What Time Is It?

JD, before we go too deep, I will correct your assumption: I do in fact believe in literal thrones, since this is what the Bible teaches, no more explicitly than in Eph 2:6. However, the same passage does not allow for any other type of throne than a heavenly one — so I’m not sure why your definition of “literal” throne must contradict the Biblical designation of heavenly thrones? Why exactly cannot heavenly thrones be literal? If the Bible is emphatic that the earthly forms are a shadow of the heavenly (Heb. 8:5), then surely we should take heavenly forms more seriously, if we want to be faithfully Biblical.

I keep emphasizing, folks need to re-read Hebrews. Much gold there!

 

JoJ,

First, you are incorrect, what you have been discussing is precisely etymology. There is almost always a brief etymological study in any academic paper on the parousia (here's an example) or any other specific Biblical question; and it not only examines historical meanings, but also Biblical usage. That, my friend, is what you have been talking about, and that, my friend, is etymology!

And let's continue the discussion.

The word "parousia" isn't the only word uses when describing the "coming" of Christ. Look at Mark 14:62, for instance (erchomenon). More importantly, look at Daniel 7:13, the Greek word in the Septuagint is ephtasen, from phthano.

These are all very similar words with slight nuances in their meanings. I don't know why you won't be convinced that parousia carries with it the sense of "presence", but that's fine -- this etymological consideration, though a helpful tidbit, doesn't have much bearing on what we're discussing. In fact, I disagree that scripture is interpreted by "the meaning of the individual words" purely -- otherwise we'd have to literally eat Jesus' body and literally drink his blood, for just one example. A lot of intended meanings would go out the window.

No. In fact, scripture must interpret scripture, especially when it comes to prophetic eschatology. So as I've said elsewhere, the "coming of the Son of Man" motif in the gospels always has its reference in its original usage in Daniel 7:13-14, and this "coming" is explicitly a heavenly one -- though the word used is neither "parousia", nor "erchomenon", but "ephtasen". As you can see, the Biblical writers didn't think much either way of any of these words.

However, the image is crystal clear: Daniel sees the coming of the Son of Man coming on the clouds "in/of heaven", and the Son of Man is brought before God and led into his presence, then given dominion, glory, and kingship.

"In/of heaven". This happens in heaven. There is no way to change or twist these words.

God bless

 

JoJ,

Justin Martyr himself notes that there many who did not believe in or teach chiliasm in Chp. 80 of his Dialogue with Trypho.

One has to search outside the Biblical canon to find concordance with chiliasm; whether it's the sexta-septamillenial concept in Barnabas that goes back to the Enoch writings (associated with premillenialism), or the quintamillenial construct found in Nicodemus going back to the "Book of Adam & Eve" (associated with postmillenialism).

You'll find many other such appeals to extra-Biblical writings by the chiliasts both early and late.

For my part, I believe the final say on this is in 2 Peter 3. Not only does he put his foot down on the meaning of "thousand years"; but he also puts his foot down on the meaning of the destruction of "heavens and earth", showing that the Flood was a destruction not just of the earth, but of the heavens, and that it was a type of the destruction which he imminently expected to come over Jerusalem. In both cases, he is pointing to something beyond a literal interpretation -- though, I feel I must emphasize for you, by no means merely empty symbols or figures.

Most importantly, in speaking of the thousand years as a day, he was admonishing people that God would not be slow to fulfill his promise. The takeaway here is that Peter was speaking to folks who believed they were living in the thousand years, as one who affirmed this belief -- but just as he adjusts their expectations re: "heaven and earth" in the previous passages, he also adjusts their expectations re: the thousand years. He's saying: No, we're not going to wait an entire literal thousand years. The Lord is not that slow, but he's giving everyone time for repentance. But the prophesized destruction is coming, and will come upon our generation, as our Lord taught through his Apostles (2 Peter 3:2 -- he is referencing the Olivet Discourse) -- his word won't fail, therefore the thousand years are not literal. That is the plain sense behind this entire chapter.

Take it as you will. But if Peter were affirming a literal thousand years, then he was wrong and therefore a false prophet, since more than two thousand years have since past.

 

Two Wings, you misunderstood me. I didn’t say 2 Pt. 3 “decodes” Daniel — I agree Daniel interprets himself and the timeline is clear (490 years from the decree) — I said Peter is explaining John’s “thousand years” in Revelation, authoritatively at that. Peter was the chief of apostles and had final say on these matters, as in Acts 15.

 

Um, totally wrong. Justin Martyr actually said the exact opposite:

"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." (Logos Virtual Library: Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, 80)

So, since you are unreliable as to original sources, why should we trust you?

This is a tired old argument. No, Peter does not disprove the millennial reign of Christ in 2 Peter, and he was not talking about the millennium. My son is a genuine published Petrine scholar (dissertation on Peter), but I don't even have to ask him about this one. Peter is speaking figuratively, yes, but behind his metaphorical language there must be a real meaning of 1000 years, or his figure of speech has no meaning. But as Two Wings ably pointed out, Peter was simply depicting God as existing outside of our space-time continuum, His creation. He was not prophesying anything about the coming or reign of Christ with that figure of speech, except to say, "Keep waiting, because Christ will surely come!"

This is really mixed up. I don't know what you are trying to say. What in the world are the 2000 years you speak of? At any rate, Peter must have meant a literal 1000 years to one day comparison, or his figure of speech is useless. I don't know any premillennial scholar who believes that Peter was talking about the millennial reign of Christ there. (I teach eschatology in our seminary, and thus have read extensively on the matter as part of my job.)

 

JoJ,

I’m disappointed with your disingenuousness. I was not wrong about the 80th chapter of Dialogue with Trypho. Justin Martyr does say there are many who are not chiliasts. Don’t misrepresent him. He obviously doesn’t affirm them, and says there are many who agree with him as a chiliast. I never claimed he agreed with those who weren’t chiliasts, simply that he affirmed there were many, in order to counter your incorrect claim that there were but few.

I’m beginning to doubt your sincerity when you make such a bold and dishonest assertion just to discredit a guy on a message board. Similarly, the effort it takes to drop in “um” indicates you are hoping to convey some superiority and sarcasm.

At any rate, seeing as you haven’t met my arguments head on, but simply reverted to mockish slang and a sly ad hominem attack, I can see that perhaps I’ve stated my case for a scoffer and perhaps wasted my time. At any rate, you’ve left me with nothing to respond to since your closing argument is an appeal to men whom you hold to be some authority, though they are not here to defend your position for you, neither have you identified them (aside from your son — congratulations by the way, that’s great).

Anyway, I can take a hint. You’re finished with the conversation. Forgive me if I’ve embarrassed you. I forgive you for insulting me.

 

I'm very sorry that you were offended. I certainly did not mean to offend you. But I'm perplexed that the simple word "Um" said so much to you--that I was sarcastic, that I meant to insult you, etc. Reading back, I can't see any sarcasm there--but since you did, I apologize.

How was I disingenuous? That word means you think I was deceptive. How did I seek to deceive?

I did not see in Justin Martyr what you did. If it is there, please quote it. If not, I stand by what I wrote. And this is a debate board, actually, so I'm allowed to disagree with you.

How was I dishonest? You are accusing me of being a liar. What was my lie? Please tell me so I can avoid it in the future. I can't find a lie in anything I wrote.

I think I honestly answered you. Please show me where I did not. And I presented arguments that you have yet to respond to, such as my point that the norm in churches for the first three centuries was literal exegesis until Origen, something you have not rebutted. Please go back and look. I answered several of your points.

Thank you. My son and I have the great privilege and joy of teaching together in college and seminary. We even get to team teach two classes together, one of which is the seminary class on "Translation Issues in Hebrew and Greek." He teaches the Hebrew and I teach the Greek. (We both are linguists who teach the original languages of the Bible.)

I wasn't embarrassed at all.

Got to run home. (I'm in my office after the service.) My wife has the stomach flu.

 

Hi again Stephen Green. I am not sure how you get to heavenly thrones for the 12 apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ after we have the entire Old Testament defining the throne and kingship of the Messiah of Israel, who is Jesus Christ.

Check this out.

Jer 3:17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

Mic 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, [that] the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
Mic 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Now we know the apostles of this dispensation will be there and will sit on thrones judging them. This is either not true or it is still in the future because it has not happened yet. Who will believe it?

Concerning Hebrews, it is a letter written to the Hebrews. If it has truth in it that pertains to gentiles it is because it is a truth that is universally true. Gentiles, in the time period of the application of the epistle, were not being instructed from this letter. If there is something for us to obey in it's pages then it will also be in the pages of the 13 letters of Paul, all of which is written to gentiles while the Hebrews still occupied their land before 70 AD. (For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Ro 15:18)

It is important to note that this generation of Israel had the same probationary time line as did Moses and Israel in the wilderness, 40 years. Those who had refused to enter into the rest of God under Moses were the type who refused to enter salvation rest under Jesus. At the end of that time all the rebels were dead. It was 40 years from the resurrection of Jesus Christ until Judah was purged out of her land, losing her national identity, and buried in the nations of the world, and cut off from her covenants. This is the warnings letter written to the Hebrews that was sent to them shortly before the end.

Here is an excerpt concerning the end.

Heb 3:5 And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in [their] heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

1 Let us (Hebrews) therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] (at the end of the world = age) of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh [day] on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this [place] again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
(the warning for these Hebrews is they must not go back to the weak and beggarly elements of the law of Moses, which is their own works)
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

I remind you that time stops for someone who is dead and Judah will be nationally dead and buried very soon after this letter is delivered to them.Time will begin again when they are resurrected. We have prophesies in the OT of their resurrection nationally and how it occurs. Understand that during this present age, beginning at 70 AD, God forms a bride for his son after the type of his opening up the side of the sleeping Adam way back in Genesis and creating Eve and then presenting her as his wife. We know from progressive revelation as we wander through time that Rebekah, another type of the church of Jesus Christ, and the bride of Isaac, the promised seed, that she is a gentile bride. All the prominent men in the OT who married gentile wives are types of the real thing. (example = Boaz and Ruth) They are figures of the true. Nothing from 70 AD is a matter of OT word prophecy of the OT and all the truths of this age are hidden in OT types and figures that must be understood after they are revealed by the Spirit. This is the reason the natural man cannot understand these truths and we have various fanciful interpretations that is complete disbelief in the words of scriptures, as well as context.

Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day (the day of the LORD which is 1000 years long and is a sabbath day) shall there be one LORD (over all the earth), and his name one.

 

Hello again JD!

I will be brief again, forgive me!

Jeremiah’s prophecy refers to the return after the exile, so that was fulfilled long ago. Pre-messianic prophecy.

Micah on the other hand is a Messianic prophecy, and the mountain and Jerusalem he speaks of is the same which Paul speaks of in Hebrews 12 and Galatians 4. It is a spiritual Jerusalem, the same which descends at the end of Revelation.

I suppose it is worth mentioning, I was born Jewish, I grew up reading the Bible in Hebrew. Daniel was not a part of our Bible. But Daniel changes everything, it puts a clear timeline for when Messiah comes and accomplishes all things. It is very difficult for me to accept all these things you’re saying, because if so many of the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament are yet to be fulfilled, then Jesus could not have possibly been Messiah. The Prophecies demand immediate fulfillment within the generation of his first coming. I do not see how any other meaning can be taken from prophecy, it just seems to plain, especially in Daniel.

Jesus is of course the Messiah. I am simply flummoxed by all these contradictory claims that he did not fulfill Messianic expectation in the 1st century. If he hadn’t, Jews wouldn’t have followed him.

look forward to talking more!

 

Two Wings,

Your theory is still good, the religious sects of Jesus’ time were certainly familiar with Daniel, and other books like Enoch which the Apostles quote in the Bible.

Jewish biblical Canon wasn’t really concrete until around the same time Church Biblical canon happened. Many assume Daniel wasn’t included in Jewish Bible because it points to Jesus — the Talmud doesn’t even call Daniel a Prophet.

Nowadays, we don’t all memorize the Bible by 13. I certainly didn’t! Maybe in the ultra Orthodox communities, but not in liberal Reformed communities like mine!

 

I'm afraid we are at final exam times in our 9 week block, and very busy; plus, we're not real big on numerology. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Etymology does not include the standard of Biblical usage. I am a linguist, but you don't appear to believe me, so here is an authoritative linguistic definition: "The study of the historical relation between a word and the earlier form or forms from which it has, or has hypothetically, developed" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 128). On the same page is a definition of the etymological fallacy, which is, "The notion that the the 'true' meaning of a word is the one to be expected from its etymology."

So, linguists do not determine the meaning of a word from its etymology, but from its contemporary usage, meaning how it is used at the time of the reference. If you will look back, this is exactly what I said in my previous post.

These other words are irrelevant to the meaning of parousia, which in the NT always refers to a physical coming or presence--and no, I have not denied that it can mean presence, but only that it must mean physical presence, not "spiritual."

You are mixing up "metaphor" with literal interpretation--just like the Catholics do with transubstantiation.

Daniel's prophecy fits perfectly in premillennialism. Jesus went in a cloud to Heaven at His ascension (Acts 1:8-11). The angels said that He would come back the same way. In Heaven, the Father turned over the Davidic Kingdom to Him, and He will come to claim it at His Second Coming in power and glory, which will also be in the clouds (Matthew 24:30, 26:64, etc.)

 

Thanks! I'm worried about some of my students.

God invented meaning in numbers, that is true. The numbers 12 and 40, etc., have meaning. However one thing my son and I do not do is assign numbers to letters to get prophecy. One reason for that is that in Bible times, there was no standard spelling, so sometimes in the original languages there is more than one way to spell a word.