An Adult Faith Looks at Jesus’s Prediction of the End

[KeithE]

quickly becoming one of my favorite theologians.

[Sandy]

I've never interpreted Jesus' eschatological discourse as anything more than a prediction of the coming "end of the age" which was a reference to the end of the old covenant, and beginning of the new with his resurrection, and the symbolic and historical marker of its end with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. I believe that the apocalyptic writers, Daniel and John's Revelation, along with Jesus, point to this event, and not to some far distant "rapture" or second coming.
Daniel measures the timeline on a Jewish calendar that, even with the inaccuracies of its day, gets into the ballpark with the events of the advent of Christ, his ministry, his resurrection, and the Abomination of Desolation. Jesus tells some of his disciples that they won't taste of death until they see the events of which he was speaking come to pass. In Revelation 1, John clearly states, in his apocalyptic way, that the events he is writing about will "soon" take place and that "the time is near."

That requires a couple of departures from standard, pre-millenial, dispensational, eschatology. It requires dating the book of Revelation prior to 69 A.D. which, actually, fits with the time that John is believed to have been in exile, and would likely still have been alive. And it requires leaving out the "gap" in Daniel, and simply letting his calendar count his analogies of time straight through.

[Tim Bonney]

I believe in the second coming of Christ but I have no timeline in mind for Jesus coming. Nor do I really subscribe to any of the current theories fully as I think that most theories about Jesus coming are too speculative. But if I had to put a name on what I believe it would be "pan-millenialism." That is, it will all pan out in the end.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

The question is regarding the "coming of the son of Man in his glory. The destruction of the Temple was a historic event that occurred about thirty years following the resurrection. Within a relatively short period of time of having spoken those words, the transfiguration took place, which Peter, James and John all saw. He uses the same analogies and similar terminology in Matthew 24, the "coming of the son of man in his glory", the fig tree, and says, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." He connects it to Daniel. The context is pretty clear, the disciples ask when will these things come to pass, and Jesus tells them. You can be as condescending as you like in the way you think a passage has to be interpreted according to your perspective of what you think inerrancy means, but you'd be wrong. And in your view, if what Jesus said was either wrong, or just incorrectly recorded, you have absolutely no support for your position whatsoever.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Eschatology is (or was, for me) interesting but nothing to divide over. The various interpretations have had ebbs and flows over the years. Whatever...

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

But if I could figure out when it was going to happen I could pull my money out of the stock market at just the right time, and know when to go up on my roof and watch for the Return...

[William Thornton]

...perused the link. Classic liberalism: the human Jesus was wrong on a bunch of stuff, the 'divine ' Jesus has a lot to offer, etc.

Typical elitist, condescending attitude. The author's view (followed by Keith) is the "adult" faith, relegating others especially those that hold to authority in the scriptures as, presumably, childish or juvenile. Add to that in Keith's posts a highly contemptuous attitude and treatment ("weasel," "grow up,") of Sandy's offer of the traditional explanations and alternatives to concluding Jesus made a demonstrably false statement.

What is clear, and I have many years here to have observed it repeatedly, is that Keith is engaged much less by persuasive arguments in biblical interpretations than he is by the use of ANY option that enables him to dispense ridicule and contempt on those more conservative than he. This inclination seems to come from God Himself, since Keith's appeal to Sandy is to "prayerfully consider" the rightness of Keith's view. My retired rocket scientist friend might consider that respect for the views of one's fellow believers is itself a Christian virtue. I recommend that he prayerfully consider it.

Yawn. We've seen all this before.

[Tim Bonney]

The ancient teachings of the Church on the resurrection of the dead are good enough for me.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Without the necessity of a long discussion here, Keith probably knows a number of Preterist sources to read which interpret his "end of the age" statements, and connect the dots through events, occurrences, allusions and references to Old Testament prophetic witnesses, and the apocalyptic language, to arrive at their conclusion. This particular interpretation (Preterist), and the corroboration that is provided, shoots a big hole in the "Jesus and the writers of the New Testament missed their guess on his return timetable" conclusion. I'd suggest Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness, or Richard Abanes End Times Visions.Neither of them are "inerrantists," BTW. If you want to get way out in left field, William Turner, former pastor at South Main Houston, has an excellent book on the Revelation, and I think R.C. Sproul is as well.

You're entitled to hold whatever view you choose, though the idea that Jesus got it wrong on this one, and so did some of the New Testament writers kind of leaves you at the place where the only thing you have to go on is your own speculation, which might not even be right because the whole Bible could just be an invention of a third century conspiracy to take over the world, and Jesus and Christianity just a figment of someone's creative religious imagination. But characterizing your own view as the "adult" faith is condescending, and reflects the kind of intolerance you ascribe to fundamentalists.

[William Thornton]

I join Sandy in his post above. Keith, it's no advantage for you to complain about lack of discussion of alternate interpretations. This saying of Jesus is easily harmonized and has been so for millennia. You don't accept any of the many options leaving nothing to discuss.

None of this is more than a yawner for me except for the contempt ladled out on biblical conservatives. ET, Flick, Sandy, et al have long demonstrated Christian character and testimony in spite of (as you would judge such things) being inerrantists. Either get a new whipping boy or a new vocabulary.

[Dave Roberts]

The problem with many conservative groups is that they seem to think Tim LaHaye is biblical or perhaps more biblical than the actual texts. The introduction of and support for dispensational premillennialism among Southern Baptists has left little thoughtful eschatology among many Baptists. If the "Left Behind" folks are right, then the previous 1800 years of Christian writings of Christ's return are all wrong. I tend to stick beside the first 1800 years, not the Darbyites.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Interesting, since most people who hold a Preterist, or partial Preterist view are not inerrantists.

There are several places where Matthew records Jesus' words about his coming death and resurrection, including the part you cite in Matthew 16. Then there's the transfiguration, occurring right after Jesus tells his disciples he will be seen coming in glory. Gee, no connection there, huh? Then there's the triumphal entry, straight from the book of Zechariah, and on a calendar that most of those who got involved in the parade in front of him would have recognized from Daniel. There are two time contexts, one in Matthew 16:28 (some standing here who will not taste death....) and one right after he directly references the destruction of the Temple in 24:1-2. Then he references the Abomination of Desolation from Daniel, another reference set squarely in Daniel's prophetic timeline, and then 24:34, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Jesus resurrected into glory within days. The Temple came down in 70 A.D., the "abomination of desolation" in the Holy Place. Not hard to figure that one out.

[Tim Bonney]

I honestly think constructing theories about how the second coming will take place is largely a waste of time. I doubt any of the theories known about are fully accurate. Nothing we know or can know controls what God decides to do.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Chris]

This is one of the best discussions..ever...on this board. Keith and Sandy are both making me THINK. I was in Sandy's corner inthe beginning, but Keith is giving me a lot to mull over.

[KeithE]

Thank Chris.

I have noted what I believe are inaccurate things in both paragraphs in Sandy’s last post, but I promised him the last word.