I Cor..7:29 - "the time is short" (written in late 50's). folks, 2000 years is not "short". Such a view flies in the face of original audience relevance, the most critical of interpretive rules. Let's open this can of worms up. I say we take these statements at face value in their original context and adjust everything else accordingly. If that is not acceptable, then the burden is on you to explain how 2000 years and running could be considered "short". And please don't quote II Peter 3:8 - that was simply a metaphor for God's longsuffering, not justification for saying "the time is short" could be stretched to thousands of years.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"the time is short"
- Thread starter Gerad
- Start date
James_Newman
New Member
Gerad, the problem is exactly what you said.
Your suggesting that we sacrifice the literal interpretation of 'everything else' in order to hold to a 'literal' interpretation of a relative time statement that is questionable at best.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Hmmph. 2000 years IS short, literally short. After all, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Relative time statement? Yes and no. Relative to the ORIGINAL AUDIENCE. That's where we start. We have no right to determine what a verse means to us until we first determine what it meant to the original audience. What did "the time is short" mean to the Corinthian believers whom Paul wrote to?? What did "this generation" mean to the disciples? What did "the coming of the Lord draws near" mean to the ones James wrote to??
There is no indication whatsoever that those statements are to be viewed in some fuzzy, can't nail-it-down, allegorical manner. Further, Jesus directly taught that "the end of the age" was synonomous with the Temple's destruction, i.e., the end of the Old Covenant age. So we have definite parameters for "the last days", which were fulfilled between the first coming of Christ and the Second coming of Christ, which happened in 70 A.D. Jesus directly linked his coming to the "burning up of their city" (Matt.22:7, also Matt.21:33-40 - the Lord "comes" and destroys the ones who "killed the Son" by "burning up their city" - very plain).
There is no indication whatsoever that those statements are to be viewed in some fuzzy, can't nail-it-down, allegorical manner. Further, Jesus directly taught that "the end of the age" was synonomous with the Temple's destruction, i.e., the end of the Old Covenant age. So we have definite parameters for "the last days", which were fulfilled between the first coming of Christ and the Second coming of Christ, which happened in 70 A.D. Jesus directly linked his coming to the "burning up of their city" (Matt.22:7, also Matt.21:33-40 - the Lord "comes" and destroys the ones who "killed the Son" by "burning up their city" - very plain).
The problem with your view, webdog, is that those same time statements indicated a very short time relative to the original audience in other places throughout the New Testament. We must remain consistent. That's hermeneutics 101. Your view is anything goes. Futurism has literally been anything goes for the last 2000 years. The cat is out of the bag on Bible prophecy. The second reformation is here.
James_Newman
New Member
So now you have to spiritualize everything else in the bible.
2 Peter 3:10
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Revelation 1:7
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
My view is not "anything goes". If all words are inspired by God, then when the Bible says "time is short", it means just that. God is saying it. Our finite minds cannot grasp what the true meaning of that is, and we can try to intellectually decipher that til we are blue in the face. Which generation has not believed that the time was short?
Please explain the BOLDED portion of your statement!
DeafPosttrib
New Member
Ahhhhh!
Gerad,
You're a full-preterist. I strong disagree with you.
My question for you, suppose all prophecies in the Bible are already fulfilled in 70 A.D.
Then, where is Jesus Christ right now? Is the world perfect already? Are the wicked already destroyed yet? And more questions......
Full preterism deny future literal and physical coming of Jesus Christ according as what Bible actual teaching us.
I am sure that you might always use Matthew chapter 24 to debate with us about 70 A.D. I would be happy to discuss with on Matthew chapter 24 if you want to.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Gerad,
You're a full-preterist. I strong disagree with you.
My question for you, suppose all prophecies in the Bible are already fulfilled in 70 A.D.
Then, where is Jesus Christ right now? Is the world perfect already? Are the wicked already destroyed yet? And more questions......
Full preterism deny future literal and physical coming of Jesus Christ according as what Bible actual teaching us.
I am sure that you might always use Matthew chapter 24 to debate with us about 70 A.D. I would be happy to discuss with on Matthew chapter 24 if you want to.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Isn't it funny that a full preterist would call the view of futurist allegorical. For the full preterist must deny the literal return of Jesus, which they say happened in AD 70, but no one saw. They have to deny the literal physical resurrection of the saints of God, which they say happened in AD 70, which again nobody saw. They have to completely spiritualize and allegorize the Book of Revelation, especially since they believe we are in the new heaven and new earth, which are described as a place of "no more suffering, no more pain, no more sin and no more death" . Doesn't sound like the world we live in.
The preterist holds to one thing and builds their cases on that---time relevance---and even that is subjective.
Bro Tony
The preterist holds to one thing and builds their cases on that---time relevance---and even that is subjective.
Bro Tony
James_Newman
New Member
The bible says you will know teachers by their fruit. What is the fruit of the preterist view? Take a look at one early preterist, John Humphrey Noyes.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Cities/oneida.html
Bluefalcon
Member
The time is short, meaning that Christ's return is imminent, meaning that nothing else has to be done before Christ returns. The Day of the Lord was, figuratively speaking, moving toward the precipice of consummation since the beginning of time, but since the NT era it has been moving alongside this precipice, needing only the fraction of movement to put it over the edge. In this sense the time truly is short.
Cheers, Bluefalcon
Cheers, Bluefalcon
DeafPosttrib
New Member
Gerad,
Please show us of any evidence of history information from any sites, books, etc. telling, is there a single record that a person sees Jesus Christ comes with angels in the sky back in year 70 A.D.?
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Please show us of any evidence of history information from any sites, books, etc. telling, is there a single record that a person sees Jesus Christ comes with angels in the sky back in year 70 A.D.?
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Going back to 1 Cor. 7:29, I think, with all due respect, that all of you are missing the point of this passage. This is in the middle of the section on marriage and whether to marry or not. Why would Paul put it THERE? Because the time of the writing of the letter (about 55 A.D.) Nero had just ascended to the throne. Whether it was by the pure inspiration of the Holy Spirit or that combined with his basic knowledge of the political situation where that young emperor was concerned, Paul was warning the church at Corinth that any time of peace would be short, as indeed it was. Nero's persecution of the Christians became one of the hallmarks of his reign.
And indeed, the world in the form the Corinthians knew it was rapidly passing away. It is very important to understand things in context.
And indeed, the world in the form the Corinthians knew it was rapidly passing away. It is very important to understand things in context.
This flies in the face of the dispie view which says modern Israel was a fulfillment of prophecy and had to occur BEFORE Jesus returned. Thus, until 1948 His coming was not imminent. Therefore “the time is short” is not indicating imminence.
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things has drawn near. Therefore be of sound mind, and be sensible to prayers.
Jam 5:7 Therefore be patient, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth and has long patience for it, until he receives the early and the latter rain.
Jam 5:8 You also be patient, establish your hearts, for the coming of your Lord draws near .
Perhaps we agree with others who understand the Hebrew idioms and the OT usage of these terms.
John Lightfoot (1859)
"That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deut. 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.' Jer. 4:23; 'I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light,' &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isa. 65:17; 'Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered,' &c. And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Cor. 5:17, &c. (vol. 2, pp. 18-19)
"With the same reference it is, that the times and state of things immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem are called 'a new creation,' new heavens,' and 'a new earth.' When should that be? Read the whole chapter; and you will find the Jews rejected and cut off; and from that time is that new creation of the evangelical world among the Gentiles.
Compare 2 Cor. 5:17 and Rev. 21:1,2; where, the old Jerusalem being cut off and destroyed, a new one succeeds; and new heavens and a new earth are created.
2 Peter 3:13: 'We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth.' The heaven and the earth of the Jewish church and commonwealth must be all on fire, and the Mosaic elements burnt up; but we, according to the promise made to us by Isaiah the prophet, when all these are consumed, look for the new creation of the evangelical state" (vol. 3, p.453)
"That the destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state is described as if the whole frame of the world were to be dissolved. Nor is it strange, when God destroyed his habitation and city, places once so dear to him, with so direful and sad an overthrow; his own people, whom he accounted of as much or more than the whole world beside, by so dreadful and amazing plagues. Matt. 24:29,30, 'The sun shall be darkened &c. Then shall appear the 'sign of the Son of man,' &c; which yet are said to fall out within that generation, ver. 34. 2 Pet. 3:10, 'The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,' &c. Compare with this Deut. 32:22, Heb. 12:26: and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal 4:9, Coloss. 2:20: and you will not doubt that St. Peter speaks only of the conflagration of Jerusalem, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses" (vol. 3, p. 452).
John Owen (1721)
'It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.
' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state
'First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly." (Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11, Works, folio, 1721.).
C.H. Spurgeon (1865)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).
In other words it is meaningless to us. God chose not to communicate with us in terms we could understand. Is it just time statements that are unknowable or are there other themes in the NT God chooses to baffle us with and are not understandable?
FundamentalDan
New Member
Hey, Gerad,
Jesus did not destroy Titus when he destroyed the temple. Rather, he continued on his destructive rampages for years. If AD 70 was the coming again of Christ, then He must have failed miserably at destroying His enemies. I choose not to believe that my Lord failed to do what He has been prophesied that He will do.
Jesus did not destroy Titus when he destroyed the temple. Rather, he continued on his destructive rampages for years. If AD 70 was the coming again of Christ, then He must have failed miserably at destroying His enemies. I choose not to believe that my Lord failed to do what He has been prophesied that He will do.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Joh 14:3 (KJV1611 Edition)
And if I goe and prepare
a place for you, I will come againe,
and receiue you vnto my selfe, that where
I am, there ye may be also.
I believe Jesus promised to come to the
earth again.
-Ed,
another Futurist for Jesus!!