I have been mystified by the acceptance by 'Christian believers' of preterism, despite its obvious errors when compared with scripture; so it was with a mixture of relief and shock, I read an overview here, not (so much) of the doctrine itself, but of how its adherents have played on it and promoted a lie, accompanied by much violence, death and destruction, historically.
Christ will come again
- Thread starter dragonfly
- Start date
-
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!
I haven't read the article, and I don't intend to, but I will comment that it is very important when discussing this issue to make clear distinctions between partial and full preterists. Partial preterists believe that Christ will come again (the subject title of your post), whereas full (or hyper) preterists believe he has already come.
Retrobyter
Active Member
Shalom, dragonfly.
I don't know what other "partial preterists" believe because I have labeled myself to be such because of my stance on the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. However, I believe that most of Revelation is indeed yet to be fulfilled, I believe that Yeshua` haMashiach (Jesus the Christ) IS INDEED returning to this earth physically and bodily, just as the disciples saw Him leave, and I believe that He will rule and reign literally from Yerushalayim, Yisra'el, on the throne of Daviyd, His ancestor, as the rightful heir to his throne, and that it WON'T be for just a thousand years but forever! (Luke 1:30-33) The one thousand years, which is called a "Millennium" from the Latin, is merely the time DURING the first 1000 years of His reign when haSatan will be locked away in the Abussos, the pit with an unsounded bottom. While he is locked away, Yeshua` haMelekh will be building His Kingdom from His small Kingdom in Isra'el with a few tributary nations until it entirely fills the earth! During that time, He will be subduing His enemies until finally toward the end of the Millennium He defeats death itself, throwing it into the Lake of Fire and Sulphur or the Lake of Burning Sulphur. This will happen shortly after the Great White Throne Judgment. He will then submit Himself to the Father and hand over the Empire to Him. (1 Cor. 15:20-28 cff. Rev. 20:8-15) Finally, I also believe that God will then re-create this earth after submerging it in fire, and He will make a New Earth with a New Sky, and Yerushalayim haChadashah (the New Jerusalem) will land upon it, centered at the coordinates of the old Yerushalayim, and that THIS is our destiny for eternity, not going to some ethereal, Never-Never Land called "Heaven."
I don't fit into any of the typical scenarios of pretribulational rapturism, posttribulational rapturism, pre-wrath rapturism, or mid-tribulational rapturism nor do I believe in full preterism! I don't believe that there ARE seven years left (of Dani'el's seventieth Seven or "Week")! Three and a half of them were used up in Yeshua`s first Advent when He offered Himself as Yisra'el's Melekh or King and was rejected! I believe that the "tribulation" has been going on since the first century and will continue until the Messiah returns, and I believe that the "Rapture" is simply a mass-transit system to get us quickly to Yisra'el when Yeshua` arrives and gathers an army to rescue His people - His family - the Isra'elis! However, because I believe that what is called the "Rapture" as it is described in 1 Thes. 4:13-17 doesn't happen until the Messiah is returning, I'm closest to a posttribulational rapturist. FInally, I consider myself a premillennial futurist.
So, what would YOU call me? This is the problem with labels. Sometimes, a person's position can't be "pigeon-holed" into a mold that describes that of a group of people. What does one do with "outliers?" I'm closest to being a Messianic Jew, but with Independent Baptist preferences. I don't even fit in that way! I also believe that once one is justified by God, he is ALWAYS justified by God. Once a son, ALWAYS a son. It's not something that is determined by what WE do; it is a justification by GOD, and HE determines that we, through His Son, are given eternal life!
Is there a group of people who believe as I do? I don't think so ... YET! However, I MUST fellowship with others of "LIKE FAITH" and the closest people I've ever found when it comes to justification by God (or as most call it "salvation") are the Independent Baptists.
I HAVE read the overview by Pastor G. Reckart on "Champions of Preterism," and I find him lackadaisical and uninformed on partial preterism if all he has to say on it is "Partial preterism (is nearly full preterism, each picks and chooses from the full preterist list)."dragonfly said:
I don't know what other "partial preterists" believe because I have labeled myself to be such because of my stance on the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. However, I believe that most of Revelation is indeed yet to be fulfilled, I believe that Yeshua` haMashiach (Jesus the Christ) IS INDEED returning to this earth physically and bodily, just as the disciples saw Him leave, and I believe that He will rule and reign literally from Yerushalayim, Yisra'el, on the throne of Daviyd, His ancestor, as the rightful heir to his throne, and that it WON'T be for just a thousand years but forever! (Luke 1:30-33) The one thousand years, which is called a "Millennium" from the Latin, is merely the time DURING the first 1000 years of His reign when haSatan will be locked away in the Abussos, the pit with an unsounded bottom. While he is locked away, Yeshua` haMelekh will be building His Kingdom from His small Kingdom in Isra'el with a few tributary nations until it entirely fills the earth! During that time, He will be subduing His enemies until finally toward the end of the Millennium He defeats death itself, throwing it into the Lake of Fire and Sulphur or the Lake of Burning Sulphur. This will happen shortly after the Great White Throne Judgment. He will then submit Himself to the Father and hand over the Empire to Him. (1 Cor. 15:20-28 cff. Rev. 20:8-15) Finally, I also believe that God will then re-create this earth after submerging it in fire, and He will make a New Earth with a New Sky, and Yerushalayim haChadashah (the New Jerusalem) will land upon it, centered at the coordinates of the old Yerushalayim, and that THIS is our destiny for eternity, not going to some ethereal, Never-Never Land called "Heaven."
I don't fit into any of the typical scenarios of pretribulational rapturism, posttribulational rapturism, pre-wrath rapturism, or mid-tribulational rapturism nor do I believe in full preterism! I don't believe that there ARE seven years left (of Dani'el's seventieth Seven or "Week")! Three and a half of them were used up in Yeshua`s first Advent when He offered Himself as Yisra'el's Melekh or King and was rejected! I believe that the "tribulation" has been going on since the first century and will continue until the Messiah returns, and I believe that the "Rapture" is simply a mass-transit system to get us quickly to Yisra'el when Yeshua` arrives and gathers an army to rescue His people - His family - the Isra'elis! However, because I believe that what is called the "Rapture" as it is described in 1 Thes. 4:13-17 doesn't happen until the Messiah is returning, I'm closest to a posttribulational rapturist. FInally, I consider myself a premillennial futurist.
So, what would YOU call me? This is the problem with labels. Sometimes, a person's position can't be "pigeon-holed" into a mold that describes that of a group of people. What does one do with "outliers?" I'm closest to being a Messianic Jew, but with Independent Baptist preferences. I don't even fit in that way! I also believe that once one is justified by God, he is ALWAYS justified by God. Once a son, ALWAYS a son. It's not something that is determined by what WE do; it is a justification by GOD, and HE determines that we, through His Son, are given eternal life!
Is there a group of people who believe as I do? I don't think so ... YET! However, I MUST fellowship with others of "LIKE FAITH" and the closest people I've ever found when it comes to justification by God (or as most call it "salvation") are the Independent Baptists.
Hi Retrobyter,
Thank you for your reply. :) I'll be honest, I don't know what to call you, either, ;) but I very much appreciate your declarations, and your having taken time to read the article. I know it is pitched at somewhat of a simple level for anyone who is looking for a doctrinal discussion, but I had never seen a relationship between the Catholic Church and preterism, nor understood that the powers taken to itself by the Papacy could be rested on full preterism.
Regarding Christ's return, I agree, He shall return 'in like manner' as they saw Him depart, but I do not believe He will return to Olivet, necessarily. That's because there is room to believe the earthquake which divided it (See from google earth, it is already divided into quarters.) happened at the time of either His crucifixion, or whenever the Temple veil was rent. I believe it was before His resurrection, or, that the resurrection is the last moment it could have been, if associated with His rising, (which was His return (from the dead) after 'a little while'). (He has received for Himself a kingdom, Luke 19:12, but left its earthly representation in the hands of His servants with His command to 'Occupy till I come'.) The waters of eternal life began to flow to east and to west after Pentecost, and they have been flowing out to mankind from the Jews who embraced the New Covenant, ever since.
If you look at the spiritual significance of 'the Mount of Olives', knowing that the oil beaten for the light is to come from olives, and the anointing oil of kings, and priests, and the authority and rulership implied by 'mountains', and Pentecost paralleled with Sinai, there is - pardon the play on words - a mountain of evidence to suggest that the Great Physician, who taught His disciples to anoint the sick with oil, is already in power, spiritually. Where Solomon had turned it into the 'mount of corruption' 2 Kings 23, (a head - an authority - full of idols Ezekiel 8:10, 11, 12) Christ reclaimed it for His glory. The oil of the Spirit was poured out on Jerusalem first, just as Zechariah prophesied. I know this is not a popular interpretation, either, and that the renewing of the mind is not a popular preoccupation for many Christians, but it is, nevertheless, prefigured for us in His crown of thorns (Sinai) being exchanged for His crown of victory, by which He was able to ask His Father to send the Holy Spirit, by which we also partake of His victory.
Thank you for your reply. :) I'll be honest, I don't know what to call you, either, ;) but I very much appreciate your declarations, and your having taken time to read the article. I know it is pitched at somewhat of a simple level for anyone who is looking for a doctrinal discussion, but I had never seen a relationship between the Catholic Church and preterism, nor understood that the powers taken to itself by the Papacy could be rested on full preterism.
Regarding Christ's return, I agree, He shall return 'in like manner' as they saw Him depart, but I do not believe He will return to Olivet, necessarily. That's because there is room to believe the earthquake which divided it (See from google earth, it is already divided into quarters.) happened at the time of either His crucifixion, or whenever the Temple veil was rent. I believe it was before His resurrection, or, that the resurrection is the last moment it could have been, if associated with His rising, (which was His return (from the dead) after 'a little while'). (He has received for Himself a kingdom, Luke 19:12, but left its earthly representation in the hands of His servants with His command to 'Occupy till I come'.) The waters of eternal life began to flow to east and to west after Pentecost, and they have been flowing out to mankind from the Jews who embraced the New Covenant, ever since.
If you look at the spiritual significance of 'the Mount of Olives', knowing that the oil beaten for the light is to come from olives, and the anointing oil of kings, and priests, and the authority and rulership implied by 'mountains', and Pentecost paralleled with Sinai, there is - pardon the play on words - a mountain of evidence to suggest that the Great Physician, who taught His disciples to anoint the sick with oil, is already in power, spiritually. Where Solomon had turned it into the 'mount of corruption' 2 Kings 23, (a head - an authority - full of idols Ezekiel 8:10, 11, 12) Christ reclaimed it for His glory. The oil of the Spirit was poured out on Jerusalem first, just as Zechariah prophesied. I know this is not a popular interpretation, either, and that the renewing of the mind is not a popular preoccupation for many Christians, but it is, nevertheless, prefigured for us in His crown of thorns (Sinai) being exchanged for His crown of victory, by which He was able to ask His Father to send the Holy Spirit, by which we also partake of His victory.
I don't believe that Christ will necessarily return to the Mt of Olives either. He may, but we don't know because the scriptures certainly don't witness of that, even though many people carelessly believe they do.dragonfly said:
Keep in mind the Mt of Olives is the entire ridge due east of old Jeruaslem, not just the central summit as tourists to Israel are told.
There have been in history at least two very large landslides on the southern peak of the Mt of Olives. During at least one of them the western half of the mountain summit tore away, or split, from the eastern half and filled, or blocked, the valley below. This landslide occurred during King Uzziah's day, and probably also again at a later time in fulfillment of Zechariah 14:5, which states:
The Greek verb translated as split in Zechariah 14:5 (in the Septuagint) is the same Greek verb used in Matthew 27:51 that says rocks split during the earthquake when Jesus died. So it may be that the Zechariah 14:5 landslide occurred at that time; or possibly during the earthquake (aftershock) at his resurrection.
Retrobyter
Active Member
Shabbat shalom, dragonfly.
I picked up Douglas Connelly's book Bible Prophecy For Blockheads (c. 2002) back in 2005 at a WalMart store, and the term "Preterist" was defined there. When I was going to Baptist Bible College "many moons ago," we just called the position "amillennialism." Connelly explained that there are also postmillennials who have the same position. His explanation further separates "amillennialism" and "postmillennialism" and "premillennialism" as views about the Kingdom, while "preterism" is a view about what Scriptures have already been fulfilled.
I knew that Hitler considered himself a religious man and that he thought he was doing the world a service in purging out the inferior races, but I had not considered that he was supported by those who were preterists. It does make sense, and I can also see that it follows the purges that the early Roman Catholic Church performed on those considered heretics, although I won't be so bold as to suggest that there is definitely a provable connection between those purges and those of Hitler.
I had always thought of Hitler as a humanist with the mistaken notion acquired through the theory of evolution that the human race is supposed to evolve and get better. Therefore, he erroneously came to the conclusion that he needed to help the human race along, and he considered the light-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan race to be superior, especially to the "older races," such as the Jews, blacks, etc.
After that, Yeshua` will begin a tour of all the towns and villages and kibbutzim of Y'hudah (Judah or Judaea) and will route His enemies out of those populations. THEN, the Scriptures say that He will arrive in the Yerushalayim area where Har HaZeitiym is.
I've been following the other thread that talks about Zechariah 14, but Z'kharyahu's prophecy has NOT yet been fulfilled because of the contextual clues found in the first four verses:
Zechariah 14:1-4
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
KJV
First of all, no such time has been experienced when "all nations" were "gathered ... against Jerusalem to battle."
Second, there is no such time when YHWH (the LORD) fought against "all nations" on their behalf.
Third, I have not yet responded to the claims in the Zechariah 14 thread, but there seems to be a great discrepancy between the "better" interpretation and what is actually written in the Hebrew. I understand most of the problem with the two different versions, but unfortunately the Jews are NOT a good source for which of the two is "better." Y'see, the Jews won't want to admit that this is a prophecy that has not already been fulfilled and will LOOK for ways to get around it! They want NOTHING in their Scriptures that smacks of Yeshua` Natsariy (Jesus of Nazareth) being the Mashiach or Messiah of God for whom they were supposed to be looking!
Now, whether this is a rift or cleft put in Har haZeitiym creating a new valley or a landslide filling up the valley between Yerushalayim and Har haZeitiym, it provides an escape route for those trapped in Yerushalayim to escape. That much is clear from the Scriptures. I am going back and checking what little access I have to the manuscripts and fragments of Z'kharyahu's prophecy to attempt to ascertain who made what mistake. At this point, it is only clear that the Septuagint does NOT match the Masoretic Text.
However, I am loathe to take an other-than-literal point of view for this chapter. There are just too many intertwined details that can't be so flippantly tossed aside. For instance, it is immediately after this that we read verses 6 and 7 which talk about the ONE LONG DAY with no night! That will be because of Yeshua`s presence, for He will radiate light as He did on the "Mount of Transfiguration" and as He is said He will do when He returns. Also, we have the "living waters" or rather the "running waters" that flow out of Yerushalayim when the Messiah takes up His residence there. This also matches the river that Y'chezk'el (Ezekiel) saw flowing from under the door's threshold.
Zechariah 14:8
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
KJV
The "former sea" is the Dead Sea, and the "hinder sea" is the Mediterranean Sea. If we could have seen maps drawn in ancient Isra'el, they would have East at the top of the map instead of how we draw maps with North at the top. They think of facing east as "forward" and heading west as facing "backward." In fact, their "north" was actually a little east of north and east was a little south of east. Thus, their compass "rose" would have been slightly turned clockwise.
And, here's the "kicker," in my opinion:
Zechariah 14:9-12
9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
KJV
Such a plague has never happened. It is an unfulfilled prophecy, and therefore, "the LORD shall be king over all the earth" also has not yet happened as it will.
PLEASE don't be one of those who finds "spiritual" fulfillment in every prophecy of the Bible! It doesn't work that way.
Shalom, ChristRoseFromTheDead.
You're welcome, and thank you for such a gracious conversation. It is quite refreshing that such discussions are possible without all the posturing. (I've had my FILL of that lately!) It is something that I recognized right away when I learned what full preterism was. To be honest, I hadn't heard of the term until within the last ... oh ... 8 years or so.dragonfly said:
I picked up Douglas Connelly's book Bible Prophecy For Blockheads (c. 2002) back in 2005 at a WalMart store, and the term "Preterist" was defined there. When I was going to Baptist Bible College "many moons ago," we just called the position "amillennialism." Connelly explained that there are also postmillennials who have the same position. His explanation further separates "amillennialism" and "postmillennialism" and "premillennialism" as views about the Kingdom, while "preterism" is a view about what Scriptures have already been fulfilled.
I knew that Hitler considered himself a religious man and that he thought he was doing the world a service in purging out the inferior races, but I had not considered that he was supported by those who were preterists. It does make sense, and I can also see that it follows the purges that the early Roman Catholic Church performed on those considered heretics, although I won't be so bold as to suggest that there is definitely a provable connection between those purges and those of Hitler.
I had always thought of Hitler as a humanist with the mistaken notion acquired through the theory of evolution that the human race is supposed to evolve and get better. Therefore, he erroneously came to the conclusion that he needed to help the human race along, and he considered the light-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan race to be superior, especially to the "older races," such as the Jews, blacks, etc.
That's an interesting theory; however, there are a few significant questions in my mind. First, I don't believe that Yeshua` will actually LAND on Har HaZeitiym, the Mount of Olives, directly either. I believe that He has a score to settle first in Botsrah (Bozrah), one of the towns of Edowm south of the Dead Sea, and He will land there first. Idumeans = "Edomites" and their posterity still exists in that region. However, it was their ancestors who usurped the Land when Yisra'el was forced by the Romans to leave. He will have a bone to pick with them, I believe, for what they are ABOUT to do to Yisra'el. Furthermore, many of the "Palestinians" are descendants from these Idumeans, and I believe that they will be included in the purge of Yisra'el that Yeshua` will perform when He arrives. I believe that they will have a hand in the final persecution of the Isra'elis; however, they will DEFINITELY have help from Yisra'el's neighbors. Yeshua` is not going to put up with that.dragonfly said:
After that, Yeshua` will begin a tour of all the towns and villages and kibbutzim of Y'hudah (Judah or Judaea) and will route His enemies out of those populations. THEN, the Scriptures say that He will arrive in the Yerushalayim area where Har HaZeitiym is.
I've been following the other thread that talks about Zechariah 14, but Z'kharyahu's prophecy has NOT yet been fulfilled because of the contextual clues found in the first four verses:
Zechariah 14:1-4
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
KJV
First of all, no such time has been experienced when "all nations" were "gathered ... against Jerusalem to battle."
Second, there is no such time when YHWH (the LORD) fought against "all nations" on their behalf.
Third, I have not yet responded to the claims in the Zechariah 14 thread, but there seems to be a great discrepancy between the "better" interpretation and what is actually written in the Hebrew. I understand most of the problem with the two different versions, but unfortunately the Jews are NOT a good source for which of the two is "better." Y'see, the Jews won't want to admit that this is a prophecy that has not already been fulfilled and will LOOK for ways to get around it! They want NOTHING in their Scriptures that smacks of Yeshua` Natsariy (Jesus of Nazareth) being the Mashiach or Messiah of God for whom they were supposed to be looking!
Now, whether this is a rift or cleft put in Har haZeitiym creating a new valley or a landslide filling up the valley between Yerushalayim and Har haZeitiym, it provides an escape route for those trapped in Yerushalayim to escape. That much is clear from the Scriptures. I am going back and checking what little access I have to the manuscripts and fragments of Z'kharyahu's prophecy to attempt to ascertain who made what mistake. At this point, it is only clear that the Septuagint does NOT match the Masoretic Text.
However, I am loathe to take an other-than-literal point of view for this chapter. There are just too many intertwined details that can't be so flippantly tossed aside. For instance, it is immediately after this that we read verses 6 and 7 which talk about the ONE LONG DAY with no night! That will be because of Yeshua`s presence, for He will radiate light as He did on the "Mount of Transfiguration" and as He is said He will do when He returns. Also, we have the "living waters" or rather the "running waters" that flow out of Yerushalayim when the Messiah takes up His residence there. This also matches the river that Y'chezk'el (Ezekiel) saw flowing from under the door's threshold.
Zechariah 14:8
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
KJV
The "former sea" is the Dead Sea, and the "hinder sea" is the Mediterranean Sea. If we could have seen maps drawn in ancient Isra'el, they would have East at the top of the map instead of how we draw maps with North at the top. They think of facing east as "forward" and heading west as facing "backward." In fact, their "north" was actually a little east of north and east was a little south of east. Thus, their compass "rose" would have been slightly turned clockwise.
And, here's the "kicker," in my opinion:
Zechariah 14:9-12
9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
KJV
Such a plague has never happened. It is an unfulfilled prophecy, and therefore, "the LORD shall be king over all the earth" also has not yet happened as it will.
PLEASE don't be one of those who finds "spiritual" fulfillment in every prophecy of the Bible! It doesn't work that way.
Shalom, ChristRoseFromTheDead.
Please review my post above to dragonfly. There are many discrepancies between this story and what is written in the text. As I said, the Jews are not a reliable source when it comes to the interpretations of Messianic prophecies. The rabbis who have studied them within Judaism are quick to point out that they have NOTHING to do with Yeshua` Natsariy! TOO quick! Remember the quotation of the queen taken from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." They, too, protest too much regarding the VALIDATED claim of Yeshua` that He was indeed God's Messiah, God's Anointed, God's Choice to be King, God's Representative!ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Thank you retro for pigeon holing me into all of Zek 14. I noticed you elaborated about not pigeon holing yourself.
If you will look I only commented on one verse
Zechariah 14: 8 And
it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from
Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward
the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
If you would like to dispute Jesus giving living water to the east and to the west please lets hear it.
John 4:10
John 7:38-39
I completely understand your distaste for the completed work of the cross because He hasn't saved his brothers/ family/ the Jews. Its no wounder a single verse that points to Christ as the living water in Jerusalem is passed over because all Israel is not welcomed home by virtue of their birth right.
Anyway I don't remember speaking about the first 4 verses. But please tell me how verse 8 is not speaking of Christ 2000 years ago. Tell me it has not come to pass. I wouldn't have mentioned it had I not been the subject of pigeon holing.
If you will look I only commented on one verse
Zechariah 14: 8 And
it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from
Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward
the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
If you would like to dispute Jesus giving living water to the east and to the west please lets hear it.
John 4:10
John 7:38-39
I completely understand your distaste for the completed work of the cross because He hasn't saved his brothers/ family/ the Jews. Its no wounder a single verse that points to Christ as the living water in Jerusalem is passed over because all Israel is not welcomed home by virtue of their birth right.
Anyway I don't remember speaking about the first 4 verses. But please tell me how verse 8 is not speaking of Christ 2000 years ago. Tell me it has not come to pass. I wouldn't have mentioned it had I not been the subject of pigeon holing.
Please spare me the avoidance you left with CRFTD, their also quick to deny Daniel 9:27 as we both know.
Retrobyter said:
RB,Retrobyter said:
I appreciate your open-minded approach to this issue. Please be aware that the identification of Azal in Israel is not coming from traditional Jewish sources. As far as I can discern it is the result of a joint effort between Jewish and Arab archaeologists (one group being the Israeli-Palestinian Archaeology Working Group, http://gaialab.asu.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353104995), who have determined that a French linguist/archaeologist's discovery of Azal in 1873-74 is correct. It was a secular decision based on linguistic and geographic evidence; it had nothing to do with religion.
The fact that there are two very different versions of Zechariah 14:5 (Masoretic Text [MT] vs. LXX), alone tells us that a corruption in one of the texts has occurred. That much is indisputable. The corruption occurred because the Hebrew verb נסתם (nstm), which occurs three times in this verse, can be pronounced two different ways, which results in two very different meanings, i.e., it shall be blocked, or you shall flee) . The LXX has the former, and the MT has the latter.
The Jewish Publication Society, whose stated editorial policy is to favor the MT, has favored the LXX version of this verse in a series of publications since about 1985. That decision was based on three factors:
- Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (TgJ) has block for the first instance of this verb (block, flee, flee)
- The oldest known Babylonian manuscript, Codex Petrograd 916, has block for all three instances of the verb (block, block, block)
- The LXX has block for all three instances of the verb (block, block, block)
The discovery by Israeli geologists of a landslide on the Mt of Olives directly adjacent to the valley that has an Arabic name that “corresponds exactly, satisfying all the rules of etymology, with the Hebrew” Azal; and is directly adjacent to the kings' gardens, that Josephus said were inundated by a landslide in King Uzziah's day is tremendously compelling evidence because it aligns so well with the LXX version of Zechariah 14:5. Add to this the fact that a transition from the LXX version (block, block, block) to the MT version (flee, flee, flee) is seen in TgJ (block, flee, flee). The Targumist's are known for having changed the text as it suited their needs, but they had no influence in Egypt where the LXX was translated.
The evidence is really overwhelming that the LXX version is the Vorlage (original reading). If this is true, it renders the idea of people fleeing east from Jerusalem to Azal impossible for two reasons:
- Azal is south of old Jerusalem and south/southwest of the Mt of Olives, not east
- The very idea of fleeing comes from the corrupted pronunciation of the verb נסתם (nstm)
Some things for you to consider.
Retrobyter
Active Member
Shalom, Rex.
Second, read the verse as it was written. It's a simple explanation for where the water coming out of Yerushalayim was going, and the "former sea" (Hebrew: hayaam haqadmowniy = "the eastern sea") is what the Isra'elites called the Dead Sea, and the "hinder sea" (Hebrew: hayaam haa'acharown = "the last sea" or the "sea behind" them) is what the Isra'elites called the Mediterranean Sea. Remember: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) is on a mountain and Har haZeitiym (the Mount of Olives) is also a mountain. The literal "running water" (which is what "living water" means) simply flows in both directions east and west. Don't make this complicated! You guys need to quit seeing some "spiritual" message in everything you read! The Scriptures were NEVER INTENDED to be read that way! This prophecy has not yet come to pass because these rivers do not yet exist!
Third, now it's MY turn to be ticked off: Where do you get off saying,
Finally, I wasn't avoiding the subject with ChristRoseFromTheDead; I'm INVESTIGATING it! That TAKES TIME!
Have a wonderful Resurrection Day (ALL Sundays are "Resurrection Days," not just Easter)!
First of all, how have I wronged YOU?! Where's YOUR post above?! I see NOTHING from you! I wasn't talking to you or about you! If I've wronged you somehow, please explain how and forgive me for ignorance, but I don't know how it is possible.Rex said:
Second, read the verse as it was written. It's a simple explanation for where the water coming out of Yerushalayim was going, and the "former sea" (Hebrew: hayaam haqadmowniy = "the eastern sea") is what the Isra'elites called the Dead Sea, and the "hinder sea" (Hebrew: hayaam haa'acharown = "the last sea" or the "sea behind" them) is what the Isra'elites called the Mediterranean Sea. Remember: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) is on a mountain and Har haZeitiym (the Mount of Olives) is also a mountain. The literal "running water" (which is what "living water" means) simply flows in both directions east and west. Don't make this complicated! You guys need to quit seeing some "spiritual" message in everything you read! The Scriptures were NEVER INTENDED to be read that way! This prophecy has not yet come to pass because these rivers do not yet exist!
Third, now it's MY turn to be ticked off: Where do you get off saying,
What in the world are you talking about?! I GLORY in the completed work of the cross! Normally, I welcome people who want to contribute to a conversation and "butt in," but to butt in AND put me down at the same time is NOT COOL!!! Furthermore, it's not Yeshua`s fault that His family won't acknowledge Him! It's THEIR OWN fault! HOWEVER, make no mistake! All Isra'el SHALL be "saved" (Romans 11:26), in SPITE of themselves! And, it's not for any good that they have on their part; He will rescue them FOR THE FATHERS' SAKES (Romans 11:28), whether YOU like it or not!
Finally, I wasn't avoiding the subject with ChristRoseFromTheDead; I'm INVESTIGATING it! That TAKES TIME!
Have a wonderful Resurrection Day (ALL Sundays are "Resurrection Days," not just Easter)!
WHERE IS THIS STATEMENT WRITTEN: "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of Living Water." ???
John 7:37-38 KJV
37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Who should you "hear" dragonfly? Hear the one who can tell you where the above is written.
If he cannot tell you this then the same knows not whereof he speaks . . . :)
John 7:37-38 KJV
37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Who should you "hear" dragonfly? Hear the one who can tell you where the above is written.
If he cannot tell you this then the same knows not whereof he speaks . . . :)
Hi HeRoseFromTheDead,
Thanks for your interesting contribution. Was it you who mentioned a possible change in Hebrew spelling? I know you said this:
Nevertheless, changing the z to lose the association between Azazel and 'way of escape' would be a wonderful way to confound the (sorry (!) Retrobyter ;) ) spiritual meaning of the verse, especially since we are absolutely certain that Mount Moriah is in the same place it was when Abraham took Isaac there (Temple Mount), and the angel stopped his destruction at the threshing-floor of Ornan.
There is a Jewish feast - all of which I am woefully more ignorant than I should be - when blood and water were poured out of the side of the Temple, very obviously prefiguring the blood and water from Christ's side. It flowed down the east of Mount Moriah (as I understand it), towards Kidron.
Hi Rex,
Welcome to the discussion. :) Is it possible you could be less grumpy? Communicating in writing leaves a huge amount to be desired in terms of what is lost of tone of voice, pauses, smiles, twinkling of eyes and so on. We would all have a great round table discussion if we could see each other. Please let's practise not taking it personally when our revelations-to-date do not line up with one another's? For the record, I have a completely different interpretation of the verses from Romans 11 to which Retrobyter alluded, but I know he will need his own revelation to see what I 'see'.
Hi Retrobyter,
Thanks again for the calm discussion, and for taking the offensive to keep it that way. (I'm not going to rake over Romans 11, here.)
About Zechariah 14, I have puzzled over the reference to 'all nations' - please hear me out - because we have a world view these days, which gives respect to each nation-state individually, despite the reality of many other alliances for trade, and possibly, for war. If we use Nebuchadnezzar's statue as a guide, the Roman empire - which was 'all nations' (and all nations' religions) in one entity, did overwhelm Jerusalem. Their leaders were bloodthirsty, and no doubt other bad stuff happened. Jerusalem has always been divided (between Judah and Benjamin) but no doubt there was an occupation which effected a political division more like the impression Zechariah conveys. Am I guessing, or is this history?
Secondly, since tiny phrases and single sentences are taken out of the prophets time and again, I have (literally) no idea why anyone would assume that Zechariah's prophecy can be read linearly in chunks, without coming a cropper. How many times have you heard 'wounded in the house of my friends' taken to be a reference to Christ going to the cross, without any reference to the 'context' of the surrounding words in the chapter? I have, many times, and to be honest, it gives me hope, when I read John's observation attached to just part of a sentence, as in John 19:37. Clearly, John was referring to Romans - the Gentiles whom Jesus said would 'kill' Him. John was not referring to 'Jews' directly, although of course I acknowledge they are totally implicated in Christ's false trial and eventual crucifixion.
Paul alludes to this whole scenario both as a fulfilment of prophecy and in its political context when he says:
Acts 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
In the books of Moses, reading them in order, there is a gradual shift from referring to the idols of the nations against which Israel is going to come - and, therefore, the spirits behind the idols - to simply referring to 'the nations'. And yet it is clear that God is still talking about their objects of worship, and the powers behind those objects, because He is always warning that if they 'fear' ( = serve) those gods, it will be 'a snare' to them, because they will feel 'driven' to worship them.
It is, therefore, clear to the Hebrew when Paul refers to 'principalities and powers', that he is (also) referring to 'nations' in the same language Zechariah used. Truly, the Romans brought every religion of every 'nation' (and therefore every religious spirit), into their politicial system, just as the RCC exercises conscious tolerance of all other religions alongside its own ritual and pageantry, up until this day.
1 Corinthians 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
If you can bear with this thought, when Jesus was on the cross, He was indeed attacked by 'all nations' - as we see in Psalm 22, where the features of demonic deities are described: vv 12, 13, 17, 20, 21 - before He triumphs over them ('It is finished!) and breaks out into praise in v 22. Hebrews 2:12. Of course, His victory is actual and eternal.
When he returned from the grave, His feet did indeed stand upon the Mount of Olives. Fifty days (jubilee of jubilees) were fulfilled until the oil of 'the Spirit of grace and supplication' was poured out in Jerusalem upon those who had waited for it, and it swiftly began to run out into all the world as the three thousand began to return home, to 'every nation under heaven'. Acts 2:5. This physical fulfilment of prophecy cannot be anything but spiritual at the same time.
Thanks for your interesting contribution. Was it you who mentioned a possible change in Hebrew spelling? I know you said this:
but I can't find a previous reference. I mention it because I asked an Israeli Christian whom I met online in a one-off encounter, about any possible connection between Azal, and Azazel (scapegoat) linguistically, and he said the z in Azal is different from those in Azazel.
Nevertheless, changing the z to lose the association between Azazel and 'way of escape' would be a wonderful way to confound the (sorry (!) Retrobyter ;) ) spiritual meaning of the verse, especially since we are absolutely certain that Mount Moriah is in the same place it was when Abraham took Isaac there (Temple Mount), and the angel stopped his destruction at the threshing-floor of Ornan.
There is a Jewish feast - all of which I am woefully more ignorant than I should be - when blood and water were poured out of the side of the Temple, very obviously prefiguring the blood and water from Christ's side. It flowed down the east of Mount Moriah (as I understand it), towards Kidron.
Hi Rex,
Welcome to the discussion. :) Is it possible you could be less grumpy? Communicating in writing leaves a huge amount to be desired in terms of what is lost of tone of voice, pauses, smiles, twinkling of eyes and so on. We would all have a great round table discussion if we could see each other. Please let's practise not taking it personally when our revelations-to-date do not line up with one another's? For the record, I have a completely different interpretation of the verses from Romans 11 to which Retrobyter alluded, but I know he will need his own revelation to see what I 'see'.
Hi Retrobyter,
Thanks again for the calm discussion, and for taking the offensive to keep it that way. (I'm not going to rake over Romans 11, here.)
About Zechariah 14, I have puzzled over the reference to 'all nations' - please hear me out - because we have a world view these days, which gives respect to each nation-state individually, despite the reality of many other alliances for trade, and possibly, for war. If we use Nebuchadnezzar's statue as a guide, the Roman empire - which was 'all nations' (and all nations' religions) in one entity, did overwhelm Jerusalem. Their leaders were bloodthirsty, and no doubt other bad stuff happened. Jerusalem has always been divided (between Judah and Benjamin) but no doubt there was an occupation which effected a political division more like the impression Zechariah conveys. Am I guessing, or is this history?
Secondly, since tiny phrases and single sentences are taken out of the prophets time and again, I have (literally) no idea why anyone would assume that Zechariah's prophecy can be read linearly in chunks, without coming a cropper. How many times have you heard 'wounded in the house of my friends' taken to be a reference to Christ going to the cross, without any reference to the 'context' of the surrounding words in the chapter? I have, many times, and to be honest, it gives me hope, when I read John's observation attached to just part of a sentence, as in John 19:37. Clearly, John was referring to Romans - the Gentiles whom Jesus said would 'kill' Him. John was not referring to 'Jews' directly, although of course I acknowledge they are totally implicated in Christ's false trial and eventual crucifixion.
Paul alludes to this whole scenario both as a fulfilment of prophecy and in its political context when he says:
Acts 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
In the books of Moses, reading them in order, there is a gradual shift from referring to the idols of the nations against which Israel is going to come - and, therefore, the spirits behind the idols - to simply referring to 'the nations'. And yet it is clear that God is still talking about their objects of worship, and the powers behind those objects, because He is always warning that if they 'fear' ( = serve) those gods, it will be 'a snare' to them, because they will feel 'driven' to worship them.
It is, therefore, clear to the Hebrew when Paul refers to 'principalities and powers', that he is (also) referring to 'nations' in the same language Zechariah used. Truly, the Romans brought every religion of every 'nation' (and therefore every religious spirit), into their politicial system, just as the RCC exercises conscious tolerance of all other religions alongside its own ritual and pageantry, up until this day.
1 Corinthians 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
If you can bear with this thought, when Jesus was on the cross, He was indeed attacked by 'all nations' - as we see in Psalm 22, where the features of demonic deities are described: vv 12, 13, 17, 20, 21 - before He triumphs over them ('It is finished!) and breaks out into praise in v 22. Hebrews 2:12. Of course, His victory is actual and eternal.
When he returned from the grave, His feet did indeed stand upon the Mount of Olives. Fifty days (jubilee of jubilees) were fulfilled until the oil of 'the Spirit of grace and supplication' was poured out in Jerusalem upon those who had waited for it, and it swiftly began to run out into all the world as the three thousand began to return home, to 'every nation under heaven'. Acts 2:5. This physical fulfilment of prophecy cannot be anything but spiritual at the same time.
It's a lot to process, especially when having to reprogram the mind to not view the MT version of this verse as GOD's word, like I had to do.Retrobyter said:
That said, here's some more info... :)
Gordon Franz wrote the following (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/04/16/Earthquakes-on-the-Increase-Or-Warning-of-Judgment-to-come.aspx) for biblearchaeology.org. Unfortunately, he was unaware that the valley being blocked up with landslide rubble precludes people fleeing (due to the aforementioned verb meaning one thing or the other):
Rocky Wiley
Active Member
Hi Dragonfly,
You say: "I have been mystified by the acceptance by 'Christian believers' of preterism, despite its obvious errors when compared with scripture";
Not speaking for Preterism but for the truth of God's Word. God can not lie!
What is mystifying about this scripture where Jesus is speaking to his disciples about his return in his kingdom?
Mat 16:28 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.
The key word above is that 'some' of the disciples, shall not taste death, that means that most, but not all, would die before he returned.
Is it clear that Jesus is speaking about judgement coming upon the people that he spoke to here?:
Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
Luk 11:31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Luk 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
One should not stand on the word of man, stand on the Word of God!
You say: "I have been mystified by the acceptance by 'Christian believers' of preterism, despite its obvious errors when compared with scripture";
Not speaking for Preterism but for the truth of God's Word. God can not lie!
What is mystifying about this scripture where Jesus is speaking to his disciples about his return in his kingdom?
Mat 16:28 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.
The key word above is that 'some' of the disciples, shall not taste death, that means that most, but not all, would die before he returned.
Is it clear that Jesus is speaking about judgement coming upon the people that he spoke to here?:
Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
Luk 11:31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Luk 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
One should not stand on the word of man, stand on the Word of God!
As far as I know, the spelling of Azal hasn't changed. I agree with your Israeli friend.dragonfly said:
There is no need to confound misguided interpretations of Zechariah 14:5 because reality does it for us in the form of abundant physical evidence (historical, archaeological, theological, linguistic, geologic, cartographic, photographic) that vindicates Zechariah as a prophet and glorifies GOD. How many prophecies are there that we actually have photographs proving their fulfillment like this one does?
From what I've read, blood flowed from the temple into the Kidron Valley continually, and was apparently sold to fertilize gardens in the valley.
This is actually a very worthy thought to consider.dragonfly said:
RB,Retrobyter said:
I know you have a lot on your plate right now, but I would like to add something else to hopefully allay your concern that non-christians are the ones supporting the view that the LXX version of Zechariah 14:5 is the original reading. The exact opposite is actually the case. The entire Eastern Orthodox Church (225-300 million members) and some of the Oriental Orthodox Churches use this version. The two most popular Roman Catholic bibles, the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible, also have the LXX rendering. That church has 1.2 billion members. So it can be argued that most of the Christian world has the LXX version of Zechariah 14:5 in their bibles.
Hi HeRoseFromTheDead,
Could I ask if you have a date for this quote, please?
Could I ask if you have a date for this quote, please?
I'm interested because the British National Library has a huge section on Bibles dating back a long time, and preserved by different cultures. It would be more than interesting to compare texts, there. One Hebrew Bible was outstanding due to its perfect, apparently complete Hebrew, with Hebrew footnotes and artistically mature ornamentations. We are led to believe there were strict rules for the copying of the scriptures, when done by the scribes, but are there any reasons that unofficial copies could be made? Was it against the law? (We know that kings were to make their own.)
Click the link I provided. It's all there. The quote is by a geologist who was apparently told what he wrote. I tend to disagree with what he said regarding the vowels being the same.dragonfly said:
Update: I believe the quote is from this article - [SIZE=x-small]1984 Earthquakes in Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives Landslide. Israel – Land and Nature 9/3: 118-121.[/SIZE]
You referred to the Zek 14 tread in that I was included in your comment. My point was I only commented on one verse.Retrobyter said:
Your summarization of the tread topic was, it is entirely unfulfilled, I disagree.
I agree with most of your dividing the word, where we disagree is in how God has and will deal with the lost nation or unbelieving Jews.
Your reserving or displacement of 3.5 years is nothing new and is not unique as is the full 7 year displacement or the complete fulfillment of the 70th week, all three have supporters. Base camps exist for all three.
What is interesting to me is how different positions effects the understanding of other verses, just as standing at different points around a mountain provides each location a slightly different view of the task at hand. Many people are attempting to summit, somewhere up there, in each of our lives is a cleft in the rocks that leads to the summit.
So please excuse my post it's really not important, as much as we all would like to part of the expedition that summits the truth is we summit alone, by standing on the foundation already laid, or as someone said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of giants." Just be-aware of who's sholders it is your standing on.
Hi HeRoseFromTheDead,
Hi daq,
We seem to be on the same wavelength - on this point, anyway. :)
Romans 5: '... we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope makes not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
There is quite a picture of the difficulty of God conquering the human heart, in the historical account of the taking of Jebus for a special prize to the successful man, which enabled David (the man after God's own heart) to reign from it, thereafter. 1 Chronicles 11:5, 6 on.
Zion means 'parched place', like the heart which Israel presented to God much of the time, (or with which God punished Israel for her idolatries), and it is a (steep) rock, like the heart of man which needs to be exchanged for a heart of flesh. 2 Kings 20:20 was a shadow of the outpouring to come, a long time later in the future.
Hi Rocky Wiley,
I don't have any disagreement with the word of God as it is written, but I do know from experience that the Holy Spirit interprets truth to our spiritual understanding, over and above - or should I say under and beneath - how it reads on the surface of the page. Without taking away from the truth in black and white, the spiritual meaning must be accommodated.
To isolate the word 'generation', from its overall Biblical context, is going to lead to misunderstandings of the New Testament. With Genesis 5:1, Genesis 10:1 and every other mention of descendants, 'generation' is always plural, so that when Matthew begins his gospel, 'the book of the generation of Jesus Christ', (singular) we should note it, because the very mention of 'generation' in that phraseology, implies that He is the father, not the child.
Even though Matthew goes on to describe His physical generation, and to establish His credentials as the Messiah, a spiritual messenger from God, the focus of all the gospels is to show how Jesus Christ was the promised Seed whose successful mission enabled mankind to become eligible to obtain the promised eternal inheritance, not a natural one.
Matthew is, also referring to only one 'generation' - the generation of which Jesus Christ was a part, chronologically, but as a spiritual being, just as we are, His soul was not to be left in 'hell', nor would His body 'see corruption'. These both are physical and spiritual realities. Hebrews 2:13, quoting the Old Testament, is another reason it's unwise (in Matthew 24), to assume 'generation' can have only one meaning. We have to accept that Jesus has spiritual children.
The phrase 'taste of death' v is interesting, because it is the same as the writer of Hebrews uses:
Hebrews 2:9 '... he by the grace of God should taste death for every man'. Here is another instance of when part refers to the whole. In this case, I do believe 'taste death' is a reference to physical death, because of the Hebrews allusion to Christ's physical death, but in John 5:24, when Jesus refers to those who believe in Him as having passed from death to life, He is talking about the spiritual effect of faith, and this also must hold true whether a disciple dies or not. It is a literal promise, and brings us back to other verses such as Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, which is clearly a reference to spiritual brethren, since they were already His natural brethren in the flesh. John 17:17, 18, 19, 20.
I feel as if it's obvious that 'generation' cannot be limited to physical and chronological parameters.
So does Jesus mean that those who do 'taste death', are the ones who will 'see the Son of man coming in his kingdom'? Does it remind you of Stephen? Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
I'm trying to make sense of it, just as you are. It might be a mistake to assume that 'coming in His kingdom' refers to what the disciples continued to ask Him right up until the day He ascended:
Acts 1:3 To whom [His disciples] also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, butwait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Don't you think that this question shows they still had not grasped the difference it would make to have the presence of Christ within them through the Holy Spirit? I (always) want to change their question to, 'Wilt thou at this time restore again Israel to the kingdom', because it is clear that 'the kingdom of God' was already existing, or Jesus would not have been able to proclaim that it was 'nigh', at the beginning of His ministry. Luke 11: '... Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.' (v 2b)
That said, I acknowledge that the word 'see' tends to mean see something physical with one's physical eyes, but again we have to factor one of the later prophetic pronouncements Jesus made to Thomas: John 20:29. Yet we know that John Revelation 1:17 and Paul 'saw' Jesus - but not 'after the flesh'. 2 Corinthians 5:16. Paul states, 'Henceforth know we no man after the flesh'. Is this what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:28?
What did the writer to the Hebrews mean when he said, 'But we see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honour...'? (Who are we, the readers, to dispute the writer's testimony?) Paul says the same thing in 2 Corinthians 3:18. (There is no mirror in that verse in Tyndale's NT, translated from the manuscripts Erasmus used.)
It seems that John almost tip-toes round this matter in his epistle, chapters 3 and 4 particularly, where he states that if we love the brethren, we will know that we dwell in God and God in us. The testimony of God being in us, is our love for the brethren. If we 'see' the love for the brethren (or experience it), then we are seeing God in action through their lives.
1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. [When we love one another (practically), we will 'see' Jesus in the brethren, and they will 'see' Jesus, in us.]
Lastly, there is the other not-so-small matter that Jesus told His disciples that 'the kingdom of God' is within (us who believe). We know that was not possible until after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was finally poured out upon, entered and indwelled believers as Jesus had promised, (later) reminding them of Joel's prophecy, also. Luke 24:49.
John 14:22, 23 - v 22 is important, because it shows there will be a real difference between those who believe and those who do not, (as you indicated). (John 17:21, 23)
With reference to 'the judgment' in Luke 11:31, 32, I believe it is 'the judgment' which comes after physical death, as Hebrews 9:27 states.
So, how do you divide between all these Biblical factors, to settle on just one meaning for 'generation'?
Hi Rex,
I really like this comment!
Actually, I think your post is extremely important and I'm very glad you took the time to express your thoughts in this thread. Thank you. :)
Thank you. :)
Hi daq,
We seem to be on the same wavelength - on this point, anyway. :)
Romans 5: '... we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope makes not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
There is quite a picture of the difficulty of God conquering the human heart, in the historical account of the taking of Jebus for a special prize to the successful man, which enabled David (the man after God's own heart) to reign from it, thereafter. 1 Chronicles 11:5, 6 on.
Zion means 'parched place', like the heart which Israel presented to God much of the time, (or with which God punished Israel for her idolatries), and it is a (steep) rock, like the heart of man which needs to be exchanged for a heart of flesh. 2 Kings 20:20 was a shadow of the outpouring to come, a long time later in the future.
Hi Rocky Wiley,
I don't have any disagreement with the word of God as it is written, but I do know from experience that the Holy Spirit interprets truth to our spiritual understanding, over and above - or should I say under and beneath - how it reads on the surface of the page. Without taking away from the truth in black and white, the spiritual meaning must be accommodated.
To isolate the word 'generation', from its overall Biblical context, is going to lead to misunderstandings of the New Testament. With Genesis 5:1, Genesis 10:1 and every other mention of descendants, 'generation' is always plural, so that when Matthew begins his gospel, 'the book of the generation of Jesus Christ', (singular) we should note it, because the very mention of 'generation' in that phraseology, implies that He is the father, not the child.
Even though Matthew goes on to describe His physical generation, and to establish His credentials as the Messiah, a spiritual messenger from God, the focus of all the gospels is to show how Jesus Christ was the promised Seed whose successful mission enabled mankind to become eligible to obtain the promised eternal inheritance, not a natural one.
Matthew is, also referring to only one 'generation' - the generation of which Jesus Christ was a part, chronologically, but as a spiritual being, just as we are, His soul was not to be left in 'hell', nor would His body 'see corruption'. These both are physical and spiritual realities. Hebrews 2:13, quoting the Old Testament, is another reason it's unwise (in Matthew 24), to assume 'generation' can have only one meaning. We have to accept that Jesus has spiritual children.
The phrase 'taste of death' v is interesting, because it is the same as the writer of Hebrews uses:
Hebrews 2:9 '... he by the grace of God should taste death for every man'. Here is another instance of when part refers to the whole. In this case, I do believe 'taste death' is a reference to physical death, because of the Hebrews allusion to Christ's physical death, but in John 5:24, when Jesus refers to those who believe in Him as having passed from death to life, He is talking about the spiritual effect of faith, and this also must hold true whether a disciple dies or not. It is a literal promise, and brings us back to other verses such as Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, which is clearly a reference to spiritual brethren, since they were already His natural brethren in the flesh. John 17:17, 18, 19, 20.
I feel as if it's obvious that 'generation' cannot be limited to physical and chronological parameters.
So does Jesus mean that those who do 'taste death', are the ones who will 'see the Son of man coming in his kingdom'? Does it remind you of Stephen? Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
I'm trying to make sense of it, just as you are. It might be a mistake to assume that 'coming in His kingdom' refers to what the disciples continued to ask Him right up until the day He ascended:
Acts 1:3 To whom [His disciples] also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, butwait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Don't you think that this question shows they still had not grasped the difference it would make to have the presence of Christ within them through the Holy Spirit? I (always) want to change their question to, 'Wilt thou at this time restore again Israel to the kingdom', because it is clear that 'the kingdom of God' was already existing, or Jesus would not have been able to proclaim that it was 'nigh', at the beginning of His ministry. Luke 11: '... Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.' (v 2b)
That said, I acknowledge that the word 'see' tends to mean see something physical with one's physical eyes, but again we have to factor one of the later prophetic pronouncements Jesus made to Thomas: John 20:29. Yet we know that John Revelation 1:17 and Paul 'saw' Jesus - but not 'after the flesh'. 2 Corinthians 5:16. Paul states, 'Henceforth know we no man after the flesh'. Is this what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:28?
What did the writer to the Hebrews mean when he said, 'But we see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honour...'? (Who are we, the readers, to dispute the writer's testimony?) Paul says the same thing in 2 Corinthians 3:18. (There is no mirror in that verse in Tyndale's NT, translated from the manuscripts Erasmus used.)
It seems that John almost tip-toes round this matter in his epistle, chapters 3 and 4 particularly, where he states that if we love the brethren, we will know that we dwell in God and God in us. The testimony of God being in us, is our love for the brethren. If we 'see' the love for the brethren (or experience it), then we are seeing God in action through their lives.
1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. [When we love one another (practically), we will 'see' Jesus in the brethren, and they will 'see' Jesus, in us.]
Lastly, there is the other not-so-small matter that Jesus told His disciples that 'the kingdom of God' is within (us who believe). We know that was not possible until after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was finally poured out upon, entered and indwelled believers as Jesus had promised, (later) reminding them of Joel's prophecy, also. Luke 24:49.
John 14:22, 23 - v 22 is important, because it shows there will be a real difference between those who believe and those who do not, (as you indicated). (John 17:21, 23)
With reference to 'the judgment' in Luke 11:31, 32, I believe it is 'the judgment' which comes after physical death, as Hebrews 9:27 states.
So, how do you divide between all these Biblical factors, to settle on just one meaning for 'generation'?
Hi Rex,
I really like this comment!
I don't really have anything to say, except BRAVO!! Another lateral thinker who has a three-dimensional 'view' of the task in hand.
Actually, I think your post is extremely important and I'm very glad you took the time to express your thoughts in this thread. Thank you. :)
Thanks DF
Base camps have many different names Baptist, Catholic, Charismatic, Pre, post and mid trib we all start some where.
Those who summit know you must leave base-camp. Stand at the cross roads and look, Ask for the ancient path
Jer 6:16
Base camps have many different names Baptist, Catholic, Charismatic, Pre, post and mid trib we all start some where.
Those who summit know you must leave base-camp. Stand at the cross roads and look, Ask for the ancient path
Jer 6:16
I had not thought of this before, although to some extent it's what I meant in my OP, without having been able to articulate it.
It frequently seems that 'believers' receive an idea/doctrine second-hand at best, and then - whether through a dearth of Bible knowledge, or of accepting the conviction of the proclaimer of possible interpretations, (or both) - they don't seem to have any tools for testing the doctrine.
One of the most classic, current, misinterpretations imho which has been touched upon in this thread, is that of Isaiah 59:20. I simply have no idea why, when it was prophesied so many hundreds of years before Christ, some people don't see Christ's first coming as the fulfilment of it.
Please, I am not wishing to start a discussion about this particular point. It just happens to be one which I have dug over so thoroughly, that I am 100% sure that it does prophesy Christ's first coming.
Similar threads
