Shalom, Mishpachah Elohiym.
Okay, this seems to be a major point of contention on some of the forums on which I discuss; so I wanted to give my definitions of the following terms: abomination and desolation.
It's because of the Olivet Discourse and Yeshua`s words about such an event in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14:
Matt 24:15
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
KJV
Mark 13:14
14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
KJV
In fact, we should probably back up a little and also look at their contexts, particularly in all three of the Synoptic Gospels:
But when ye therefore shall see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has drawn near - The Abomination of the Desolation – the [one which] was spoken about by Dani'el the prophet - standing in [the] holy place where it must not be (let the reader understand), then let those in Y'hudah (Judah) flee into the mountains. However, [let] the [one] upon the roof-top not come down into the house nor go inside to take anything out of his house. And [don’t] let the [one] in the field back into the [city]; he is not to return to take his clothes, and let those in [the] middle of it depart out and don’t let those in the countrysides enter into it. For these are the days of vengeance; all things which are written may be fulfilled. But <ooaahee!> to the [one] who is pregnant and to those [who] breast-feed in those days! But pray so that your flight may not be in [the] rainy season (“winter”) nor on Shabbat (the Sabbath); for then those days shall be the huge pressure - no - nor has been its like since [the] beginning of Creation of [the] habitable world which God created until the present - no - nor ever shall be, and if [the] Master had not shortened those days, there would not have been any flesh rescued. But on account of the chosen [ones] whom He chose, He has shortened the days [and] those days shall be shortened.
Of course, this is from a previous post (Olivet Discourse - part 6) which comes from the Greek AFTER the three Greek versions have been harmonized. Then, the harmony was translated into English. The red is from Matthew's account, the gold is from Mark's account, and the blue is from Luke's account. Words that appear in both Matthew and Mark are in orange; words that appear in both Mark and Luke are in green; words that appear in Matthew and Luke are in purple, and those words that appear in all three are in brown.
This portion began circa 70 A.D., probably began close to 66 or 67 A.D. and refers to the attacks by the Roman army on Yerushalayim; however, the couple of sentences at the end are a vision of our time and into our future, because the "shortening of the days" is the limiting of the days of pressure within the last 2,000 years.
The sequence of events, as I see them, is that...
First, the one seven started with Yeshua`s baptism and His Father's acknowledgement: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
Second, the "overspreading of abominations" or the "spread-out wing of abominations" were the rejections, blasphemies, insults, inuendos, and general ill will that the elders of Y'hudah (who were SUPPOSED to be the ones who should have crowned Him) had toward GOD'S Messiah to be King, culminating in the CRUCIFIXION (Matthew 23:1-36)!
Third, Yeshua` was the one who left them "DESOLATE" (which is the midpoint of the seventieth seven, Matthew 23:37-39), and...
Fourth, the tribulation (Greek: "thlipsis" = "pressure") or distress, primarily on the Jews, began at that point.
Fifth, when Yeshua` was crucified, that was their ultimate rejection of the Messiah.
After His resurrection and His ascension, they remain under the desolation and that resultant tribulation promised in Dani'el 9:27 until they can say, "Baruwkh haba' b-shem YHWH" (Matthew 23:39 cf. Psalm 118:26), welcoming Yeshua` back as YHWH'S Messiah. From that point, they were given 40 years to repent (which they WOULD not do), and so, the Times of the Goyim (Gentiles) began in earnest in 68-70 A.D. With the destruction of the Temple, the offensiveness (abomination) stemming from the desolation, predicted by Yeshua` in the Olivet Discourse, came true. During the last almost 2000 years, the actual time of tribulation has been shortened as God has broken up their punishment so as not to overwhelm them completely. As Yeshua` is in the process of returning to earth, the latter half of the seventieth seven will continue, as described in Revelation as the "time, times and half a time," "forty-two months," and "1,260 days." When Yeshua` returns, He will rescue Isra'el from their surrounding enemies, cut off the Gentiles from Yerushalayim, and the Times of the Goyim, when they overran and trampled the streets of Yerushalayim, will be over.
the comment system doesn't seem to work
ReplyDeleteShalom, Marcus.
DeleteIt does. I don't. Sorry about that, but I don't consistently check my messages...YET. I am making a change so I will see these sooner.
In the Messiah's love,
Retrobyter
OK, I just lost all my questions on the first try.
ReplyDeleteHi, I'm Interplanner from Worthy, although now banned. So much for open forums, where we must be prepared for hard questions!
I think you have grasped a lot of what it takes to make a coherent connection between Jesus, Paul and the issues of 30-70 AD in Judea. But as the material moves along it gets weaker, and starts to skip to the future. I think it does so unnecessarily.
Why would a warning about such dire events suddenly jump to the future, the unuseable future of 2-3-4000 years away? That's really incoherent.
What if the focus of the Bible is being returned to in the NT. Ie, Gen. 1-11 is not about Israel, but then almost everything is to the end of the OT. But in the event of Pentecost, when contrasted with the event of Babel, is surely a marker that the redemptive message is going to the nations.
/Sorry this processor is so slow and disruptive I hvae to stop. I''m at ask@interplans.net, or interplanner on skype.
Tell Worthy to reopen my access.
--Inter
Shalom, Marcus.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the banning. If it were up to me, you wouldn't have been banned.
It's quite simple to me. There are just some things that Yeshua` was talking about that occurred in the first century and some things that went well off into the future. The difference is found in the pronouns! When Yeshua` is referring directly to His students using the words "ye," "you," or "your," as they are translated into the KJV, they were being given information regarding the first century. When the pronouns changed, He was no longer talking directly of their future, but of the future in general, and He takes it far into the future when He actually physically returns to earth. He has NOT done so, yet. Thus, it is also still in OUR future, although we haven't hit the first 2,000 years. It's not "incoherent"; it's consistent with their request!
The request was,...
Matt. 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
KJV
Mark 13:4
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
KJV
Luke 21:7
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
KJV
The "end of the world" or rather the "end of the age" has not yet occurred. It will not end until Yeshua` has reigned for His first 1,000 years AFTER He has returned, and it will end at the Fire that Kefa (Peter) talked about in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Yeshua` has yet to return physically, and THEN He must reign for a thousand years, subduing His enemies all the while. At the end of that thousand-year period, THEN the unbelievers will be extracted from His Kingdom (Matthew 13) and the Fire, the Great White Throne Judgment, and the consignment to the Lake of Fire and Sulfur will occur (Revelation 20:8-15). ALL of this is yet in the future! Yeshua` has NOT yet returned, and it is wrong to see Him "fulfilling" these prophecies in an allegorical way back in the first century A.D!
Don't fall into the allegorical or "spiritual" (falsely so-called) interpretation of Scripture TRAP! That's what happened to the Roman Catholic Church in the second and third centuries!
In the Messiah's love,
Retrobyter
well, having Jesus' teaching in Mt 24 (it's time designations) refer to various parts of the 6th decade would not be allegory! It would be a question of scientific precision.
ReplyDeleteLet's take 'all the nations will mourn' as an example. A future event, or is this how many nations at that time felt as the awful events unfolded? Or is it exactly the non-Jewish Christians about what happened. (This one is not a time designation, of course)
I saw in one thread that Cobalt insisted that Mt 24:34 not be that generation. It would not be allegory to think that this is that time frame again--sometimes called the decisive generation because it is so seen by the letter to Hebrews. It would just be a matter of the best fit, and Jesus already had a phrase like this in 16:28: those who 'won't taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' See the TEV. It's rather emphatic.
But of course we are in an episode that follows immediately after the dramatic and heated indictment of Judaism in ch. 23. 23:36--39 are there in the flow of that chastisment, to link to the intro of 24. (Contrast how Luke has it a chapter earlier in his 19)
Just to be intellectually honest, it needs to be read in the historical option just to know how that would settle. For ex., the coming of the Son of Man in 24:39. Is this necessarily the end of the world? Or could he mean the coming he just mentioned (which they would see) which might mean one of his appearances after the resurrection or Pentecost? Why not. His 'moral' there is: it would not be expected, and that Israel would be really, really divided as to whether it could be Him. And he had just repeated that they would see this. (The TEV must be very mistaken in your view at 24:34)
Back to the time designation in 24:3. Your KJV is using a place designation for some reason. That's not right for 'aionos.' It's an age, but which? What was the question? The coming down of the stones of the temple. This is why there is the rumor of Him having an active role in it's coming down (Acts 7).
I'm glad for your emphasis on justification by faith in your profile at Worthy. I hope it is not just relegated to 'salvation' issues or concerns because in Rom 4 and Gal 3 it is cross-applied to define all these issues we are talking about: Israel, nations, change of dispensations, blessings of Abraham, etc. I'd be glad to send you the summaries of Brinsmead on this, a missionary to the US from Australia. If you're tired of reading Israel v. church and reading about allegory, you will be refreshed. He is only about the mission of justification (reconciliation as 2 Cor 5 puts).
And appeal to Worthy to unban me.
--Inter
Shalom, Interplanner.
DeleteWell, you're posting all these comments to my blog without reading my blog first or giving me ample time to respond, but the truth is "all the nations will mourn" is a quotation from Zechariah 12.
It's not really "all the nations of the earth shall mourn" but rather the Greek is "kopsontai pasai hai fulai tees gees." This means "all the clans of the Land shall mourn." One must understand Scripture from the viewpoint of an Isra'eli farmer or herdsman, for whom those Scriptures were written.
Look carefully at Zechariah 12:
Zechariah 12:10-14
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and [b]they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.[/b]
11 [b]In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem[/b], as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of [b]David[/b] apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of [b]Nathan[/b] apart, and their wives apart;
13 The family of the house of [b]Levi[/b] apart, and their wives apart; the family of [b]Shimei[/b] apart, and their wives apart;
14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
KJV
This is quite a phenominal passage of Scripture because of the names. There is ONE other place where these same four names can be found and in this order: Luke 3:23-38:
Luke 3:23-31
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of [b]Semei[/b], which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of [b]Levi[/b],
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of [b]Nathan[/b], which was the son of [b]David[/b],
...
KJV
Thus, these are not representative of some of the twelve tribes of Isra'el, but they are VERTICALLY related within the SAME LINE from David to the Messiah Yeshua`!
The only way that they can see Him as the One who was pierced and be co-existing, mourning together, is that this passage in Zechariah must happen AFTER the resurrection of the Justified.
If you take the time to review my blog, you will find that I have a unique perspective on all of this.
In the Messiah's love,
Retrobyter
Shalom, Marcus.
DeleteYou need to understand something that is a "blind spot" for you: When Yeshua` returns, it is NEITHER at the "end of the world" nor in the first century! Yeshua` was not talking about some figurative or "spiritual return"; He was talking about a future, LITERAL, BODILY return, which He stated was at an UNKNOWN TIME to Him (at least while He was speaking the Olivet Discourse).
This is a crucial understanding to the rest of the Olivet Discourse and to the B'rit Chadashah (the NT) itself! According to Paul in several locations, Yeshua` had not yet so returned, but he definitely advocated and encouraged his readers to anticipate it!
While it is true that Yeshua`s return is before the Millennium, that doesn't mean that He has already come and we are IN the "Millennium." It simply means that after He has come (which is still in the future because He is not yet physically here), there will be much more time to cover. His reign MUST be a literal one because there are many literal aspects to the reign in prophecy that must yet be fulfilled, and no amount of allegorizing the text is going to be sufficient to explain away all the literal details of those prophecies! Besides, He was said to return in the same way that He left - bodily through the air!
In the Messiah's love,
Retrobyter
Of course, all of the above is not to diminish the uneasiness Mt 24 etc. presents about the 2nd coming. It really sounds like it was to be 'immediately after these things' but obviously was not. And he did say we just wouldn't know and that anyway, we were to be stewards of his gift. Isn't that the final word on eschatology and prophecy? That's what I've been trying to say all along.
ReplyDeletebible prophecy is not meant to put on on the couch clicking between news reports and charts about the rapture. It all points to a mission to be done. This is clearly the upshot of Jesus' remarks on "the end." 1, we don't know when; 2, keep busy with the mission.
So even in our churches where there is widespread miscomm about justification by grace, we need to make that our mission. That is good practice for "outside;" it is the same message.
--Inter
Agreed, for the most part. However, be clear about the mission: The mission is not just to win people to the Messiah so they can be justified by grace; they are to be future subjects for His Kingdom when He returns. They themselves and we, too, based upon how well they respond to the message, are to be "kings and priests to God, the Messiah's Father." (Rev. 1:6; 5:10)
DeleteThis is toward fulfillment of Ezeki'el 40-48.
This goes back to the understanding of what exactly the "Gospel" is. The "Gospel" or the "Good News" is not just about the justification process; it is about God reigning once again in Isra'el and the earth when the Messiah - the Anointed to be King - takes His role as the Monarch of Yisra'el and ultimately becomes King of kings - LITERALLY - as He reigns as World Emperor.
I'm not sure how I can get you to see the link, but maybe if you start with Romans 10:13. Think about how it is usually used today to encourage one to take the steps in becoming a child of God through God's justification of an individual. THEN, go back to the roots of Romans 10:13; i.e., go back to the verses from where this verse was quoted, Joel 2:32!
Compare how WE use the verse to how Yo'el was using the verse in his prophecy! You should see the obvious difference.
Now, think about this: WHY did Paul quote THIS verse when its context is not at all how we think he was using it? Was he using it out of context? OR, are we misapplying it? Do we understand Joel 2? Do we really understand Paul? I submit that we DON'T truly understand what Paul was saying and that he quoted Joel 2:32 BECAUSE of its context!
He was talking about the RESCUE of Isra'el that Yeshua` would make in the future! Read Romans chapters 9 through 11 in a single sitting, preferably with an open mind and in a version that is close to modern speech.
I believe you may be surprised at the results.
In the Messiah's love,
Retrobyter
A scholar friend now teaching at South London Bible College recommends the following newer resources on the rapture and on Romans:
ReplyDelete>>
Look up N.T. Wright's website. An excellent article on the 'Rapture' there. I don't agree with everything from him, but he certainly gets that Jesus fulfilled the Exile/'New Exodus' promises of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.
I am assuming you have read Jesus and the Victory of God and Unlocking Romans:Resurrection and the Justification of God by Daniel Kirk.
>>
Don't forget to appeal to Worthy to unblock me.
--Inter
360-460-9473
PO Box 1074, Sequim, WA 98382
very discouraging to use this communication form, it just skipped all over and lost my remarks.
ReplyDeleteHope you keep in touch by email, ask@interplans.net
Please appeal to Worthy to unban me.
--Inter
Hi Retrobyter,
ReplyDeleteI have a Worthy email that you commented on a post.
To be intellectually honest, I need you to appeal to Worthy to unban me. Anything you post there, that I can not respond, to is dishonest on Worthy's part.
Or, you could paste what I send here to Worthy.
I'll answer each point in several entries here, because of the technical issues I've had here. Don't want to lose material.
As for separating the kingdom from the church, it is very clear that the working usage of the kingdom was the church in Matthew, etc., for ex. 16, 17, 21 (parable).
Your reading reminds me of the messianic Jew I exchanged with about 3 years ago about Acts 9. They not only insisted Peter did not eat the other food (the food shown in the vision sheet), the person insisted that we could no longer talk if I did not accept that. Yes, he said, Peter went to their homes but he did not eat their food (the very food in the vision).
Your distinction has the same technique.
--Inter
In your Jul.31 Worthy post, par. 2,
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right about the kingdom not being of this world. However, your proof of your point shows that your view of the disciples, and their own view, was that they were in the present kingdom. Just read it calmly, and you will see that. It is the opposite of what your 1st paragraph said.
It is actually another way of saying that it wasn't meant to be physical-political, which is what I'm saying. It is still powerful through the Spirit of God. You are very close, but the difference is significant.
--Inter
In your Worthy post, Jul.31, par. 3, I appreciate the attention to detail. But it also has to work out in how they functioned. Why, then would disciples (oops!) ask who was greatest in the kingdom in a practical, immediate sense? (Mt.18). Is he psychotic? Is he neurotic? Schitzophenic? The child is right there as an example, but it has nothing to do with them?
ReplyDelete"The kingdom of God will be taken away from you (leaders in Judaism) and given to a people..." Mt. 21. This is not 'millenial' or anything other than immediate, direct reality.
--Inter
Re your Worthy post Jul. 31, par. 4, "NO that is not the Gospel of the Kingdom." Please see my comments above about the Acts 9 issue with a messianic Jew 3 years ago. this is the same thing all over again. I believe your interest in an actual kingdom is very sincere, and many post-exilic Jews expected it in the same form (those who returned from Babylon etc.) But there was always something 'beyond' in all that the prophets said, for ex., the kingdom without humans hands.
ReplyDeleteI was raised in what you have expressed, and found it to miss the presence of the kingdom that is all through the gospels and Paul. One question that keeps coming up: if the actual kingdom offer was withdrawn by Jesus at a certain point, why does effort for it, in it, about it, continue? Notice in Acts 20, preaching "it" and preaching the Gospel are synonymized.
Remember, historically, the gosples were circulated in print form some decades later, and read all over. When they read Mt. 21 in public in, let's say, Corinth in 48 AD, and it said that tax-collectors and prostitutes were entering the kingdom of God, they didn't say, "oh, right. that will happen in the millenium."
--Inter
re your Worthy post, misc:
ReplyDelete2 Pet. 3. On 'kosmos.' Why would Peter talk about governments in the early ages of the earth?
You are right about Ps. 2 (your people will give themselves freely). I got my Kingship Psalms confused! See 110:3.
re 69.5. Prove Jesus split it. This was not Josephus' understanding. He was a trained priest, 1900 years closer to the event than either of us. It appears God in his mercy gave them a generation (approx 40 years) to change their minds, and they mostly didn't. (by the way, this does not change anything about the kingdom's shape or form; it simply means they could have preserved the city, or prevented the trauma.)
As a final post, I will copy N T Wright's 4 elements of defining the Gospel as Paul used it.
Don't forget to appeal to Worthy to unban me. And all of these posts should rightly be copied to Worthy. They have no business imposing their theology filter when there are plenty of believers in grace who see these things.
--Inter
Prof. Wright's scholarship is found at http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Gospel_Theology_Galatians.pdf
ReplyDelete(I don't see which seminary/theological college he currently works at).
My proposal at this point, then, is that, for Paul writing Galatians, ‘the gospel’ or
‘the gospel of Christ’ refers to this complex of belief and announcement. ‘The gospel’ is
not, for Paul, a message about ‘how one gets saved’, in an individual and ahistorical
sense. It is the announcement
1. that the God of Israel is the one true God, and that the pagan deities are mere
idols;
2. that Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and risen one, is not merely ‘Lord’ in
some cosmic sense, but is actually King—King of Israel, and hence (on the
Davidic model of passages such as Psalm 89) the King before whom all the kings
of the earth shall bow;
3. that Israel’s destiny has been fulfilled, her exile finished, her salvation won,
but in a manner which undermines the Jewish ethnic and nationalistic hope that
Paul had formerly espoused;
and
4. that the rule of the pagan idols, which have kept the pagan nations in their iron
grip has been broken, and that those who follow and serve them are now
summoned to share in the blessings of Israel’s ‘age to come’.
Each aspect of this fourfold announcement is, I believe, vital if we are to understand what
Paul means by ‘gospel’ at all, and particularly in Galatians. It is because Paul sees his
Galatian opponents failing to grasp this sequence of thought that he accuses them of
purveying ‘another gospel’.
page 7-8 of the article
--Inter
re the Davidic theme in the NT. The first thing that comes to mind is the under-noticed paired line in Rom. 1. Jesus was the Son of David, and the resurrection (itself) declared him to be the Son of God; both in one. Other than the reference by David to imputed righteousness (or lack of imputed sin), I don't know any other featured item about David in Romans. That says a lot, because it is the 'constitution of Christianity.'
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Acts 13 shows us that whatever was Davidic transformed into Christ, His resurrection, and justification. why mention David's vision unless it was now fulfilled? Or do you think Paul is pre-occupied with a millenium again? He is in the present tense on these things.
--Inter