What Time Is It?

[Stephen Green]

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!

Thank you Stephen for your response and I apologize for long and wordy posts, but my points are based on a literal and a contextual understanding of words and therefore I must produce the words to make my points. I need to show you my logic.

I asked you at the first if you believed that Jesus came not but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel at his first coming and you said you do believe that.Yet, I am reading your post and it does not seem to me that you are believing the words are literal. For instance you said this;



Now you have thrown out an interpretation to me that has nothing to do with thrones or a King. These 12 apostles have never to this point in human history sat of thrones. Therefore I conclude you do not believe thrones in the promise are literal thrones. There were 12 apostles to Israel and there are 12 tribes in Israel and Jesus said they would judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Furthermore, Jesus Christ has not assumed his office as an earthly King. He at this very moment is sitting on his Father's throne in heaven prosecuting his office as intercessor and High Priest.

Lu 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. (stewardship)
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

Remember you said Jesus was ministering to Israel only at his first coming. This is a kingdom parable and it is not in heaven although it is from heaven. It is on earth when HE RETURNS.

If he has not returned then this has either not happened yet or it is not true. If you do not believe the words you will believe a fanciful interpretation.

 

[Stephen Green]

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

If you are replying to me, it would be helpful if you said so.

First of all, of course the coming of Christ must be measured by Scripture. However, Scripture must be interpreted by the meaning of the individual words. I recommend for you the excellent book on this by Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning.

It is an hermeneutical crime to simply attach your own meaning to words willy nilly. This is actually an existential practice, right out of neo-orthodoxy (the theology based on existentialism), though you may not have meant that. This practice is used by Eugene Nida, the inventor of dynamic equivalence translation, who actually uses the term "semantic relativity."

So again, the Greek word parousia always means a physical presence or appearance, never a spiritual one (though I believe there is one metaphorical usage in the NT).

Secondly, in order to refute what I said about parousia, you must find a case where the word does not mean a literal, personal coming or presence. That's how hermeneutics works.

Thirdly, I did not reference etymology (historical linguistics), nor will I in this case. Linguists do not use etymology to determine contemporary meaning, which refers to the meaning of a word at the time it is used in a document.

 

[Stephen Green]

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.

My list was not intended to prove chiliasm, but to show that the poster was wrong in saying that very few in the early centuries were chiliasts. However, the truth is that it was the eschatological standard for the first 300 years (when those names were taken from).

Why was it the standard? Because a literal interpretation always, always produces chiliasm. And as I pointed out, allegorical interpretation did not enter Christianity until Origen (c. 185-c. 254) who followed the Jewish interpreter Philo. This is basic in the history of hermeneutics. So, the churches almost all were chiliasts until the third century, and even then it took quite a bit of time for Philo's allegorical interpretation to catch on. (One author I read said it was Augustine, 354-430, who popularized it.)

I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

 

[Two Wings]

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.

I believe this is the scriptural substantiation that God is outside of time/space/matter ... for He created it. Indeed the comparison on God's time is literally infinite.

I reject this is the "decoder" for Daniel. Daniel decoded it with his own revelation

 

[Stephen Green]

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.

I believe this is the scriptural substantiation that God is outside of time/space/matter ... for He created it. Indeed the comparison on God's time is literally infinite.

I reject this is the "decoder" for Daniel. Daniel decoded it with his own revelation

 

[Two Wings]

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.

Peter is explaining something that had yet to be revealed ... let alone written.

or ... establishing that God is beyond time/space/matter?

 

[Two Wings]

This thread is in its 7th page and I appreciate the great discussion. thought provoking. iron sharpening iron (I think)

some of y'all are FAR beyond me in the knowledge of The Bible I can hardly even recognize what you're referencing ... especially a lot of the historical figures.

before the thread gets closed I want to encourage all to keep a keen eye on Jerusalem. Not that everything Jerusalem does is 100% God fearing, necessarily, but God already knows and He has made Jerusalem His holy city ... e.g. set apart.

We will all come into the knowledge of God by His will ... His timing is perfect.

I also want to encourage a LARGE dose of grace ... even to those who don't deserve it (because deserved quarter doesn't mean grace, right?). I recognize I need y'alls grace and I need to show it to others ... for would I witthhold the Amazing Grace which has been shown to me?

or do I think more of myself than I should?

Press on brethren!

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ,

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

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?

...

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.

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!"

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.

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.)

 

[Stephen Green]

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.

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.)

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

(aside from your son — congratulations by the way, that’s great).

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.)

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 wasn't embarrassed at all.

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

 

[Two Wings]

(We both are linguists who teach the original languages of the Bible.)

wow.

good sir ... can you have your son validate the numerical value of Jesus' statement in Mark 13:2 ~"not a stone here will be left unturned."

I've been told that sentence/phrase will sum to 40, but I'm no Hebrew scholar and cannot verify for myself.

Thanks ... in advance!

 

[JD731]

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!

I do in fact believe in literal thrones, since this is what the Bible teaches, no more explicitly than in Eph 2:6.

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.

 

[Stephen Green]

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!

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, and his name one.

 

[Two Wings]

Daniel was not a part of our Bible.

I didn't know that.

I'd understood the entire Old Testament was part of the Torah ... which boys memorized by the time they were 13?

Hmm. This might shoot a hole in my theory about the Pharisees/Sadducees and their knowledge of Daniel's prophesy ... that they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN Messiah was to be cut-off that year when they crucified Jesus.

 

[Stephen Green]

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 didn't know that.

I'd understood the entire Old Testament was part of the Torah ... which boys memorized by the time they were 13?

Hmm. This might shoot a hole in my theory about the Pharisees/Sadducees and their knowledge of Daniel's prophesy ... that they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN Messiah was to be cut-off that year when they crucified Jesus.

 

[Two Wings]

the Talmud doesn’t even call Daniel a Prophet.

ah ... that was the book I was trying to recall ... and opted to just ignore rather than show my ignorance!

... and ... showed it anyway! LOL

Wow ... didn't consider Daniel a prophet? That's relevant, too, methinks! Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

wow.

good sir ... can you have your son validate the numerical value of Jesus' statement in Mark 13:2 ~"not a stone here will be left unturned."

I've been told that sentence/phrase will sum to 40, but I'm no Hebrew scholar and cannot verify for myself.

Thanks ... in advance!

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.

 

[Two Wings]

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.

someone thought numerology was pretty important. it was created, and used extensively.

I understand about the time available ... it just occurred to to me for someone proficient in Hebrew, it might take a couple of minutes whereas a guy like me who can't distinguish Hebrew from Arabic ... it's a monumental task.

thanks for replying. All the best with finals.

 

[John of Japan]

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!

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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

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.)

 

[John of Japan]

someone thought numerology was pretty important. it was created, and used extensively.

I understand about the time available ... it just occurred to to me for someone proficient in Hebrew, it might take a couple of minutes whereas a guy like me who can't distinguish Hebrew from Arabic ... it's a monumental task.

thanks for replying. All the best with finals.

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.