- This topic has 302 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Examining the doctrine of Parousia
For a better understanding of the scriptural data on the Parousia, it is well to begin by considering the general questions of the terminology, the meaning of the doctrine, and the time of the Parousia, particularly as presented in the writings of St. Paul. The doctrine as contained in the individual books of the NT is then examined, and the solution of the problem of the delay of the Parousia is briefly considered.
Terminology: The term “Parousia” is a transliteration of the Greek word παρουσία. In classical Greek the word had the meaning of “presence” or “arrival.” St. Paul used the word to speak of his own presence among the Corinthians (2 Cor 10.10) and the Philippians (Phil2.12), of the presence of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus among the Corinthians (1 Cor 16.17), of his future arrival at Philippi (Phil 1.26), and of the arrival of Titus at Corinth (2 Cor 7.6–7). In Hellenistic Greek παρουσία had acquired two technical meanings: (1) the public arrival of officials, which was accompanied by appropriate ceremony; and (2) the presence of the gods, manifested in acts of power, or assumed to be an invisible reality in the cult. Before a.d. 51, the approximate date of 1 Thessalonians, the Church borrowed this technical usage to express its doctrine of the presence of the risen Christ to conclude salvation history. After the biblical period, the doctrine came to be known as the Coming (adventus ) or the Second Coming of Christ. The word παρουσία in the sense of the presence of the risen Christ at the conclusion of history is found in 1 Thes 2.19; 3.13; 4.15; 5.23; 2 Thes2.1, 8; Jas 5.7–8; 2 Pt 1.16; 3.4, 12; 1 Jn 2.28. An exceptional usage occurs in 2 Thes 2.9, where παρουσία refers to the presence of “the lawless one,” the Pauline opponent of Christ at the end of history.
The primitive Church understood the Parousia event as the time of God’s final judgment upon all people (1 Thes 1.10). For this reason scriptural authors made use of the term “the day of the Lord” in reference to the Parousia. In the Hebrew Scriptures the day of the lord (Yahweh) is a technical term for God’s saving acts in history. Before the time of Amos, the day of Yahweh was understood as a time of blessings and happiness; but Amos taught that the day of Yahweh was also a time of punishment. The term and its meaning were borrowed by Christian writers, who substituted Christ’s title lord for the name yahweh. Clear examples of the usage of “the day” or “the day of the Lord” to designate the Parousia as the time of the final judgment to be rendered by Christ on humankind are in Rom 2.16; 13.12; 1 Cor 1.8; 3.13;5.5; Eph 4.30; Phil 1.6; 1 Thes 5.2, 4; 2 Thes 1.10; 2.2; 2 Tm 1.12; 4.8; 2 Pt 3.10; Acts 17.31 [see judgment, divine (in the bible)].
In the Pastoral Epistles ἐπιφάνεια (epiphany, manifestation) is the term used for the Parousia (1 Tm 6.14; 2 Tm 4.1, 8; Ti 2.13). Some authors consider ἐπιφάνεια to be synonymous with παρουσία, but this opinion may be questioned. It is certainly not true for 2 Tm 1.10, where ἐπιφάνεια is used of the Incarnation. In 2 Thes 2.8 Paul combines the two terms: “by the manifestation [ἐπιφάνεια] of his coming [παρουσία].” While some scholars consider this phrase to be a pleonasm, i.e., the repetition of the same idea in different terms, it is probable that Paul intends a particular nuance of meaning here (indicated below). Although the word ἐπιφάνεια is employed in classical Greek in the meaning of outward appearance, only in later Greek is it used to mean the visible (not necessarily corporeal) manifestation of a hidden divinity. Finally, the NT designates the παρουσία with the word ἀποκάλυψις (1 Cor 1.7; 2 Thes 1.7; 1 Pt 1.7, 13;4.13). In ordinary Greek ἀποκάλυψις meant the uncovering of something hidden. In the Greek of late Judaism and the Jewish apocalyptic literature, the word meant the revelation of divine secrets.
Meaning of the doctrine. In the NT, Parousia is an eschatological concept, i.e., it expresses faith in a final act of God that is to occur when human history has reached its divinely determined goal. This act of God will usher in a life in which all humanity is completely under the rule of God. The doctrine presupposes the resurrection of the dead (1 Thes 4.16), whose eternal condition and new existence (1 Cor 15.51) are under the direction and dominion of the risen Christ, mysteriously present to effect and to govern the lot of humanity (in His παρουσία). The initial effect of the presence of the risen Christ, with which all humanity will be confronted, is the final judgment rendered by Christ (the day of the Lord). The just are to be “with the Lord” (1 Thes 4.17), while the unjust are to be banished from Him (2 Thes 1.9). Thus the Parousia will make known the significance of Christ for all humanity (ἐπιφάνεια), and at the same time it will disclose God’s design for the eternal destiny of humankind (ἀποκάλυψις). The language in which Paul describes the Parousia event in 1 Thes 4.16–17 and 2 Thes 2.3–10 is taken mainly from Jewish apocalyptic. It is not to be understood as a literal historical description. The NT does not indicate how the presence of the risen Christ is to occur at the end of history or how this presence will be recognized by humankind.
Time of the Parousia. Once the doctrine of the Parousia is presented to faith, the question naturally arises regarding the time when the event is to occur. The teaching of Christ and of St. Paul on the time of the Parousia is one of the most celebrated questions in the field of biblical scholarship. Many scholars have argued that in the teaching of Jesus the Parousia is certainly proximate, i.e., it is to occur within the lifetime of the Twelve or within a single generation. Other scholars have attributed a similar teaching to St. Paul. Some Catholic scholars have believed that Paul was personally convinced of a proximate Parousia, which he himself would live to witness, though he did not actually teach this personal opinion as a certitude of faith. At an opposite extreme are the opinions of those scholars who attempt to prove that there was no thought at all of a proximate Parousia in the Church of early period, and a fortiori in the teaching of Jesus. The early Church anticipated the imminent destruction of the Temple, prophesied by Jesus, and a union with Him through personal death. The Parousia was expected only in the remote future.
In 1 and 2 Thessalonians. The study of early Christian thought on the time of the Parousia has its natural point of departure in the Epistles to the thessalonians, which are certainly among the earliest and probably the earliest of the Pauline Epistles (written c. a.d. 51). These Epistles and 2 Pt 3.3–14 are the only documents in the NT to speak expressly (and not simply by allusion) of the doctrine of the Parousia. In 1 Thes 4.12–18, Paul addresses himself to the question of mourning for the Christian dead in Thessalonica. He considers that some among the Thessalonians are guilty of an undesirable manifestation of grief over their dead (v. 13). His response is to stress (1) the certainty from faith of the resurrection of these dead (v. 14), and (2) the time of their resurrection as an occurrence before the Parousia (v. 16), so that (3) death itself will not place these believers in Christ at a disadvantage when the Parousia occurs (v. 15). Paul’s main doctrinal objective in this passage is quite clear. He wishes to state the chronological relationship between the Parousia and the resurrection of the dead: first the resurrection, then the Parousia. The Thessalonians, therefore, are not justified in understanding the doctrine of the Parousia to imply that death deprives the Christian of the joys to be anticipated from the event itself. Paul concludes his remarks with the observation that the Thessalonians should “comfort one another with these words”(v. 18), i.e., with the doctrine he has presented to them: resurrection first, then the Parousia. Here he envisions the possibility of further deaths among these Christians. On these occasions, the living should remind the bereaved of the doctrine he has here taught.
This concluding advice of Paul was of practical relevance only on the supposition that the Thessalonian Christians made a direct connection between their faith in Christ as Savior and the Parousia of Christ; they considered it undesirable that death should intervene between the time of their conversion to Christ and the Parousia of Christ. This sentiment indicates that they were in anticipation of a proximate Parousia, i.e., the presence of Christ as the concluding event of salvation history within their own lifetimes. In framing his doctrine so as to point up the chronology—resurrection first, then the Parousia—Paul wrote to them exactly in terms of this proximate expectancy: “we who live, who survive until the coming of the Lord” (v. 15). Thereby he included himself in their hope of escaping death because of an early occurrence of the Parousia. Analysis of 1 Thes4.12–18 makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion that both Paul and the Thessalonians had in view a proximate Parousia. The Paul felt bound to write as if the Parousia event were, at the least, a real possibility within the lifetime of the Thessalonians and himself. Further, he ascribed his teaching that the resurrection precedes the Parousia to the “word of the Lord,” i.e., the teaching of Jesus. Mindful as he was of the “word of the Lord,” he did not appeal to it to disabuse the Thessalonians of their expectancy of a proximate Parousia. Instead, he wrote from this very standpoint. This fact suggests that Paul knew of nothing in the teaching of Jesus that required him to fix the Parousia in the distant future.
Parousia in the books of the New Testament. The teaching of St. Paul on the Parousia has been considered above. Other NT literature is here discussed on the basis of the commonly accepted chronology, Mark (a.d. 65–70), Luke (c. 75), Matthew (75–85), 2 Peter (probably 80–100). The Johannine writings and Revelation are discussed separately.
In Mark. Although actual data on the Parousia is slight in Mark’s Gospel, the conception is undeniably present (Mk 8.38; 13.26; 14.62). Its setting in the discourse on the destruction of the Temple (Mk 13.26) has provoked extensive discussion among scholars on the origin of the discourse as a whole and in particular on the authenticity of Mk 13.24–27, a series of verses apocalyptic in style. It is generally agreed that Mark ch. 13 is a composition that incorporates words spoken by Jesus on different occasions into a unit centering on the theme of the destruction of the Temple. All that is said in the discourse on this point is stated to be proximate in time (13.28–31), i.e., it is to occur within the period of the first Christian generation. It is this clear assertion that has produced the question concerning the authenticity of Mk 13.24–27, since these verses can be understood to forecast the occurrence of the Parousia immediately upon the destruction of the Temple…..(taken from Encyclopedia)
Adam…..Jesus was not always talking about the Jews of his time ,that another false assumption on your part, In fact Jesus told his disciples not to go in the way of the Sumerian’s, “were the Jews were” , but go after the “lost sheep of house of Israel,”, that was not referring to the Jew at all, Jesus knew full well the difference between the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel, he did knot want his disciples to waste their time on the Jews anymore, he already witnessed to them, and they rejected him and killed him, he want his disciples to seek out The lost house of Israel which had been taken captive and scattered all around the world , mainly up in Northern Europe , Saxony Germany, and later became known as the “Anglo Saxon’s . That is why he said they would not even have covered all the cities of Israel before he returns. Because True Israel was expanding all over Europe and then the New world , there are probably over a billion true Israelites existing in this world this day, the Jew’s today are just a drop in the bucket, compare to true Israel, even though you have bought into their lie as a true representative of all the Tribes of Israel, they are not , not even close, as you and all will see in the future.
Adam as I told you , those Jews are not telling you the truth about Jesus or themselves either, why would you want to listen to those people who’s forefathers murdered our Lord Jesus, who gave himself on the cross for us all? They are proselytizing you brother , Matt 23:15 read it, this is what is happening to you Adam.
peace and love to you and yours……….gene
Gene
Israel FIRST AND AFTER ALL THE EARTH ….
Acts. 1
[1] The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
[2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
[3] To whom 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, but wait 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?
[7] And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
[8] But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.Adam…..Jesus was not always talking about the Jews of his time ,that another false assumption on your part, In fact Jesus told his disciples not to go in the way of the Sumerian’s, “were the Jews were” , but go after the “lost sheep of house of Israel,”, that was not referring to the Jew at all,
Sorry brother Gene, I have not told any thing about Jews in my post in fact I have mentioned only the (few) towns of Israel available at the time of Jesus to which the disciples were asked to take the message of Jesus before he returns in his kingdom.
Please read my posts clearly and don’t have aversion to Jewish people because Jesus was a Jew too.
ADAM…..I have the same view Jesus , had about them when he was giving them the Gospel of the kingdom of God, which they rejected and turned on him and killed him. I have posted some of it to you Adam already, but Your New view seems to be they have it right, and Jesus is not the true Messiah . That is what I am getting from your posts brother, hope I am wrong I am worried about you Adam.
peace and love to you and yours………gene
ADAM…..I have the same view Jesus , had about them when he was giving them the Gospel of the kingdom of God, which they rejected and turned on him and killed him. I have posted some of it to you Adam already, but Your New view seems to be they have it right, and Jesus is not the true Messiah . That is what I am getting from your posts brother, hope I am wrong I am worried about you Adam.
Hello brother Gene, thank you so much for your love and concern for me. Please don’t worry I am not for Judaism but I am only investigating the concepts of Hebrew Messiah. I still pray to God in Jesus’ name only with my family daily.
I am bringing the arguments against the NT writings because these writings are much deviated from the Hebrew Bible on the concepts of Messiah.
Please read my posts with broad mind you will get the message.
Thanks and peace to you….Adam
..Albert Schweitzer thought, for instance, that Jesus believed himself to be the destined Son of Man, or, more strictly speaking, that he should soon become the Son of Man via a supernatural (Enoch-style) transfiguration at the conclusion of the impending Tribulation. Until then, he refrained from publicly preaching his secret identity, hence his frequent third-person references to the Son of Man. (In the same way, and I don’t think he got it from reading Schweitzer, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon was careful not to refer to himself as the Lord of the Second Advent, that is, until he judged that he had completed the necessary works to justify the title.) Schweitzer pictured Jesus as trying to prepare his disciples to hunker down and endure the coming Trial. One day he sent them out, two by two, to visit village after village, warning people to repent before it was too late and dodging expected persecutors as they went. Jesus thought they would not complete their mission before the Last Trumpet rang out. But here they came, no persecution to report, and Jesus still wearing solid flesh. Then he concluded that the End Times would zero in on him by himself. John had died in mundane, ignominious circumstances, and Jesus decided he, too, must suffer such a death, taking, Atlas-like, the burden of eschatological woe on his drooping shoulders, like a rough cross beam. The Tribulation should be his alone to undergo, suffering and dying in the place of his disciples. Only then should he be transfigured by a resurrection from the dead.
Also, Albert Schweitzer allowed himself a larger database than Ehrman does; Schweitzer did not go in for theories of Synoptic interdependence. He simply decided that Matthew and Mark were substantially accurate sources, while Luke and John were inferior. He rejected the approach of William Wrede (The Messianic Secret) because he could not brook Wrede’s skepticism. Wrede anticipated the method of redaction criticism and read Mark as far from an unvarnished report of Jesus. Instead, Wrede argued, Mark’s gospel was already a pretty sophisticated narrative treatise in theology. This meant that the historical Jesus would be very difficult to detect behind the text. Schweitzer called Wrede’s approach “thoroughgoing skepticism,” necessitating dead-end agnosticism vis-à-vis Jesus. Wouldn’t it be better all around to accept Schweitzer’s alternative, “thoroughgoing eschatology,” the result of his reading of Mark and Matthew as basically accurate? All right, you might not be able to stomach the knowledge of what
Jesus was really all about, but at least you could know. I guess you could sum up the basic difference between Bart’s approach and my own this way: he opts for “consistent eschatology” and I choose “consistent skepticism.” …..(taken from a book by Robert M Price)To all…….In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit and said, “I thank you O Father, Lord of heaven and earth , that you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and “REVEALED ” them unto “BABES”; even so, Father; for it seemed good in your site.
Even so it is to this very day, in my opinion , people look to other people to give them their understanding , but it is God the Father who gives the true believer his or her understanding of what is the truth, Juts as it says, “brothers you have no need of a teacher , for the Spirit itself teaches you all things,
1John 2:27…….“But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that “ANY” man teach you: but as the same “ANOINTING” teaches you of “ALL” THINGS, and is the truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him. “
peace and love to you all and yours………..gene
Was Revelation written about the distant future? December 9, 2013 by Ian Paul (A Christian view)
Both popular and academic readings of Revelation still suffer from a need to find some future supposed reference to various features of the text. This is despite considerable evidence that the text would have made good sense to its first-century readers, and that many would have been able to understand it as a depiction of their own world, albeit in a highly symbolic form.
The development of this ‘futurist’ reading strategy arose from ignorance of the meaning of the text quite quickly into the second century. So (for example) we find Irenaeus (130–202) speculating about the meaning of 666 (Against Heresies 5), discussing textual variants that include 616, but knowing the correct reading from people he knows who knew John’s teaching. And yet he cannot decipher the reference, and speculates it might be ‘Teitan’ or ‘Lateinus.’
With the rise of an interest in the classical world in the late 18th and 19th centuries came the explosion of interest in archaeology and papyrology, which meant that we now know much more about the ancient world than previous generations did, even ones that were quite close in time. This went hand in hand with the growth of historical critical ways of reading the New Testament, and with it the conviction that our interpretation of the NT must start and be shaped by the historical meaning of the texts, that is, what the text meant to the writer and first readers. For most texts, this has led to the displacement of allegorical or speculative readings—seen as just that: speculative—with its historical meaning.
But the one text where this has not happened is the Book of Revelation. Even though futurist readings came about to fill the vacuum left by the absence of historical understanding, Western commentators often simply add back the historical meaning, but retain the futurist reading, so the text now means or refers to two different sets of things. Robert Mounce (who wrote the Eerdmans NIC commentary) explains it like this:
The predictions of John, while expressed in terms reflecting his own culture, will find their final and complete fulfillment in the last days of history. Although John saw the Roman Empire as the great beast that threatened the extinction of the church, there will be in the last days an eschatological beast who will sustain the same relationship with the church of the great tribulation. It is this eschatological beast, portrayed in type by Rome, that the Apocalypse describes…
It seems quite acceptable to believe in the dual fulfilment of biblical prophecy whilst accepting that the Old Testament prophets did not necessarily have the second (main) fulfilment in mind, even though they may have been “trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing.” However the New Testament writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognised the second fulfilment. The same thing applies to New Testament prophecies. The writers made predictions which sometimes referred to 1st century events and did not necessarily have a second major fulfilment in mind. Similarly Jesus made predictions which his hearers may have applied only to 1st century events. But it is clear that some of these predictions do have a second major fulfilment which is still future. We have to be careful, though, in seeking a correct understanding of these predictions.
There is a fascinating move going on here. Because the OT prophetic texts have a ‘second fulfilment’ in the person of Jesus, then NT ‘prophetic’ texts will also have a ‘second fulfilment’ in the timetable of ‘last days’ events. Note that Mounce is not here talking of the kind of partially-realised eschatology we find in Paul, for example in Romans 8, where what we have now is the ‘first fruits’ of what we will experience when Jesus returns. He is talking about historical events referred to (such as the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70) having corresponding historical events in a ‘last days’ calendar. He does not appear to notice that is actually the opposite of what is happening in relation to the OT. The fact that there is a ‘second fulfilment’ in Jesus is because Jesus is the ultimate expression of God and his purposes, and all his promises find their ‘yes’ in him. To say that there is a further series of events that are needed to fulfil the NT is to say that not all God’s promises find their ‘yes’ in Jesus. Futurist eschatological schemes actually undermine the centrality of Jesus in the NT, because they focus the fulfilment of God’s promises in a scheme, rather than in his person.
But more significantly (in relation to Revelation) there is no indication whatever in the text itself that the symbolic action has this kind of ‘double reference.’ There is repeated emphasis on the fact that this is all to happen ‘soon’. The primary genre of the book is of a letter; John is addressing people he knows who live in a particular historical and cultural context, and since the work of Ramsay and Hemer on the seven ‘messages’ in chapters two and three, we have appreciated that Revelation is firmly embedded in its historical and cultural context. And the function of the messages themselves is to root the action in the world of first-century Asia; the visions that follow are not detached from the world they live in, but describe and speak to their world very directly.
At the end of the book, there is a key phrase which reinforces all this:
Then he [the angel] told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.” (Rev 22.10)
What does this verse mean? It cannot be read in isolation from the parallel verse in Daniel 12.4 and 9–10:
But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge….Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
(We can see the allusion to Daniel 12 in Rev 22 by the echo in 22.11 of the phrase from Daniel ‘the wicked will continue to be wicked.’)What does this mean? In Daniel, the stories are set in the sixth century BC, with Daniel in exile in Babylon. But most commentators agree that the stories refer to the Antiochene crisis in 167 BC, when Antiochus IV Epiphanes sacrificed unclean animals in the temple, and event which led to the Maccabean revolt described in 1 and 2 Maccabees. Some scholars would see this as vaticimium ex eventu, a literary device where Daniel appears to foresee what is to come, though the text is actually written in the second century. Others would see it as an ‘authentic’ predictive text, where the second-century BC future was revealed to sixth-century BC Daniel. But either way, the point is that the events being referred to are many years after the setting of the story being told. Hence the words of the vision must be ‘sealed’ (in this case for around 400 years), until they become relevant to the readers.
What does Rev 22.10 then say? The exact opposite. The words of John’s vision report must not be sealed; the events being referred to are not many years after the setting in which John is writing. The beast of Rev 13 is not some future, eschatological figure who will come many centuries hence, but (in the form of Roman Imperial power) is already demonstrating his strength.
Of course, this is not to say that Revelation lacks relevance for us. In fact, I believe that our failure to read and engage with this text has significantly weakened the Western church in its task of engaging with current, imperialistic, ideological forces in our world. But in the first instance we need to read this they way we read other NT letters—by understanding it in its context, and then looking for corresponding parallels in our own world. In fact, Revelation invites us to do this, but offering a distinction between the local significance of some of the things it symbolises, and cosmic significance of others.
So in Revelation 12.9, the dragon has attached to it the cosmic and primeval descriptors of ‘that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan’. By contrast, the depictions of the beast from the sea and the beast from the land appear to have very specific descriptors, which has led most contemporary commentators to see them as respectively symbolising Roman Imperial power (coming to Asia across the Aegean) and the local structures of power through which Rome exercised control.
Just as we are challenged by e.g. 1 Corinthians 8–10 to ask, where are the issues in our churches which separate rich from poor and lead to exclusion, so in Revelation 12 we are challenged to ask, where do we find systems of power and ideology which trampled the saints, are obsessed with appearance and image, seek to gain financial control, and elevate themselves to the place that only God deserves?
What we are not asked to do is to find the second, futurist,’fulfilment’ of this text—because John did not intend one, and his readers did not need one.
Adam…..John was transported in “TIME” to the “day of the lord”, in fact to the lasts days of the thousand year rule, of Jesus and the Saint’s, so from that prospective the time would be “SHORT”, things would shortly come to pass. That’s the part people are not realizing, he was prophesying from the prospective of being, “in” the latter part of the day of the lord , at the end time of the Sixth kingdom, the ruling of the Messiah Jesus Christ and the Saint’s .
Without , that understanding it is impossible to understand the book of revelations, or for that matter, Daniel 2 .Rev 17, explains the “timeline” , for people who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
peace and love to you and yours Adam……….gene
Adam…..John was transported in “TIME” to the “day of the lord”, in fact to the lasts days of the thousand year rule, of Jesus and the Saint’s, so from that prospective the time would be “SHORT”, things would shortly come to pass. That’s the part people are not realizing, he was prophesying from the prospective of being, “in” the latter part of the day of the lord , at the end time of the Sixth kingdom, the ruling of the Messiah Jesus Christ and the Saint’s .
Without , that understanding it is impossible to understand the book of revelations, or for that matter, Daniel 2 .Rev 17, explains the “timeline” , for people who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Hi brother Gene, thanks for your reply to my post on Revelation. I am sorry there is nothing like the ‘Day of the Lord’ is seen as the Thousand Year rule as you quoted above. I think no such new interpretation appeared in Christianity. I have already quoted earlier on the interpretation of Rev 17 in my posts. Your interpretations are much different from most of the Christian interpretations on Revelation.
Yes the book clearly states that the events will take place shortly;
John writes about “the things which must soon take place” (Rev. 1:1). He also speaks of these events being “near” (Rev. 1:3) and as per Rev 22:6
And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true, for the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”
I don’t think these events described in this book were meant for the distant future.
HISTORICAL AND LITERARY STUDY OF REVELATION
Most futuristic scenarios give the sense that the end could come very soon, yet they avoid the pitfall of predicting the actual date of Christ’s return. A notable exception was radio broadcaster Harold Camping, who used a complex series of calculations to determine that the rapture would occur on May 21, 2011, and that the world would end five months later on October 21. His organization launched an extensive publicity campaign with billboards urging people to “Save the Date” of May 21 for Christ’s return. When the day passed without incident, he insisted that October 21 would be the day. Predictably that prediction also failed. The most resilient forms of futuristic speculation refrain from setting specific dates. They simply suggest that the end could come at any time, while leaving plenty of room to adjust the scenarios to fit current events.
Recent scholarly study interprets Revelation very differently from the futuristic approaches described above. A good way to show the difference is to look at the way that the book introduces itself. Futuristic interpreters tend to read Revelation as if it begins, “John, to the Christians in North America, who
live in the twenty-first century,” assuming that Revelation is primarily a book for those living at the end of time. Most scholars today, however, note that Revelation begins, “John, to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4). To take this statement literally means that Revelation is a book for its own time, and that it was written to communicate with Christian congregations in first-century Asia Minor (modern-day
Turkey). If futuristic interpreters assume that Revelation’s message will become clearer as the final days approach, most scholars take the opposite view. Assuming that Revelation’s message would have been clearest to those who lived in John’s own time, they search for clues to understanding the book not
by combing recent headlines or news broadcasts but by studying the language and literature of the ancient world ….(taken from the book “Revelation and the End of All Things” by Craig R. Koester)Adam……Rev 1;10…..I was in the (Spirit) “on the lords day”……..
“on”, the lords day , is the same as saying “in”, the day of the lord, right?
Rev 4;8…..And the four beasts had each of the six wings about him: and they were full of eyes within; and they rested not day or night, saying Holy holy, holy, Lord God Almighty , which was, and is, and is TO COME.
THAT is speaking of the return of Almighty GOD, WHICH takes place after the end of Jesus rule on this earth for a thousand years with the Saint’s. John was transported by the “SPIRIT” to that point in time.
It’s not understanding the “TIMELINE” or point in time , that throughs everyone off. That is exactly why it says in Rev 17, this is the mind that has wisdom. You mustcgetcthectimeline right or you simply can never understand the book of Revelations, neither the word , which, “must “shortly” come to pass”.
peace and love to you and yours Adam. ………gene
THAT is speaking of the return of Almighty GOD, WHICH takes place after the end of Jesus rule on this earth for a thousand years with the Saint’s. John was transported by the “SPIRIT” to that point in time.
It’s not understanding the “TIMELINE” or point in time , that throughs everyone off. That is exactly why it says in Rev 17, this is the mind that has wisdom. You mustcgetcthectimeline right or you simply can never understand the book of Revelations, neither the word , which, “must “shortly” come to pass”.
Hi brother Gene, thanks for your reply on my post. I don’t know exactly what you are talking here. Rev 4:8 is about heavenly vision of the one who is sitting on the throne and the four living creatures worshipping the God Almighty who was and is and is to come. It doesn’t infer any timeline here.
Please read my post clearly you will understand the meaning of words “must soon take place”
Rev 22:6
And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true, for the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”
I don’t think this “soon” is for distant future as many Christians believe.
Adam………..Can’t you see where John said in Rev 1;10, I was in the SPIRIT “ON” THE Lords day?
That means he was Spiritually transported in time, to the day of Jesus Christ’s kingdom, that is the lords day, so you have to pick up the timeline , from that time point, and if you do then you would understand the saying “for the time is at hand”, Get it? So it was not meaning at the time when Jesus was hear first.
peace and love to you and yours………..gene
Adam………..Can’t you see where John said in Rev 1;10, I was in the SPIRIT “ON” THE Lords day?
That means he was Spiritually transported in time, to the day of Jesus Christ’s kingdom, that is the lords day, so you have to pick up the timeline , from that time point, and if you do then you would understand the saying “for the time is at hand”, Get it? So it was not meaning at the time when Jesus was hear first.
Hi brother Gene, sorry no Christian will agree with your strange comparison of Rev 1:10 Lord’s day with Thousand Year-Day of the Lord. I can not agree with your logics on this strange timeline of Revelation.
Adam……what do you think it means , “I was in the Spirit on the Lords day”?
It sure is soon if your in that period of time. Of those things coming to pass. We know that it hasn’t happened yet , now has it ? So the only way it could be “soon” if it , were at that time period, it was relating to. That only proves that John was indeed transported in time to the day of the lord.
peace and love to you and yours ………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
