn't about the coming of that false Wicked one at all? These who would speak against Paul's warning there are nothings; Paul's warning there is also our Lord Jesus' warning for us in these last days about the appearance of a specific pseudo-Christ coming to sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem working wonders and great signs so powerful that IF it were possible it would deceive even Christ's very elect.


Now THAT'S surely a new twist on foolishness!

The title of 'antichrist' cannot apply to Satan simply because he KNOWS Christ Jesus is legit???

Keep going and pretty soon you'll even have Satan wanting to be saved by Christ Jesus!


Since the false doctrines of men deny this matter, here we go again in having to explain it to deceived brethren that listen to those idiots!

I Jn 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist (singular) shall come, even now are there many antichrists (plural); whereby we know that it is the last time.
(KJV)


The word "antichrist" is made up of TWO Greek words: anti and Christos.
Greek 'anti' can mean 'against', or 'instead of', or 'in place of' (Strong's 474).
Greek 'Christos' always means... Christ, singular (Strong's 5547).

John's first mention of "antichrist" is in the SINGULAR TENSE, about a SPECIFIC antichrist. John's later phrase "many antichrists" is PLURAL, about more than one antichrist. That's why Greek polus ("many") is attached to it!

Thusly, the word "antichrist" is a GENERAL DESCRIPTOR, and NOT a title belonging to only ONE chapter of ONE Book of God's Word! This is why... the early Church fathers used that word Antichrist when declaring the coming false one Paul spoke of in 2 Thess.2!

Too bad the false prophets don't like it because that word "antichrist" can be applied to the specific pseudo-Christ of Matt.24:23-26 and "another beast" "dragon" of Rev.13:11 forward that Jesus warned us about. Too bad they don't like how it can be applied to the "another Jesus" Apostle Paul warned us about in 2 Corinthians 11 in relation to the devil disguised ("transformed") as an angel of light!!!
Vet,
You seem to continually deny the scriptures. I will stick with John's definition of antichrist than yours. 2 John 1.7 tells us what an antichrist is.

For the record you stated: "The title of 'antichrist' cannot apply to Satan simply because he KNOWS Christ Jesus is legit???"

There are 2 errors
here. First, as I aleady stated and backed up with scripture, the DESCRIPTOR antichrist cannot be applied to anyone who believes that Jesus came in the flesh. 1 John 4.1-3
Second, knowing Jesus is "legit" is different than understanding he came in the Flesh.

It is a Biblical fact that the devil, every evil spirit, demon and fallen angel know that Jesus came in the flesh. There are far too many scriptures to list that prove this. It is also proved through the very attacks on David and other men and women in the lineage of Jesus.


The fact you are so quick to dismiss all the scriptural support and are continue making superfluous spiritual statements about people and their posts and then argue sematics over the plural Vs. singular use of the word in question, leaves no doubts about you and your intents.
 

Dan57

Active Member
Sep 25, 2012
510
224
43
Illinois
Faith
Country
United States
The_highwayman said:
For the record you stated: "The title of 'antichrist' cannot apply to Satan simply because he KNOWS Christ Jesus is legit???"

There are 2 errors
here. First, as I aleady stated and backed up with scripture, the DESCRIPTOR antichrist cannot be applied to anyone who believes that Jesus came in the flesh. 1 John 4.1-3
Second, knowing Jesus is "legit" is different than understanding he came in the Flesh.

It is a Biblical fact that the devil, every evil spirit, demon and fallen angel know that Jesus came in the flesh. There are far too many scriptures to list that prove this. It is also proved through the very attacks on David and other men and women in the lineage of Jesus.

So your saying that even though Satan knows Christ, but denies Jesus came in the flesh, he cannot possibly be the anti-Christ? Isn't there a difference between knowing Christ and confessing Christ? In order to be a deceiver, wouldn't Satan need to first know the truth in order to distort it? Aren't we instructed to test every spirit in order to discern the Truth from a Lie? The anti-Christ will replace the Truth with a lie, making himself out to be God. So since the goal of the anti-Christ's is to replace Christ, why would he ever acknowledge the real deal when his purpose is to be accepted instead of Jesus? Satan can know Jesus came in the flesh without professing it, that's the deception."For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7). I imagine that all who bear the mark of the beast are part of the anti-Christ movement, but one entity is at the root of it, the Desolator who stands in the Holy place. JMO


 

The_highwayman

New Member
Jul 22, 2013
50
0
0
Dan57 said:
So your saying that even though Satan knows Christ, but denies Jesus came in the flesh, he cannot possibly be the anti-Christ? Isn't there a difference between knowing Christ and confessing Christ? In order to be a deceiver, wouldn't Satan need to first know the truth in order to distort it? Aren't we instructed to test every spirit in order to discern the Truth from a Lie? The anti-Christ will replace the Truth with a lie, making himself out to be God. So since the goal of the anti-Christ's is to replace Christ, why would he ever acknowledge the real deal when his purpose is to be accepted instead of Jesus? Satan can know Jesus came in the flesh without professing it, that's the deception."For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7). I imagine that all who bear the mark of the beast are part of the anti-Christ movement, but one entity is at the root of it, the Desolator who stands in the Holy place. JMO


Dan,
No, I never said the satan denied Jesus came in the flesh, I have stated quite the opossite.
Yes, we are instructed to test every spirit.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Personally I think it is impossible to suggest that Matthew 24 does not reference the 2nd coming. Look at the context in Matthew 25 directly following that discourse. Now clearly, these parables highlight the return of Christ. The wicked servant, ten virgins, talents and sheep and goats all point to the second coming of Christ.
I don’t think they do. Let me make two points:

First, you have to reconcile the last part of that discourse, Matthew 25:31-46 with the identical teaching in Matthew 16:24-28:

“When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats ...”

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

I believe Jesus’ clear statement about the timing of these events doesn’t leave us much wiggle room to insist on events far into the future from the time of those who were standing there.

And second, in the parables of the servants, the Lord came to “his servants,” (Israel was God’s servant) and found some being wicked who were taken away, cut asunder, shut out from the marriage supper, deprived of those talents the Lord had given them and the unprofitable servants were cast into outer darkness. This is the same teaching Jesus gave us in Mark 12:1-12:12, which even the Pharisees understood was a parable about them, they were the servants to whom God had entrusted His kingdom, but they proved to be wicked servants so the kingdom was taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth its fruit … the church.


Wormwood said:
Although they would not have known that the "sign of his coming" and the "end of the age" were post resurrection events...surely Jesus did. So, yes, Jesus focuses on the destruction of the Temple...but this is not his only focus here. The destruction of the Temple is merely a microcosm of global judgement in my opinion.
But that’s just the point: the end of the age WAS the sign of Jesus’ coming. When they saw all these things come to pass, the persecution of the Christians, and false christs rise up, and wars and revolt and Jerusalem surrounded by armies and the city and the sanctuary destroyed and the sacrifice and oblation cease and everything God had provided for the observance of the Old Covenant wiped out, exactly as Moses and all the prophets and Jesus and the Apostles had foretold, that was the “sign,” not just to the disciples, but to the whole world that Jesus is indeed the Promised Messiah!

Wormwood said:
I disagree that it was the "Day of The Lord" that all the previous "Day of The Lord" references spoke of. Paul uses the "day of The Lord" to refer to the Second Coming (cf. Phil. 1:10; 2:1)
and uses that phrase interchangeably with: “the day of Christ”; Phil. 1:6:
Why would Paul pray that the Christians of Philippi would be sincere and without offense until an event 2000 years in the future? And was he suggesting that the Lord would perform good workin them for 2000+ years?

Wormwood said:
“the day of Jesus Christ”; 1 Cor. 1:8:
Are you saying that these words of encouragement Paul wrote to the Corinthians weren’t meant for them but for people 2000+ years in the future?

Wormwood said:
“the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”; 2 Cor. 1:14:
So you think the Corinthians rejoiced in Paul but Paul wouldn’t rejoice in the Corinthians until 2000+ years in the future?

Wormwood said:
“the day of our Lord Jesus”; or, as in 1 Thes. 5:2;
In this passage Paul was reassuring the Thessalonian Christians that even though God’s wrath would come suddenly and unexpectedly upon those who walked in darkness refusing the light of the Gospel they were not to be troubled because that day would not overtake them as a thief, but they knew the times and seasons in which they were living and they were not appointed to the wrath that was coming but they were appointed to be saved from God’s wrath by Jesus Christ. Remember Paul’s teaching in Romans about the “vessels of wrath” fitted to destruction and the “vessels of mercy” upon whom God would make known His glory? This letter was written about 20 years before the wrath of God was poured out in judgment against an apostate Israel.

Wormwood said:
2 Thes. 2:2;
Which brings us full circle.

Wormwood said:
I also disagree that 70AD was the day the old covenant came to an end. The book of Hebrews was almost undoubtedly written prior to 70AD and it clearly states that the Old Covenant had already passed away in place of the New.
“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

I think Hebrews is rather clear that the Old Covenant was "ready to vanish away" but as of the writing of Hebrews was not yet vanished away. Hebrews was written sometime in the early 60's, only a few years before the outbreak of the revolt in 66 A.D.

Wormwood said:
While 70AD might have been judgment on continuing sacrifices that ignored the sacrifice of Christ, it was not the time when the Old Covenant was replaced with the New. The New Covenant was established by the blood of Jesus and immediately old sacrifices and the Temple system was made obsolete. It did not take 70AD for that transition to take place in my opinion.
Let me try this from another angle. If the Old Covenant immediately became obsolete when the New Covenant was instituted, why did God delay the judgment of those under the Old Covenant for 40 years?

Certainly the Old Covenant immediately became obsolete for those who came under the New Covenant, but at the time of Calvary that was only 120 people. For the millions of Jews who had not yet had opportunity to hear the Gospel, they were still under the Law and required to obey all it's commandments and ordinances until they were either converted to Jesus by the Gospel or else the Law was fulled and passed away.

Speaking of which, Jesus said he had come to fulfill the Law and not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until all the Law was fulfilled. That means all those jots and tittles remained in effect until everything the Law foreshadowed had been fulfilled. The last jots and tittles to be fulfilled was the judgment of the Law against those under the Law. Then the Law passed away, in toti.

Think about it. If the Law became obsolete for all the Jews at Calvary, then on what basis did God judge the nation and destroy them?

Wormwood said:
Again, I think your claim on 2 Thessalonians has some strong points, but I remain unconvinced that this "coming" and "gathering of saints" and "glorious appearing" is not all referencing the same event: the 2nd coming. In fact, Paul employs the exact same phrase (parousias ton kuriou) "coming of The Lord" in 1 Thess 4 as in 2 Thess 2:1.
James also employs the exact same phrase: “Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” James 5:8


In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
The_highwayman said:
Vet,
You seem to continually deny the scriptures. I will stick with John's definition of antichrist than yours. 2 John 1.7 tells us what an antichrist is.
You continue with your lie from men, I will continue with God's Truth per His Word.
Dan57 said:
So your saying that even though Satan knows Christ, but denies Jesus came in the flesh, he cannot possibly be the anti-Christ? Isn't there a difference between knowing Christ and confessing Christ? In order to be a deceiver, wouldn't Satan need to first know the truth in order to distort it? Aren't we instructed to test every spirit in order to discern the Truth from a Lie? The anti-Christ will replace the Truth with a lie, making himself out to be God. So since the goal of the anti-Christ's is to replace Christ, why would he ever acknowledge the real deal when his purpose is to be accepted instead of Jesus? Satan can know Jesus came in the flesh without professing it, that's the deception."For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7). I imagine that all who bear the mark of the beast are part of the anti-Christ movement, but one entity is at the root of it, the Desolator who stands in the Holy place. JMO
But those like highwayman haven't even begun to first understand this verse...
I Jn 4:2
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
(KJV)



What is so special about confessing that Jesus of Nazareth came in the flesh? Don't the unbelievers already know that Jesus came in the flesh??? Yes, of course they do, especiallly the Jews who rejected Him at His first coming, their even having seen Him 'in the flesh'. So even the unbelievers who saw Him would confess that Jesus was a man born in the flesh through woman's womb.

Just WHAT... is the difference with what Apostle John was saying there then??

It's very simple if one reads and heeds all of God's Word, especially the Old Testament prophets that were given to prophesy of Christ's coming.

What Apostle John was saying indirectly was, that every spirit that confesses that God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ is... of God. Bible proof?? Here...

Isa 9:6
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(KJV)



Thus the 'false Jews' come here not only lying that there is no singular Antichrist that's coming, but they also refuse to admit that Christ Jesus is God having come in the flesh as The Saviour.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

[SIZE=medium]First, you have to reconcile the last part of that discourse, Matthew 25:31-46 with the identical teaching in Matthew 16:24-28:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats ...”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I believe Jesus’ clear statement about the timing of these events doesn’t leave us much wiggle room to insist on events far into the future from the time of those who were standing there.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And second, in the parables of the servants, the Lord came to “his servants,” (Israel was God’s servant) and found some being wicked who were taken away, cut asunder, shut out from the marriage supper, deprived of those talents the Lord had given them and the unprofitable servants were cast into outer darkness. This is the same teaching Jesus gave us in Mark 12:1-12:12, which even the Pharisees understood was a parable about them, they were the servants to whom God had entrusted His kingdom, but they proved to be wicked servants so the kingdom was taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth its fruit … the church.[/SIZE]
I think you are too quick to try to harmonize and bounce from text to text. I know you like history and want to try to get to the first century historical facts of what actually happened, but we also need to approach Matthew as Matthew and let him speak in context with his own voice. Matthew 25 is a very different context than Matthew 16 and I dont really have the time currently to go into more depth at the moment. Matthew 25 speaks of "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" as well as the glorious appearing that the whole world will recognize. I really don't know what else to say on Matthew 25. I know not of one scholar who would claim that Matthew 24-25 speak nothing of the second coming. If these texts are not referencing the second coming, one can claim that no text speaks of it. I'm somewhat befuddled at the notion the be honest with you.

But that’s just the point: the end of the age WAS the sign of Jesus’ coming. When they saw all these things come to pass, the persecution of the Christians, and false christs rise up, and wars and revolt and Jerusalem surrounded by armies and the city and the sanctuary destroyed and the sacrifice and oblation cease and everything God had provided for the observance of the Old Covenant wiped out, exactly as Moses and all the prophets and Jesus and the Apostles had foretold, that was the “sign,” not just to the disciples, but to the whole world that Jesus is indeed the Promised Messiah!
In Hebrews, the word for "obsolete" is in the perfect tense. It is an already completed act with ongoing effects. Thus the tense there does indicate that the Old Covenant had already been made obsolete...but was still "fading away." Thus, while certainly there was a period for the Gospel to be preached, the moment of confrontation between the new and old was when a person heard the Gospel. Paul did not say, "Well, you have a few more years before the Temple destruction to change your mind" when he preached the Gospel.

Why would Paul pray that the Christians of Philippi would be sincere and without offense until an event 2000 years in the future? And was he suggesting that the Lord would perform good workin them for 2000+ years?
This pertains to all these 2000+ year statements. First, Paul did not know the day or hour (nor do we). So its not like Paul knew it would be thousands of years. It seems clear in his writing that he expected the second coming at any moment (as should we). Second, the OT prophesied the first coming of Jesus thousands of years in advance...do you think the second coming and final judgment would be less significant? Which is I think the point James is trying to make in this text:

James also employs the exact same phrase: “Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” James 5:8


I don't see how this supports your take on all this pointing to 70AD. Sorry for the brief reply, but I have to run!

In Christ,

Chad
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Pilgrimer,


I think you are too quick to try to harmonize and bounce from text to text. I know you like history and want to try to get to the first century historical facts of what actually happened, but we also need to approach Matthew as Matthew and let him speak in context with his own voice.
But how do you determine the context of Matthew if not by harmonizing his words in one passage about a subject with his words in another passage about the same subject? And in a broader context with the rest of the Scriptures? I mean, if we read Matthew as a stand-alone Gospel, or some part of Matthew as a stand-alone passage, we can read into his words whatever context we want, it’s done all the time, that’s why we have so many denominations and even disagreements within denominations.

So if Matthew reports in one passage that Jesus spoke about his “coming in glory,” “with all his holy angels” to judge between the righteous and the wicked, and he reports in another passage Jesus speaking about his “coming in glory,” “with all his holy angels,” to judge between the righteous and the wicked, how can these be talking about two different comings?

Unless of course there’s the possibility that there would be two comings of Jesus in glory with his holy angels to execute judgment, but then according to Matthew 16 certainly one of them would be during the lifetime of the disciples. I have no problem with the idea that there were 2 judgments that Jesus would one day return to execute … indeed, that’s precisely what I’m saying. The first was the judgment of Israel in the last days of the Old Covenant age, the second will be the judgment of all men at the end of the New Covenant age.

The question then is which coming in glory with his angels to execute judgment was Jesus talking about in Matthew 25? Was it the first and the judgment of Israel which the disciples would live to see? … or the second which was 2000+ years into the future? The one connected with the destruction of the Temple and the Holy City? … or the one connected with the end of the world and the new heavens and new earth? Which coming and presence of Jesus and judgment of men is Matthew talking about in Matthew 25?


Wormwood said:
Matthew 25 is a very different context than Matthew 16 and I dont really have the time currently to go into more depth at the moment. Matthew 25 speaks of "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" as well as the glorious appearing that the whole world will recognize. I really don't know what else to say on Matthew 25. I know not of one scholar who would claim that Matthew 24-25 speak nothing of the second coming. If these texts are not referencing the second coming, one can claim that no text speaks of it. I'm somewhat befuddled at the notion the be honest with you.
I’m afraid I cannot help you with what scholars claim, I am not familiar with what others teach. But the context of both Matthew 25 and Matthew 16 is very much the same, especially to Matthew, because in both instances Jesus is talking about what these men would live to see … and on a very personal note … persecution and martyrdom … before the Lord returned to judge and destroy those wicked slayers of Christ and his Apostles, some of whom would live to see that judgment come to pass. Matthew was not one of them.

Wormwood said:
In Hebrews, the word for "obsolete" is in the perfect tense. It is an already completed act with ongoing effects. Thus the tense there does indicate that the Old Covenant had already been made obsolete...but was still "fading away."
It was the first covenant being “made old” that is spoken of in the perfect tense as an accomplished fact. But being old did not mean it was rendered void or disannulled. Indeed, that would be to contradict what Jesus said that:

(heis iota e mia) one jot or tittle
(ou me) shall in no wise, never, certainly not, not at all, by no means
(parerchomai-second aorist tense) pass by, be neglected, be omitted
(apos nomos) from the Law
(hoes) until
(pas) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
(genomai) be fulfilled, come to pass, be done, happen.

To simplify, not one jot or tittle of the Law could become obsolete until every jot and tittle of the Law was fulfilled.

Certainly the blessings of the Law for obedience were fulfilled at Calvary and that right-standing with God was imputed to those in Christ who therefore were saved from the wrath that was to come upon that sinful generation. But the rest of the jots and tittles of the Law, all those jots and tittles about the judgment of God against those who were guilty of the Law, still had to be fulfilled, and only after the rest of those jots and tittles were fulfilled was the Law made “obsolete,” because it was all fulfilled, and it vanished away. But the Law was still very much in force when the Jewish nation was judged by the Law and condemned to the destruction foretold in the Law.


Wormwood said:
Thus, while certainly there was a period for the Gospel to be preached, the moment of confrontation between the new and old was when a person heard the Gospel. Paul did not say, "Well, you have a few more years before the Temple destruction to change your mind" when he preached the Gospel.
Well, not in those words, but he certainly did convey that message to them, and he used the Old Testament law of the watchman.

“Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he sees the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning: if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” Ezekiel 33:1-6

I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, you obviously know the Scriptures.

“And [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks … and Paul was pressed in the spirit,
and testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” Acts 18:4-6


Paul considered himself free from their blood because he had warned them, he had sounded the trumpet alarm, he had preached to them the Gospel, but they refused to hear.


I would so love to spend some time talking about how the Feast of Trumpets preaches the Gospel, as do all the feasts, but I’ll try to stay on course with the subject, but it really is a beautiful portrait of the Gospel and makes simple some otherwise difficult sayings in Scripture.

Wormwood said:
This pertains to all these 2000+ year statements. First, Paul did not know the day or hour (nor do we). So its not like Paul knew it would be thousands of years. It seems clear in his writing that he expected the second coming at any moment (as should we).
To be sure Paul was expecting the Lord Jesus to come and judge that sinful, disobedient generation, that message rang clear and strong beginning with the Baptist (“who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come”) and right on up through the Gospels, the Epistles and right on into The Revelation. And certainly Jesus spoke often enough about some rather cataclysmic events that those living at that time would live to see. Now whether or not Paul understood that the resurrection and the rapture and the events that accompany them would be a separate event far into the distant future we have no way of knowing. But it seems to me that it wasn’t until John received The Revelation of Jesus on Patmos that God actually made it clear that the judgment and destruction of the Jewish state and the Mosaic economy would be followed by the messianic age which would in turn culminate in the 2nd Advent of Jesus and the Great Judgment and the new heavens and new earth.

I do believe in progressive revelation, that is, the revelation of God’s “Plan” has been progressively revealed in the Bible, which in Genesis was only hinted at, but in Jesus’ Revelation is made fully known.

Wormwood said:
Second, the OT prophesied the first coming of Jesus thousands of years in advance...do you think the second coming and final judgment would be less significant? Which is I think the point James is trying to make in this text:

James also employs the exact same phrase: “Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” James 5:8


I don't see how this supports your take on all this pointing to 70AD. Sorry for the brief reply, but I have to run!
James stated quite simply that the “coming of the Lord” was drawing near, and that the judge was standing at the door. That makes it pretty clear that James, just like all the rest of the New Testament writers, was expecting some rather cataclysmic events to occur very soon, including Jesus coming in glory with his angels to judge and destroy the wicked. The thing is, they weren’t wrong. He did. Jesus did come, and he did in fact judge and destroy the nation of Israel … exactly as the Law and the Prophets had foretold. I mean down to the least jot and tittle including the Jews besieged in Jerusalem being so stiff-necked in their rebellion that they chose to cannibalize their own children rather than surrender to Rome and give up their messianic dream which was a figment of their own vain imagination. But that coming of Jesus in judgment against the nation of Israel in fulfillment of the curse of the Law wasn’t the 2nd physical Advent of Jesus. The 2nd physical Advent of Jesus was and still is future, and it will be accompanied not by the judgment of the Law against those under the Law, but rather it will be the judgment of all men by this one criteria … is our name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

And what separates these two Advents and judgments is this very long period of time we are in right now, when Jesus Christ and his saints rule and reign in this earth.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

P. S. My apologies for the length of these posts, I do tend to get carried away. I'll try to make them shorter ...
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But how do you determine the context of Matthew if not by harmonizing his words in one passage about a subject with his words in another passage about the same subject? And in a broader context with the rest of the Scriptures? I mean, if we read Matthew as a stand-alone Gospel, or some part of Matthew as a stand-alone passage, we can read into his words whatever context we want, it’s done all the time, that’s why we have so many denominations and even disagreements within denominations.

So if Matthew reports in one passage that Jesus spoke about his “coming in glory,” “with all his holy angels” to judge between the righteous and the wicked, and he reports in another passage Jesus speaking about his “coming in glory,” “with all his holy angels,” to judge between the righteous and the wicked, how can these be talking about two different comings?
Matthew, like every gospel, has a flow to the message of Jesus. As you are probably aware, Matthew has a very specific focus in his gospel for the Jewish people to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. He accomplishes this through his genealogy, fulfilled prophecies and most prominently, talk about the "kingdom of heaven" which is a phrase used 50+ times. The context of Matthew 16 is a conflict regarding the expectations of the Pharisees and Sadducees and their demands for signs from the Messiah and Jesus determination to only reveal himself to the lowly, hungry and downtrodden. This leads up to Peter's confession that Christ is the Messiah with an immediate turn to focus on the cross leads Peter to try to rebuke Jesus. This is the context in which Jesus makes this statement about coming in power which directly precedes the transfiguration. So, in this context, there is a continual bounce between power and humility. It is hunger that leads people to miraculous feedings from Christ and the fixation on the cross which displays the glory of Jesus. All the while those who seek power and signs are turned away. So this statement on "coming with power" is probably not focused on any one specific event that the disciples would witness, but likely entails the transfiguration, resurrection which foreshadows the second coming.

Matthew 25 has a very different context. Here, Jesus is specifically answering questions about the destruction of the Temple, his coming, and the end of the age. The parables in Matthew 25 are the climax of this discussion at the end of 24 that shift its focus on the second coming. These parables include wedding feasts and rewards from the Father from faithful obedience and a vision of angels surrounding the glorious throne and final judgment.

So yes, there is some coorelation to the different texts referring to Jesus' coming in power as they highlight him as the rightful Messiah, but to say that both texts speak to the exact same thing (which, by your rationale, must be 70AD because the disciples are said to be still living in one instance) is both dismissive of the contexts of the statement and too limiting to what this phrase means in the overall purpose of Matthews writing.

I don't think Im in disagreement with you regarding Paul's warnings.
And certainly Jesus spoke often enough about some rather cataclysmic events that those living at that time would live to see. Now whether or not Paul understood that the resurrection and the rapture and the events that accompany them would be a separate event far into the distant future we have no way of knowing.
Im not exactly sure what you are saying here.... I think Paul was simply focused on the second coming and being prepared for that day...as it was the most cataclysmic event possible. This is why I don't think his letter referencing the Man of Sin has anything to do with any isolated rebellion in Jerusalem or the destruction of the Temple. It seems he has very little use of focusing on the earthly Jerusalem or Temple in his writings other than to say that it should not be the things we focus on as believers.

It was the first covenant being “made old” that is spoken of in the perfect tense as an accomplished fact. But being old did not mean it was rendered void or disannulled. Indeed, that would be to contradict what Jesus said that:

(heis iota e mia) one jot or tittle
(ou me) shall in no wise, never, certainly not, not at all, by no means
(parerchomai-second aorist tense) pass by, be neglected, be omitted
I didn't say the Law was made void, but the Old Covenant. Two different things. Personally, I don't believe the Law will ever be made void. Jesus did not make void the law, even by his death and resurrection. Rather, he fulfilled the Law. The Law was not the problem. It was the covenant that was the problem. The Old Covenant was incapable of providing the redemption the people of Israel sought because of the fault in the people. Thus, Jesus established a new covenant by his blood. Therefore, when he died and was raised, the old covenant was officially void as the new was put into place. Because it was made void..it was fading form the scene. That's the picture in Hebrews. The old merely foreshadowed the new and had fulfilled its purpose. It was made void in the past and therefore was dissipating.

James stated quite simply that the “coming of the Lord” was drawing near, and that the judge was standing at the door. That makes it pretty clear that James, just like all the rest of the New Testament writers, was expecting some rather cataclysmic events to occur very soon, including Jesus coming in glory with his angels to judge and destroy the wicked.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that language of Jesus "coming" often includes judgment and does not always mean the end of the age. These judgments may foreshadow the final judgment but they may not be the final judgment. What I am saying, is that these statements of Jesus "coming" are not exclusively referring to a historical judgment (such as 70AD). Therefore, the Man of Lawlessness, in my opinion, is about something much bigger than a Jewish rebellion against the Romans in 70AD. The "coming" Paul is referencing in both of his letters to the Thessalonians does not in any way have the feel of an impending judgment on a disobedient people. Rather, it is about a people who are looking for the glorious coming of Jesus with his angels and appear to be concerned that they might miss it.

(I understand about the long posts...I also have difficulty keeping things short at times. Especially about very detailed and interesting matters such as this one. I really appreciate the dialogue though. Compelling. :) )
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Wormwood said:
Pilgrimer,


I think you are too quick to try to harmonize and bounce from text to text. I know you like history and want to try to get to the first century historical facts of what actually happened, but we also need to approach Matthew as Matthew and let him speak in context with his own voice. Matthew 25 is a very different context than Matthew 16 and I dont really have the time currently to go into more depth at the moment. Matthew 25 speaks of "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" as well as the glorious appearing that the whole world will recognize. I really don't know what else to say on Matthew 25. I know not of one scholar who would claim that Matthew 24-25 speak nothing of the second coming. If these texts are not referencing the second coming, one can claim that no text speaks of it. I'm somewhat befuddled at the notion the be honest with you.

In Hebrews, the word for "obsolete" is in the perfect tense. It is an already completed act with ongoing effects. Thus the tense there does indicate that the Old Covenant had already been made obsolete...but was still "fading away." Thus, while certainly there was a period for the Gospel to be preached, the moment of confrontation between the new and old was when a person heard the Gospel. Paul did not say, "Well, you have a few more years before the Temple destruction to change your mind" when he preached the Gospel.

This pertains to all these 2000+ year statements. First, Paul did not know the day or hour (nor do we). So its not like Paul knew it would be thousands of years. It seems clear in his writing that he expected the second coming at any moment (as should we). Second, the OT prophesied the first coming of Jesus thousands of years in advance...do you think the second coming and final judgment would be less significant? Which is I think the point James is trying to make in this text:

James also employs the exact same phrase: “Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” James 5:8


I don't see how this supports your take on all this pointing to 70AD. Sorry for the brief reply, but I have to run!

In Christ,

Chad
Yeah, and YOU have come here to lie about the meaning of the 2 Thess.2 Scripture warning from Apostle Paul.

YOU even made it VERY distinct in your original post declaring what 2 Thess 2 is NOT about PRIOR... to ANY... discussion about it!

Yet the very matter of what 2 Thess.2 IS... about (the coming Antichrist to Jerusalem), YOU say it is NOT about!

Doesn't take much to see through deceivers like yourself.

I say this now because it is clear now you intend to push any angle possible against this 2 Thessalonians 2 Scripture.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
As you are probably aware, Matthew has a very specific focus in his gospel for the Jewish people to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
I agree that Matthew’s Gospel is directed primarily to a Jewish audience, hence his Gospel is riddled with references to the Law and the Prophets. And Luke’s Gospel is directed primarily to a Gentile audience who were not as familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and thus Luke often words his Gospel in such a way as to explain otherwise obscure references to the Law and the Prophets. The way Luke (21:20) explains the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Matthew (24:15) is a perfect example of the more interpretive style that Luke adopts for a Gentile audience. Matthew’s Gospel requires a bit more familiarity with the Old Testament to even recognize the many Old Testament references, let alone be familiar with their context and meaning.

But be that as it may, I’m afraid I can’t agree that the context of Matthew 16:27-28 is the encounter Jesus had with the Pharisees and Sadducees in Magdala. That town lay on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. After that encounter Jesus and the disciples left Magdala and traveled up and around the northern end of the Sea of Galilee and then climbed up into the Golan Heights to the base of Mt. Hermon to the city of Caesarea Philippi, 25 miles north of the Sea. That was a long day’s hike, maybe even two since they were climbing, and they may have stopped along the way. It was at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was which led to Peter’s confession. But then Matthew says, “from that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how he must go unto Jerusalem,” so that seems to indicate that there was at least some time lapse between the discussion that led to Peter’s confession and the next event, which was Jesus telling his disciples that if they would follow him they must deny themselves and take up their cross. For whosoever would save his life would lose it, and whosoever would lose his life for Jesus’ sake would find it. For what did it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul? For the Son of man would come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he would reward every man according to his works. Truly Jesus said to them, There were some standing there, which would not taste of death, till they had seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

So the only context here really is the disciples taking up their cross and following Jesus, even to the death. This was the same thing Jesus told them in Matthew 24, that “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you.” So again, the context of this coming of Jesus, with all his holy angels, and rewarding every man (whatever all that might mean), was contextually connected with lives and martyrdom of these disciples.

And look at how Mark records this teaching of Jesus:

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”

The way Mark records this teaching also applies this event to that “adulterous and sinful generation.” And instead of expressing the event as “the coming of Jesus,” notice it is expressed as “the kingdom of God coming with power,” which again, was a reference to the display of God’s power in the execution of judgment and destruction of Israel, which Jesus said was the “sign” of his coming.

Now granted, from our perspective the 2nd Advent of Jesus would certainly be the single most earth-shaking event we might live to see, but the Cross and Jesus’ conquest over sin and death and the coming of God’s Kingdom would in my estimation be ranked right up there as equally earth-shaking. But to the Jews of the 1st century, the total destruction of the Jewish nation and the Holy City and God’s Temple and the removing of everything God had provided for the Law’s observance would certainly qualify in their eyes as earthly-shaking. Such a thing had never entered their minds, they were convinced that the Messiah would establish an earthly, geo-political kingdom centered in Jerusalem and they, the Jews, would rule with Messiah over all the Gentile nations. So the very idea that Israel and the Holy City and God’s Temple would all be destroyed, that everything God had provided for the observance of the Law would all be taken away, I think we could safely say that was an earth-shaking event in the eyes of these Jewish disciples.

Indeed, in teaching on this very subject, Paul quotes an Old Testament prophecy about that very thing in his letter to the Hebrews: “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh, for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” Hebrews 12:25-28

Paul was speaking here of God “shaking” heaven and earth (saleuo-to shake down, overthrow; to cast down from one’s secure and happy state) in order to remove the earthly things of the Old Covenant (the Kingdom of Israel) so that the heavenly things of the New Covenant (the Kingdom of God) might remain. And that is the kingdom we have received, one that cannot be moved because it does not consist of things that are made but of things that are eternal thus will “remain” (meno-to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure).

Now Paul derived this teaching in part from the messianic prophecy of Haggai that has given us the beautiful title for Jesus, “the desire of all nations.” I know you’re familiar with that term. It comes from this prophecy:

“For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts … The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace.” Haggai 2:6-9

So this was a messianic prophecy about the 1st coming of Jesus and the establishing of God’s unmovable, eternal Kingdom and the removing of the old earthly types and shadows. And the terminology the Scripture uses for this is God “shaking heaven and earth,” which is why I used the term “earth-shaking” to refer to this judgment and destruction of Israel, the “removing of things made.”

But to complete this look at “the coming of the Lord in glory with his angels,” allow me to quote this same conversation the way Luke words it for Gentiles not familiar with all this Old Testament prophecy and typology:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily … For whosoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:23-27

Notice the way that Luke expresses “the coming of Jesus in glory with his holy angels” in a very different context as “seeing the kingdom of God.”

So if we look at the whole testimony of what Jesus said, in all three Gospels that record it, perhaps we can agree that the phrase “the coming of Jesus in glory with his holy angels” might not necessarily refer to his 2nd physical Advent. All three Gospels taken together speak of the display of power and glory of the coming of Jesus and of God’s Kingdom that was demonstrated in the shaking of heaven and earth and removing of the old Covenant with its earthly types and shadows so that the New Covenant with its heavenly fulfillment, which had already been established, might alone remain, which is how the earthly destruction of Israel in the Roman/Jewish war appears from a more … shall we say .. “behind the scenes” spiritual perspective, which I know to literalists can be a real problem, but there it is.

Wormwood said:
So this statement on "coming with power" is probably not focused on any one specific event that the disciples would witness, but likely entails the transfiguration, resurrection which foreshadows the second coming.
Or perhaps it does focus on a specific event that the disciples would witness which Jesus said would be the “sign” of his coming and his kingdom. But we have much more to discuss so hopefully things will begin to shake out and fall into place … (pun intended).

Wormwood said:
Matthew 25 has a very different context. Here, Jesus is specifically answering questions about the destruction of the Temple, his coming, and the end of the age.
I think it’s the exact same context, the 1st coming of Jesus and the kingdom in power and glory that would triumph over his enemies and destroy that sinful generation and remove the old so that the new alone might remain.

Wormwood said:
I don't think Im in disagreement with you regarding Paul's warnings.
Im not exactly sure what you are saying here.... I think Paul was simply focused on the second coming and being prepared for that day...as it was the most cataclysmic event possible. This is why I don't think his letter referencing the Man of Sin has anything to do with any isolated rebellion in Jerusalem or the destruction of the Temple.
But the fact that Paul speaks of a rebellion and the Man of sin sitting in the Temple in Jerusalem makes it difficult to my mind to dismiss the connection with the Temple and Jerusalem and the rebellion that led not only to its destruction but also to the damnation and destruction of the Man of sin and “all them that perished: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (rejected the Gospel of Jesus and God’s salvation that would have saved them from God’s wrath). And for this cause God sent them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: the Jewish people actually believed that if they took up the sword against Rome that God would be with them and would deliver them and by the sword they would usher in the messianic kingdom of their dreams (Simon Zealotes was a Zealot before Pentecost and Jesus told him point blank those who live by the sword would die by the sword).

After the war and the complete and utter ruin of the Jewish state and destruction of everything that pertained to Old Covenant worship, the Rabbis discussed and debated about what had happened. How could they have been so wrong about God’s will? And they finally determined that either A. Israel had sinned, or B. God was unjust. They concluded, and I believe rightly so, that Israel had sinned.

The only question that remains is … what was Israel’s sin?

I know it is easy for us Christians to jump to the conclusion that Israel’s sin was crucifying Jesus. And certainly slaying the Lord and killing his disciples that were sent to share with them the Gospel topped off the cup of blood that their fathers had filled with the blood of the prophets. But very simply, Israel’s sin was breaking covenant with God, violating his commandments, which they did, time and time again throughout their history. And time and time again God had punished them to correct them and bring them back to Him, but even God said, “why should I punish you anymore? You will not take correction!”

So the day came when there was no more time. God’s wrath was poured out on a sinful nation and they were utterly destroyed. That destruction was not limited to the Jews who dwelt in the land. There were as many Jews living in the Diaspora as there were living in the ancient homeland. They tended to dwell together in communities even within the cities and towns and during the war many, many Jews were killed by rampaging local citizens who ran riot in the Jewish communities and burned and pillaged and murdered Jews. It was their fathers and brothers and sons in the Roman army that the Jews were warring against. It was true what the Scriptures said, if God had not shortened those days there wouldn’t have been any Jews left. It was for the sake of the Christian Jews that those days were shortened.

Wormwood said:
I didn't say the Law was made void, but the Old Covenant. Two different things.
Not really. The covenant between God and Israel was that Israel would keep God’s Law.

Wormwood said:
Personally, I don't believe the Law will ever be made void. Jesus did not make void the law, even by his death and resurrection. Rather, he fulfilled the Law.
I agree that Jesus fulfilled the Law, every jot and tittle, including all those jots and tittles about the judgment of Israel if they transgressed the Law and broke covenant with God.

But the Law was not simply a moral code for men to aspire to live up to (however the legalists think they honor the Law by making it so). It was a means of reconciliation and fellowship between God and man, at the time the only means of reconciliation and fellowship. Everyone who was not under the Mosaic Covenant was a stranger to God and foreigners to God's Kingdom. I spoke of the Law being made void in the sense that it can no longer provide reconciliation and fellowship between God and man. God Himself made sure of that by “removing” everything that He had provided for the Law’s Observance. Not because there was anything wrong with the law, but because the law was by its very nature a temporary means of reconciliation and fellowship with God (witnessed by the Law itself in that both the sacrifices for sin and those for fellowship had to be offered over and over and over, rivers of blood, oceans of water, mountains of flesh and grain, and still more were required). But the Law foreshadowed the permanent means of reconciliation and fellowship that is now available through the New Covenant and the blood of Jesus.

But perhaps rather than me saying the Law was made void, even in that sense, it would be better to say that the Law itself was “transfigured,” raised up to a spiritual Law (which by the way the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation 11 are the Law and the Prophets, who, after they “finished their testimony,” appeared to have been destroyed by Rome when all that pertained to the Law was destroyed, but in fact they were raised up and “translated” to heaven, which is symbolic language for the Law and the Prophets being “filled full” with spiritual life and application.

Not sure why the Scriptures use such strange and often fantastic language to describe all this, but then again, we’re looking at earthly events. The mystical shapes and forms in which these earthly events appear “behind the scenes” or “in heaven,” as John saw them, are simply not the same form or shape they take in the earth. I mean, come on, a red dragon literally falling out of the sky?

Wormwood said:
The Law was not the problem. It was the covenant that was the problem. The Old Covenant was incapable of providing the redemption the people of Israel sought because of the fault in the people.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with that. There was no “problem” with the Covenant, or with the Law it was based on. The Law did what it was supposed to do, provide a temporary means of “sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh” a people that they might be a fit vessel through whom God would bring His Salvation. Jesus was born of Israel according to the flesh, and in order for God to have a people whose flesh was fit to bear the Son of God, the Law was given to Israel to provide atonement and cleanse them of their sin. But that atonement and cleansing only cleansed their flesh (ergo all the ritual baths and hand washing and abstaining from eating or touching unclean things), it did nothing to cleanse the heart which is where sin originates.

But the Law was never meant to be the solution for sin and was never capable of cleansing the heart. It was a temporary means of making Israel a clean vessel to bear the Son of God.

It is the New Covenant, and the Gospel it is based on, that provides cleansing of the heart, or as Paul calls it “the conscience,” which is sprinkled and cleansed with the blood of Jesus, so that we might be a fit vessel for the Spirit of God to dwell in so that we might be able to have a personal relationship with the Living God so that our obedience comes from the indwelling presence of God purifying and cleansing our heart, which is where sin originates.

I know I’m getting in deep here, but I think you’ve already tread this ground so this isn’t strange or new ideas to you, but perhaps you might see all these pieces fit together in a new way?

Wormwood said:
Thus, Jesus established a new covenant by his blood.
Agreed. And I’ll save comments on that for another post.

Wormwood said:
Therefore, when he died and was raised, the old covenant was officially void as the new was put into place. Because it was made void..it was fading form the scene. That's the picture in Hebrews. The old merely foreshadowed the new and had fulfilled its purpose. It was made void in the past and therefore was dissipating.
If that is true, that the Old Covenant between God and Israel that was based on their obedience to the Law, and God’s blessings or judgment based on their obedience, if that was made void at Calvary, on what basis then did God judge and destroy Israel 40 years later?

Wormwood said:
(I understand about the long posts...I also have difficulty keeping things short at times. Especially about very detailed and interesting matters such as this one. I really appreciate the dialogue though. Compelling. :) )
It doesn’t help that I am so limited on my time that I try to cram as much as I can into each post. I don’t know from one day to the next when I’ll be able to get back here … and I dearly love talking over these things with the Lord’s people …
so please excuse my long-winded ramblings ...

The Grace of God in Christ be with you,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"So the only context here really is the disciples taking up their cross and following Jesus, even to the death. This was the same thing Jesus told them in Matthew 24, that “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you.” So again, the context of this coming of Jesus, with all his holy angels, and rewarding every man (whatever all that might mean), was contextually connected with lives and martyrdom of these disciples."

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Chapter 15 says viturally nothing about laying down one's life for Christ. Rather, it begins with a prophecy from Isaiah about how the people honor God with their lips but their hearts are far away. Then there is a repeated conflict with Jesus and the leaders about what constitutes cleanliness, concern for "the dogs," and the miraculous feeding of the crowds following Jesus which is then used as a teaching aid about the "leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees." I dont disagree that Jesus makes a statement about taking up the cross to follow Jesus at the end of chapter 16, but the overall context in this section displays a power struggle of the religious leaders and Jesus as the Messiah. This is seen throughout the book of Matthew where Jesus is continually correcting peoples understanding of what the kingdom of God is really about, what it means to be Messiah and the actions of the heart that truly please God. In sum, Jesus is confronting the religous expectations of the day. No Jew expected the Messiah to be a peasent that spent time with sinful people and died on a Roman cross. For the Jewish people, that was to be a dismal failure, not a conquering King. Yet Matthew shows that Jesus' power and authority is most powerfully displayed in his humility and embrace of the sinful and needy.

I'd also disagree with your assessment of that text in Mark. Mark has an entirely different focus in his Gospel. In that text you speak of, it references the Son coming with his angels. I think it is clear that Jesus is providing a word of judgment against the generation that was rejecting him, and that judgment is not 70AD. This text is about final judgment...which I am sure you agree...."that generation" that saw Jesus in the flesh and rejected him would be present at that judgment. We see a similar concept in John.

"For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he ahas given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when ball who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

So, clearly we see Jesus warning his present generation that was rejecting his word about the fact that he would be the final judge of their fates. Obviously John is not speaking of 70AD as he likely wrote his Gospel after that date.

I dont discount that some of the texts you point to may reference a more immediate coming judgment (although I think much of that talk is found more in Revelation). However, I dont think Matthew 24-25 by any means makes 70AD the primary focus, and certainly Paul does not in 2 Thessalonians (there is nothign to even indicate this in my mind...the language is clearly focused on consumation of history type of talk). Paul uses the word parousia in reference to Jesus 8 times. 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Th 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Th 2:1,8,9
It seems clear to me that each text is in the context of the resurrection and his appearing with angels to judge the living and dead.

In sum, I think it is quite an act of hermeneutical gymnastics to try to jump to Matthew and Mark's discussion of Christ's coming making 70AD the primary focus (which I think is unconvincing) and then applying those principle's to Paul who is writing in an entirely different context and focus (which seems almost undoubtedly to be centered on the resurrection and 2nd coming). I know of no scholar who seriously studies these texts who has arrived at such a conclusion. This doesnt mean you are wrong, but it seems like a stretch in my mind to say that no one is getting this text right but you.

I think the Bible is explicit that there was a problem with the first covenant (not the covenant itself, but the people..as I said previously)
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people..." I think thats about as clear as it can be stated in Heb. 8.

God's dealing with is people was never "based on Law." That is not what I am saying. I think Galatians 3-4 and Romans 4 makes this clear. The Law was given as a "guardian" to guide people to grace. God's promises were never based in law, but through promise. Hmm...trying to figure out a way to write this briefly....

You write, "On what basis did God judge and destory Israel 40 years later?" Are you suggesting that he was judging them due to the lingering consequences of disobeying the Old Covenant? Certainly not! The Old Covenant did not have to still be in effect in order for 70AD to take place. God has always judged his people based on their faith. The "better word" spoken through Jesus that was rejected was the basis for judgment. It was never about the letter of the law, but the heart of faith. Jesus made this plain many times in his teaching. Accepting Jesus is the ultimate expression of faith as people were never justified by the law, but always through their faith. David was justified by faith as was Abraham. Israel was judged by God due to lack of faith which resulted in Assyria's invasion, Babylon's invasion and Rome's invasion. In the Old Covenant, faith was expressed through covenant requirements, in the New Covenant, faith is expressed through trust and obiedence to Jesus.

Anyway, this is getting a ways off track. We probably need to focus this back in on 2 Thess or start a different thread that better suits whatever direction you would like to take this discussion. Sorry I could not quote things nicely to make it easier to read. I dont have that option on my iPad.

Be blessed.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Pilgrimer said:
I agree that Matthew’s Gospel is directed primarily to a Jewish audience, ...
I don't agree with that. Lot of Bible scholars wouldn't either.

ALL four Gospel Books were written by Israelites, so why in the world would any true Christian believer ever think any of them apply 'primarily' to a Jewish audience when Christ's Salvation was prophesied for both Israelites AND Gentiles?

Don't fall for modern Dispensationalism's lies about that, for they're one of the groups of men's doctrines that push that fabrication about the Book of Matthew applying to Jews and not Gentiles. One of the main reasons is because most Dispensationalists are on the false Pre-trib secret Rapture theory, and the Matthew 24:29-31 Scripture goes directly... against that false doctrine.

But so does Mark 13:24-27 which is a parallel to the Matt.24:29-31 Scripture. Does that now mean all... Four Gospel Books should be regarded with a grain of salt for us Gentile Christians?
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Chapter 15 says viturally nothing about laying down one's life for Christ …
Generally when we talk about context we’re referring to the immediate time and circumstances in which an event occurs or a teaching is given. Chapter 5 says virtually nothing about laying down one’s life for Christ either, but that’s generally not used by students as the context for a passage in Chapter 16.

Wormwood said:
I'd also disagree with your assessment of that text in Mark ... I think it is clear that Jesus is providing a word of judgment against the generation that was rejecting him, and that judgment is not 70AD. This text is about final judgment ...
But to make that assumption you must ignore the verse which immediately follows: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his father with the holy angels. Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”

Are you suggesting that some of those who stood there that day are still alive since you insist this is talking about the final judgment?

Wormwood said:
"For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he ahas given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when ball who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
Now we’re talking about the final judgment which is associated with the resurrection. But there is nothing about the resurrection in the teaching of Jesus in either Matthew 16 or 24/25 (and the corresponding accounts in Mark and Luke). Nor is there anything in 2nd Thessalonians 2 about the resurrection. There is in 1 Thessalonians 4. The final judgment is associated with the resurrection, the judgment of Israel is not.



Wormwood said:
Obviously John is not speaking of 70AD as he likely wrote his Gospel after that date.
It really doesn’t matter when the Gospels were written (the best evidence is they all were written prior to 70 A.D.). These are records of what Jesus did and what he taught during the 3 ½ years of his ministry, 40 years before 70 A.D.

Wormwood said:
I dont discount that some of the texts you point to may reference a more immediate coming judgment (although I think much of that talk is found more in Revelation). However, I dont think Matthew 24-25 by any means makes 70AD the primary focus …
Jesus telling the disciples that the Temple would be destroyed is what prompted the whole discourse. So to suggest that the destruction of the Temple is not the primary focus just doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

Wormwood said:
, and certainly Paul does not in 2 Thessalonians (there is nothign to even indicate this in my mind...the language is clearly focused on consumation of history type of talk).
But you are predetermining that this language has to refer to “consummation of history type of talk,” even though you acknowledge that there was talk of a more immediate coming judgment. Not every verse in the Bible that talks about the coming and the presence of Jesus is talking about his 2nd coming. Indeed, most are talking about his 1st coming. Both his 1st and his 2nd coming are associated with judgment, but only one is associated with the destruction of the Temple, and only one is associated with the resurrection.

Wormwood said:
Paul uses the word parousia in reference to Jesus 8 times. 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Th 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Th 2:1,8,9
It seems clear to me that each text is in the context of the resurrection and his appearing with angels to judge the living and dead.
That’s just my point. The 2nd Coming of Jesus is associated with the resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and earth. The 1st Coming of Jesus is associated with the judgment of Israel and the destruction of the Temple and holy city. Both the 1st and 2nd coming Jesus appears in glory with his angels, but only at his 2nd Coming do the saints come with him.

Wormwood said:
I think the Bible is explicit that there was a problem with the first covenant (not the covenant itself, but the people..as I said previously)
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people..." I think thats about as clear as it can be stated in Heb. 8.
But as I pointed out, what was “faulty” about the Old Covenant was that it could not make anyone perfect: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins.” Hebrews 10:1-2

Wormwood said:
God's dealing with is people was never "based on Law." That is not what I am saying. I think Galatians 3-4 and Romans 4 makes this clear. The Law was given as a "guardian" to guide people to grace. God's promises were never based in law, but through promise. Hmm...trying to figure out a way to write this briefly....
I didn’t say the promises were based on the Law. I said the covenant was based on the Law.

Wormwood said:
You write, "On what basis did God judge and destory Israel 40 years later?" Are you suggesting that he was judging them due to the lingering consequences of disobeying the Old Covenant?
Oh absolutely! The Law itself decreed it. Even Moses foresaw this judgment and destruction that God would bring upon Israel in the last days of the Old Covenant:

“Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you: and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song …” Deuteronomy 31:28-30

Read the rest of that, Chapter 32:1-43 and you will see the beginning of the prophecies about this judgment that was brought to pass in the generation of Jesus’ coming and see the wellspring of some prophecies that you may be familiar with, such as “and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation,” which Paul explains in Romans 10:19 was a prophecy about the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation, just to give some context about the timeframe of the fulfillment of these prophecies of Moses about the judgment of Israel.

Wormwood said:
Certainly not! The Old Covenant did not have to still be in effect in order for 70AD to take place.
God has always judged his people based on their faith.
I don’t agree. God judged Israel based on their obedience to the commandments. If they obeyed, they would be blessed. If they broke the commandments, they would be cursed. Read Deuteronomy 28:1-2 and 28:15.

Wormwood said:
The "better word" spoken through Jesus that was rejected was the basis for judgment.
Two points: the Jews were not the only people who rejected the Gospel, and over the past 2000 years there have been many. And yet no other nation has been destroyed for rejecting the “better word” spoken through Jesus. Only Israel, and only the generation of Jesus’ 1st coming.

Wormwood said:
It was never about the letter of the law, but the heart of faith.
Inheritance of the promises was never by the Law but by faith.

Judgment against sin was absolutely by the Law, even Jesus was judged by the Law, not for his own sins, but for ours. That’s what sin is … violation of the Law.

Wormwood said:
Israel was judged by God due to lack of faith
I disagree. Israel was judged for breaking the commandments.

Wormwood said:
Anyway, this is getting a ways off track. We probably need to focus this back in on 2 Thess or start a different thread that better suits whatever direction you would like to take this discussion. Sorry I could not quote things nicely to make it easier to read. I dont have that option on my iPad.
We do seem to have covered a lot of ground, unfortunately without finding many places of agreement so far. But I am open to whatever direction you would like to take …

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Let me clarify something:

It was because of their lack of faith that the Jewish nation wasn't saved.

It was because they were guilty of breaking the Law that they were judged and destroyed.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"Generally when we talk about context we’re referring to the immediate time and circumstances in which an event occurs or a teaching is given. Chapter 5 says virtually nothing about laying down one’s life for Christ either, but that’s generally not used by students as the context for a passage in Chapter 16."

Im assuming you mean chapter 15, not chapter 5 (I dont recall referencing chapter 5). I think you are misunderstanding me. When I am speaking of context, I am referring to literary context. Certainly the historical context is helpful, but Matthew is not presenting a history lesson, but is building a case for Jesus as the Messiah and the one who ushers in the kingdom of heaven. This is not to say that what Matthew is writing is not historically accurate, but it is to say that he ordered particular events in a very specific order (literary context) to make some very poignant points.
______

No, but Im saying that "the kingdom" that Jesus proclaims to come in power is not 70AD. Jesus is making two points in those verses...not one. Jesus coming in the glory of the Father with angels refers to the 2nd coming. Also, some will not taste death until they see the kingdom come in power, which refers to the establishment of the church. These are not talking about the same thing.
______
Yes, this is exactly my point. Paul has already been in dialogue with the church in Thessalonica about the parousia of Jesus in his first letter. He is further dealing with misunderstandings on this topic using the EXACT same language. There is absolutely nothing 2 Thess. 2 that speaks of God's judgment on Israel. This understanding is based on some assumptions you are taking on regarding the "man of lawlessness" but the text never speaks of God judging Israel in this passage.
_______
I would say it matters immensely when the Gospels were written (and to whom). The Gospel writers were not 21st century Western Americans who sought to create a scientifically accurate account of every detail of Jesus' life. They were writing to specific audiences for specific purposes. If that is not understood, then the core concepts of what they are communicating will be lost. Where are you reading that John was written prior to 70AD? Can you provide me with a source?
_______
Well, we disagree again. Jesus made multiple declarations as well as told many parables about the coming destruction due to their rejection of him. They killed the author of life because they refused to believe in him. It was not their failure to obey the Law that brought judgment, but their rejection and murder of the one who came to fulfill the law. Consider the parable Jesus told when he came into Jerusalem after he had cleansed the temple the day before. A parable of a people who rejected the invitation of the Kings wedding banquet for his Son. They rejected the Son and murdered the messengers which brought about the wrath of the King who "burned their city." This is seen over and over again in Matthew...
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“ ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstonea;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’b?
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
________
I think we are talking past each other on this discussion of law and judgment. Of course we are judged by law. But righteousness never came by law for God's people. None are justified by the law. It is faith that justifies. Israel would have been spared wrath from Assyria and Babylon if they had repented and trusted God. It was their faithlessness, not simply their sin that brought destruction. God would have forgiven their sin if they had turned to him in faith. Thats the whole point of the message of the prophets...to call the people to repent or face judgment.

Did Abraham not sin? Did David not sin? Why didnt God destroy Davids Kingdom? Because David, although he was a sinner like all of us, trusted him who justifies the wicked. This is exactly the point Paul makes in Romans 4.

Thanks again for the engaging discussion. I know we agree on much more than we disagree. We both just see details that we wrestle with and want to discuss which is to be understood. There is much that you write that i agree with but I just dont list all those points for the sake of time and space. Perhaps we can start a new thread on the relationship between the old and new covenants.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
I think you are misunderstanding me. When I am speaking of context, I am referring to literary context. Certainly the historical context is helpful, but Matthew is not presenting a history lesson, but is building a case for Jesus as the Messiah and the one who ushers in the kingdom of heaven. This is not to say that what Matthew is writing is not historically accurate, but it is to say that he ordered particular events in a very specific order (literary context) to make some very poignant points.
I’ll have to respond to most of your post this evening, but I had to offer a quick comment on the above. I’m afraid I don’t agree with that. The Gospels are not literary works, they are historical documents that record the life, deeds, and teachings of Jesus. Matthew didn’t record events based on some literary model, he recorded the events as they occurred in time, Jesus went here and said this, then Jesus went there and did that, and afterward they came to this place and then this happened, etc. Matthew didn’t have to arrange his record of Jesus’ life in some particular order to show that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus’ life and deeds and teachings bear witness to that. And as the Apostle Peter said, God had proven that Jesus was the Messiah by raising him from the dead.

When I said Matthew’s Gospel was directed to a Jewish audience I meant that he expresses the deeds and teachings of Jesus using the vernacular of and references to the Hebrew Scriptures more than the other Gospels. Such as when he says, “and when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (because Jews were very familiar with Daniel’s messianic prophecies), whereas Luke records that same teaching of Jesus, “and when you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies,” to explain what would otherwise be lost on a Gentile reader not familiar with the prophecies of Daniel.

But to go beyond that and claim that the Gospel is a literary work using literary devices to convince readers that Jesus is the Messiah, rather than letting the life and deeds and teachings of Jesus speak for themselves, well, if this is what the scholars you mentioned are teaching, they are doing the Christian Church a grave disservice.

Sorry, I have to run but I look forward to continuing our discussion …

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey, I am going to start another thread because I think some of these ideas we are discussing need to be flushed out. However, they dont really have much to do with "The Man of Lawlessness." Feel free to post on this thread again if you want to discuss more the 2 Thess 2 passage. The new thread I will make is Covenant Relationships and the Bible as Literature.