PDA

View Full Version : Matthew's eschatology/moved from ETC



bjones
Jan 24th 2008, 02:03 AM
I have tried in other threads but I think it distracted from those discussions. Each end-times theory has a construct in which the proponents place the scriptures in order to try and make sense of them.

Some people can''t separate their construct from the scriptures and dogmatically proclaim that their construct is scripture. I am hoping to present a completely different eschatology from the other constructs, pre, post, etc. and hope that it can be evaluated only against the scriptures, not against the other constructs. I don't know if this is possible in this type of forum. But let's try.

Before we get to the construct, you must understand the context of time and eternity from which I speak. Presume that time is a bubble in eternity. At one end of the bubble is the beginning of time, at the other, the end of time. Someone in eternity could look at the bubble and see the whole history of time simultaneously.

When we die, we pop out of the bubble into eternity, where there is no time. So when I die, I will look to my left and Great grandpa arrived in eternity just a twinkle before me (I know no time so before doesn't mean anything, but bear with me). And I look to my right and my great-great grand children are just arriving. This explains how we can leave at different times and arrive at the end of the age (the end of time) together.

Now for the construct:

The kiss of Judas is the abomination that caused desolation, for he who condemns the innocent is an abomination.

The desolation is when God is not found on the earth. The Father has removed himself from Christ, and Jesus has been made sin. How much more desolate could things be?

The great tribulation is the tribulation of Christ, Holy God who has been made to be sin, when he has never known sin, and in the hands of sinful men.

Jesus was rushed to the cross so that he wouldn't hang there on the Sabbath. So if the days of His tribulation were not cut short, perhaps he would have been beaten to death in prison, never hung on the cross, and no flesh would have been saved.

Jesus, King of kings, is also the Holy of holies and is properly represented in the images of the tabernacle. The abomination in the holy place is when he was made to be sin.

His second coming was his resurrection.

The day of the Lord is the end of the age. This is that mystery that happens at death when he meets us individually in the air in time and transports us to where everyone is there together in eternity. When two are in the field, it looks like one drops dead to us, But to him, he meets Christ in the air,

Just as the shadows of Christ in the old testament are revealed in the light of Christ, He also casts shadows into the future. So when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, it was 'a' tribulation as a shadow of Christ's tribulation.

Perhaps the holocaust was another shadow of Christ's tribulation, and perhaps we have another event in our near future that is just a shadow of Christ's tribulation.
--

Now I am asking you to tear it apart with scripture, not with another construct.

I am not really interested in hearing that it isn't right because it isn't pre-, post, etc. I am interested if you can find anything that does not jive with scripture, after having given it a fair shake on its own.

This scenario is suggested by the parallel outlines in Matthew. Thanks.

jeffweeder
Jan 24th 2008, 02:33 AM
Very interesting Mr Jones.

What i saw was that they were told to flee once they saw the AOD, yet Jesus after his death and ressurection, told them to stay in the city, until they were clothed with power from on high.

Also in luke, after the AOD, the Jews were to be carried away to the nations, not one stone would be left on another in the temple, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by Gentile people----until those times were to come to an end.-then the second coming.

bjones
Jan 24th 2008, 03:12 AM
Thanks Jeff,

Re: Fleeing

The third block of parallel passages begins with Matt 23.1 and Matt 26.1.
As such these passages are hinted at being linked:

Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mt 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

This is part of the sequence that produces the eschatology that is proposed.

--- Re: Stones torn down.

The way the different authors deal with this is instructive.

Matthew talks in the same fashion as the old testament shadows, with a literal and shadow fulfillment. Luke speaks plainly and literally. John speak 'heavenly things'.

John reveals the heavenly interpretation of Matthew and Luke reveals the literal historical.

This eschatology does not deny that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, literally. Matthew and Luke can be understood literally. But is asserts that it speaks of Christ as well, as the second layer of Matthew, and John indicate.


Luke 21.27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.


This passage does not state that this is the second coming. That is part of another construct. In this construct meeting him in the air is equivalent to death.

Thanks for the feedback.

ServantoftheKing
Jan 24th 2008, 04:47 AM
At Jesus' ascension in Acts 1:11, two men dressed in white appeared and stated that he would come in like manner as he was taken into heaven. This is a post-resurrection event and they are referring to his second coming. This would suggest that his second coming was not his resurrection.

ServantoftheKing

bjones
Jan 24th 2008, 05:28 AM
At Jesus' ascension in Acts 1:11, two men dressed in white appeared and stated that he would come in like manner as he was taken into heaven. This is a post-resurrection event and they are referring to his second coming. This would suggest that his second coming was not his resurrection.

ServantoftheKing


Acts 1.11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The passage itself does not say that it is a 'second' return. It is part of another construct to say that. If his resurrection is the second coming, then when he comes in the air, it is the end of the age (time) as we go from time to eternity..

Thanks for taking us into Acts.

bjones
Jan 24th 2008, 06:35 AM
Hmm.. This was moved here because it was identified as preterism. So I had to do some research.

Full preterism and partial preterism are both linked to fulfillments in 70 AD. I guess that threw me. This proposal has no such tie. So while we're discussing it perhaps someone can suggest a different name for it...

Pre-preterism? since all the fulfillments occur around the time of the cross.

David Taylor
Jan 24th 2008, 01:29 PM
Let's get some clarification here.

What future and yet-fulfilled prophecies and events exist in your construct.

(a simple bullet-list of items would be fine)

bjones
Jan 25th 2008, 02:12 AM
Let's get some clarification here.

What future and yet-fulfilled prophecies and events exist in your construct.

(a simple bullet-list of items would be fine)

Only one. The end of the world (age) when time itself ends. It happens in time for us individually at death.
It happens collectively in eternity when we have "jumped over", if you will. We all meet him in the air (not just those who are alive at the end of the world) simultaneously in eternity.

Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

If he is with us always, he doesn't have to return, he simply ushers us into eternity.

This does not deny that there may be things like the destruction of Israel, the holocaust, etc that are shadows of Christ's fulfillment. But it places the primary fulfillment back on Christ.

I propose it, not because I wanted to invent something new, but because it "fell out" of a study I did in parallel outlines in Matthew. So I am throwing it out for discussion to see if it floats. To me eschatology is not even a tertiary doctrine, more of a curiosity.

A different approach would be to validate the parallel outlines, then try to discern what they mean. So this is kind of a quick and dirty, "Who can sink it " approach.

So be merciless in your critique. Thanks.

Teke
Jan 25th 2008, 04:51 PM
To me eschatology is not even a tertiary doctrine, more of a curiosity.


Even if it's, (tertiary) "Ecclesiastical" [noting or pertaining to a branch, or third order, of certain religious orders that consists of lay members living in community (regular tertiaries) or living in the world (secular tertiaries).]

Christ identified himself with the Messiah of the Eschaton, who would be the center of the gathering of the dispersed people of God. I also call it "transfiguration by grace".

I refer you to this article for further consideration in your exploration of "PNEUMATOLOGICAL ECCLESIOLOGY" (http://users.auth.gr/~pv/Pneumatological%20Ecclesiology.htm) and Eschatology.

<snip>
The vertical-soteriological view was always understood within the context of the horizontal-eschatological perspective as supplemental and complementary. This is why the liturgical experience of the early Church is incomprehensible without its social dimension (see Acts 2:42ff., 1 Cor 11:1ff., Heb 13: 10-16; Justin, 1 Apology 67; Irenaeus, Adver. Her. 18:1, etc.). <snip>

BTW none of this view is associated with Christ becoming sin. But the article does put that soteriology in perspective of history.

Allegra
Jan 25th 2008, 10:11 PM
The end of the world (age) when time itself ends. It happens in time for us individually at death.
It happens collectively in eternity when we have "jumped over", if you will. We all meet him in the air (not just those who are alive at the end of the world) simultaneously in eternity.

Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
I have to say I'm happy, happy, joy, joy, that "Matthew's eschatology" was transplanted here. Now I can give my preterist view on the different chapters!
What you wrote there bjones, about the "end of the world (age) & time ending, I disagree with.
Firstly, the word ,even in Matthew 28:20, is aeon or "age" in the Greek, not "world." The KJV translators did blunder there. Almost all other versions have the correct translation of the Greek word, age.
Understanding what Jesus & others meant by "the end of the age" is crucial to understanding the end time.
In Matthew 13, Jesus did not say the harvest was at the end of the "age to come."
Jesus was living in the Mosaic Age (Gal.4:4), which did not end until the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. In fact, the Mosaic Age was the only age that was predicted to end. The Christian age is "the age without end" (Ephesians 3:20-21) Remember that scripture as it will be important to nullify many futuristic doctrines!
Jesus said the harvest is at "the end of this age." (Mt.13:39-40) In Matthew 13:43, Jesus quotes Daniel 12:3, & says it would be fulfilled at the end of the age. Thankfully, Daniel foretold of "the time of the end" when, among other things, the righteous would shine. In Daniel 12:7, when one angel asks another when all all of the things Daniel had seen would be fulfilled. The response was, "When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished" (v.7)
Jesus said the harvest-when the righteous would shine-would be at the end of the age (Mt.13:39-43) Daniel said the righteous said the righteous would shine at the time of the end (Dan12:3,4,7) Therefore, the harvest would be when the power of the holy people, Israel, was completely shattered.
John says the harvest would be when Babylon was judged (Rev.14:8-20)
Harvest would be when Israel was judged (Dan 12/Mt.13). Therefore, mystery Babylon was Israel/Jerusalem.
What we have, therefore, is this, Jesus appeared in the end of the Old covenant age(sunteleia ton aionon, Galatians 4:4;Hebrews 9:26). He saidthe harvest would be at the end of the age (Mt.13:39-40)

Finally, to note on the harvest. In Rev.14, the time of the harvest of the "vine of the eart" had come. What is the vine of the earth? Think! There is only one vine of the earth of significance in scriptures. We follow the lineage of Christ through it. The vine of the eart is the nation of Israel, God's choice vine(Psalms80:8-19;Isaiah5; Jeremiah2:20; Ezekiel 17:1-10)

She has filled up the measure of her sin. Judgment is about to fall. And there is only one city that fits that description best, & it is Old Covenant Jerusalem. There is only one city associated with harvest at the end of the age, & that city is Jerusalem of the 1st century. Rev14, based on the OT promises of the consummation of the hopes of Israel in her last days, And Jesus' parable of the Wheat & Tares" definitely defines Babylon as Old Covenant Jerusalem.


If he is with us always, he doesn't have to return, he simply ushers us into eternity.Exactly! That I agree with. The general resurrection was then. The paradigm was set. We are individually gloried with new spiritual bodies that God gives us, upon our individual physical deaths.
"Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on, they shall rest..etc..."

bjones
Jan 26th 2008, 12:59 AM
I am appreciative of your opinion Allegra, but I found it a little difficult to sift your opinion from the specific critique of the construct I have presented. But I will try to not misrepresent you as I restate what I think you said concerning it:

1. You do not believe that the end of the world and the end of time happen at the same time.
The basis for this is a. the translation of aeon b. the timing of the harvest.

1a. I am not sure of the point being made. In this construct all the prophecies are fulfilled in and around the cross, not at the end of the world. There are no futuristic prophecies except the end of the world. Beginning at the cross, everyone who dies enters this condition where time is no more, so it is the end of time at different times for each of us and the beginning of eternity for all of us simultaneously. Is there a specific scripture that you think is being violated in this point?

1b, In this construct the harvest begins at his resurrection and continues till the end of the world. So I am not sure that we disagree on this point.


2. Concerning the vine, in the hermeneutic of shadows that I use, Jesus is the vine simply because he says he is. "I am the vine, you are the branches..." So although in your hermeneutic you may make sense of it differently, I am not permitted by the rules that constrain me. In this hermeneutic, the others are shadows of Christ's fulfillment, where a literal historical event paints a picture of Christ.


3.
She has filled up the measure of her sin. Judgment is about to fall. And there is only one city that fits that description best, & it is Old Covenant Jerusalem. There is only one city associated with harvest at the end of the age, & that city is Jerusalem of the 1st century. Rev14, based on the OT promises of the consummation of the hopes of Israel in her last days, And Jesus' parable of the Wheat & Tares" definitely defines Babylon as Old Covenant Jerusalem.

In this hermeneutic mystery Babylon is the culmination of the prostitute bride theme. It is the dual natured church made up of sinners who are separated from the flesh at the end. I have attempted to share the prostitute bride theme in another thread.

Essentially, nearly every woman in the Bible can be shown to to be either the prostitute or the bride in pairs of women, like Leah and Rachel, or fulfills both roles in herself, such as Tamar, Rebekah and Mary. The pattern is so undeniable as to demand an explanation for its existence. I have also drawn pictures to help see it on my website.

So I appreciate that this construct does not agree with yours, but I have not identified specific scriptures that you think it violates.

We have at least arrived "in Christ" together. I think we are closer together than I first thought when I read your post.

Allegra
Jan 26th 2008, 01:48 AM
I am appreciative of your opinion Allegra, but I found it a little difficult to sift your opinion from the specific critique of the construct I have presented. But I will try to not misrepresent you as I restate what I think you said concerning it:

1. You do not believe that the end of the world and the end of time happen at the same time.
The basis for this is a. the translation of aeon b. the timing of the harvest.

1a. I am not sure of the point being made. In this construct all the prophecies are fulfilled in and around the cross, not at the end of the world. There are no futuristic prophecies except the end of the world. Beginning at the cross, everyone who dies enters this condition where time is no more, so it is the end of time at different times for each of us and the beginning of eternity for all of us simultaneously. Is there a specific scripture that you think is being violated in this point?

1b, In this construct the harvest begins at his resurrection and continues till the end of the world. So I am not sure that we disagree on this point.


2. Concerning the vine, in the hermeneutic of shadows that I use, Jesus is the vine simply because he says he is. "I am the vine, you are the branches..." So although in your hermeneutic you may make sense of it differently, I am not permitted by the rules that constrain me. In this hermeneutic, the others are shadows of Christ's fulfillment, where a literal historical event paints a picture of Christ.


3.

In this hermeneutic mystery Babylon is the culmination of the prostitute bride theme. It is the dual natured church made up of sinners who are separated from the flesh at the end. I have attempted to share the prostitute bride theme in another thread.

Essentially, nearly every woman in the Bible can be shown to to be either the prostitute or the bride in pairs of women, like Leah and Rachel, or fulfills both roles in herself, such as Tamar, Rebekah and Mary. The pattern is so undeniable as to demand an explanation for its existence. I have also drawn pictures to help see it on my website.

So I appreciate that this construct does not agree with yours, but I have not identified specific scriptures that you think it violates.

We have at least arrived "in Christ" together. I think we are closer together than I first thought when I read your post.
Oh boy.I do not agree with any reference to the end of the world OR the end of time. When we die, that is the only difference in time. It becomes eternity. I believe there is NO reference to the end of the world in prophecy in the Bible Only the end of the age- which was the Jewish Mosaic Old Covenant age, the Jewish dispensation, which ended when the saints inherited the Kingdom in 70AD . With the end of Jerusalem & the temple made by hands. The Christian age has no end (Ephesians) it goes on till eternity, at least in heaven, even if the people on earth destroy each other & blow each other & the world up!
The end of the age in the Bible was the end of theocratic Israel. Only true Israel was & will be saved when they die. True Israel according to Paul in Romans was & is the believing Jews & the Gentile Christians who were grafted in as adopted sons through Christ unto the true Olive Tree (True Israel of God) The unbelieving Jews (1st century in text, but timeless in message) were broken off from the true Olive Tree. Only if they repent & come to Christ can they be grafted back in again. (Romans) But true Israel(ALL Israel) of the 1st century, who Paul was speaking of was saved.
The fullness (quality) of the Gentiles had come in. Paul was personally responsible for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles of the 1st century.

Yes, your impression of Babylon is no even close to mine. I reject even any inference to Babylon having to do with the CHURCH/Pope/Rome/Rachel/Rebekkah, etc. This I would like to go into & show how "fire came down from heaven" & destroyed mystery Babylon (Jerusalem) in 70AD.
The apostates were Jews that did not accept Christ as the other believers did. They were "Jews who call themselves Jews, but were not, but from the synagogue of Satan." (Rev.3)
The saints inherited the kingdom during the time of the fourth beast (Rome)
Never to have to compete with Judaism again.

bjones
Jan 26th 2008, 02:56 AM
Thanks Allegra for clarifying that. I am looking for specific verses that would appear to 'sink' the construct below. I suggested in another thread that we start a table of different views and categorize them based on clear scripture versus constructed concepts. There were no takers.

Most of the threads concerning these things are discussions of the constructs without any way to measure the quality of them, and end up in heated arguments based in opinions. Before I go that direction I would want to come to an agreement on the rules for interpretation.

So I have avoided the pitfall of banging opinions against each other by carefully wording the OP as a critique of this construct in isolation from others using only scriptures.

I have read a preterist web site and attempted to discuss this topic there, but since they had never heard it before they tossed it out as "being new, therefor not true".

I would be happy to review a statement of your construct in another thread, playing by the same rules I am hoping we can have here.

If there is no scripture that sinks this construct up front, then if others are interested I will demonstrate the methods by which it was derived, and subject them to similar scrutiny.

threebigrocks
Jan 26th 2008, 03:47 AM
When we die, we pop out of the bubble into eternity, where there is no time. So when I die, I will look to my left and Great grandpa arrived in eternity just a twinkle before me (I know no time so before doesn't mean anything, but bear with me). And I look to my right and my great-great grand children are just arriving. This explains how we can leave at different times and arrive at the end of the age (the end of time) together.

1 Thessolonians 4


13But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.
15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.


It will seem like we come together at once, because we do, as the second coming of Christ which is yet to come.

I honestly don't know where these views come from. The second coming is when we inherit the kingdom. How can a view that supports anything but "always being with the Lord" and really see it as true, because we are not yet with the Lord for eternity. If we were, we would not yet be where we are - apart from Him. We are not yet with the Lord with other believers, there are still unbelievers that surround us daily.

bjones, where is your scripture to support your notion that your assumptions are true?

bjones
Jan 26th 2008, 04:26 AM
I'm not sure I understand your objection. This view asserts that we all come together at once. It is reconciled with dieing separately by an understanding of time as a bubble within timeless eternity.

If you try to view the leaving and arriving from the perspective within time, then you miss the first assertions of this view in the OP.

What does a timeless eternity look like when you "first" arrive? We can't even discuss it without the use of words associated with time such as "first". So how can we comprehend it. But even some of our hymn writers had a hint of it. "When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound and time shall be no more..."

At the end of the world, when time ceases for the bubble, then those who remain are also transported to eternity to join those who left earlier in time but also are arriving simultaneously in eternity.

Now that Einstein has said that a space man can blast off, travel around the world and arrive back before he left, it should not be foreign to our thought that people could leave time separately and arrive in eternity simultaneously.


bjones, where is your scripture to support your notion that your assumptions are true?

If you re-read the original post you will see that I do not assert that this construct is true. I have stated that it is an observation that popped out of another study in the parallel outlines in Matthew.

I am submitting it for critique.

If you would like to approach it from another other direction, I could share with you my observations in the parallel outlines, then we can critique them to see if they are really there or are invention. Then if we decide they are really there, then we could discuss their meaning. Only the last part of the parallels deal with eschatology, so there are many discussions that we could have that have nothing to do with end times scenarios.

Another approach is to deal with the hermeneutic that flushed out this observation and the many other shadows that I am sharing in other threads, and you can critique the methodology itself.


How can a view that supports anything but "always being with the Lord" and really see it as true, because we are not yet with the Lord for eternity.

Jesus is the one who said he would be with us always, not me. It is my job to believe what Jesus said as being true and not be content with any interpretation that is based in doubt of his word. I believe I will have arrived at truth when the construct that I accept sums up and explains every jot and tittle of what God said about it. So most likely, I will have tentative positions until I meet him in the air in eternity.

threebigrocks
Jan 26th 2008, 04:15 PM
If what you shared is only a concept that you are open to having it refuted, then why not do so with scripture and accept some water tossed on the fire? Your intent was to ask others to help you hold it up to scripture, correct?

David Taylor
Jan 26th 2008, 05:04 PM
Jesus is the one who said he would be with us always, not me. It is my job to believe what Jesus said as being true and not be content with any interpretation that is based in doubt of his word.

But one doesn't have to believe in your new 'jump' hypothesis/theory (for lack of a better identifying phrase) to be with Christ always.


Christ is always with many of the born-again believers on this forum, although we do not yet see Him face to face.

His promise was to always be with us. Right? And that extends before 'the jump' as well.....

bjones
Jan 26th 2008, 07:46 PM
But one doesn't have to believe in your new 'jump' hypothesis/theory (for lack of a better identifying phrase) to be with Christ always.


Christ is always with many of the born-again believers on this forum, although we do not yet see Him face to face.

His promise was to always be with us. Right? And that extends before 'the jump' as well.....


I absolutely agree with you. I thought someone else was doubting. The only point I make that is if he is with us, he doesn't have to return.

bjones
Jan 26th 2008, 08:04 PM
If what you shared is only a concept that you are open to having it refuted, then why not do so with scripture and accept some water tossed on the fire? Your intent was to ask others to help you hold it up to scripture, correct?


I am happy to do so in an organize fashion.

In the same way that I have carefully defined my construct, and carefully parse responses between construct and scripture, I believe the same care is required for the hermeneutic we use to understand scripture.

Rather than throw a scripture out and have six different hermeneutics applied, I would like to spell out the hermeneutic, then play by those rules in the discussion.

If you don't like the hermeneutic, then we should discuss it and come to a common ground for understanding the Bible.

I am not interested in a hermeneutical free-for-all. That happens frequently enough ;)

So if you are interested in that approach, Mark G and I are taking time to get on the same semantic wavelength in the "Tamar and the birth of Christ thread". When we know that we are speaking the same language we will carefully explore the scriptures together.

If you are interest in skipping that part and jumping directly to the parallel outlines in Matthew, upon which this eschatology is based, I will be happy to start a thread on that. And as I mentioned, this eschatology is hinted at by the structure of Matthew, not by direct teaching of Matthew. So you are not going to find a scripture that mentions a "bubble of time". But we will find a pattern that links the grave to meeting him in the air.

The pattern starts in Matthew 5.1 and 8.1 and continues through the rest of the book in three blocks. Discerning it uses the techniques that Mark and I are discussing currently in the Tamar thread.

You can also visit my personal wiki where I share drawings to help describe what I am seeing.

If the construct in the OP is totally bunk, a few clear scriptures should illustrate it, like any other doctrine that gets posted here. So far I am encouraged to pursue it further since there are no slam dunks, yet.

And even if it is totally debunked, I believe many discussions will become more civil if we discern between scripture and construct.