Looking at Matt 24, the first 14 verses

[Omegaman 3.0]

This is just something I stole from my own post in the Bible 365 club, and I thought I would share it here. I tried to refrain from making the post too controversial, and I do not plan to do any arguing over it in this study area either. Such debates belong in the Prophecy/Eschatology section of the forum. So here are some thoughts and observations for the first part of Matt 24:

Matt 24, verses 1 to 14

Having read this passage literally hundreds of times I'd estimate, it will take some self control to limit my comments.

First thing I would note, is that the disciples are asking a twofold or threefold question. It is twofold because it is about

1 timing/chronology and

2 a sign.

It is perhaps threefold, because the sign part has two elements, His coming AND the end of the age.

Before getting into more of the meat of the passage, I would like to make a note about the word "coming" that they were asking about. Coming, in English can be a verb, or a noun. The word in Greek here is parousia (or a derivative thereof). Without getting into the technical minutia of the language, basically parousia, is made up of two words. Para, means alongside, ousia means I am. Parousia is a noun, it is an event, and it depicts a person coming alongside, a coming to be with. Some Bibles translate it as arrival, or presence. In other words, "What is the sign of your coming to be with us?" would be a way to paraphrase that questions. Now, it is a twofold question, or a three fold one?

I tend to go with twofold, because they ask for the SIGN, not the SIGNS! I am not sure it really matters, because Jesus goes into quite some detail in his answer. It is helpful to look at the contexts of their question. They had earlier been at the temple, and there Jesus told them, that it would all be torn down. The temple was the center of Jewish life. To hear that it was going to be destroyed, even pondering it's destruction due to the massive stones it was fashioned from, must have been nearly unthinkable and quite shocking. Later, across the Kidron Valley, on the Mount of Olives, they asked "When shall these things be?"

When is this temple going to be destroyed? Jesus prediction ultimately came true in 70 A.D. when a Roman army under Titus, came and indeed, destroyed the place. So now we know the mindset of the apostles which spawned their curiosity. It is good to note also, that they were interested in a sign, and in the timing, and I shall get to that in a moment. I think it is good to note that Jesus, in His reply, gave a lot of effort to the chronological aspects of His answer. You can see that by noting the words and phrases like "then", "at that time", "not yet", "immediately after" in Matthew 24. I would also like to point out, that if one wants to study the end times, this is the place to start. Why would I say that? 

• It is a chronological question
• Jesus gave a chronological answer
• There is no higher authority that Jesus
• It is the most thoroughly developed  passage in scripture on the subject
• The words seem to be literal, not figurative and hard to grasp as the Book of Revelation is
• He is giving this information to his disciples
• Jesus instructed his disciples to make more disciples, who would make more disciples, and to pass what He said, onto disciples, that is you and I (if we are  Christians).

The daily reading of the Bible 365 club for this is 35 verses, this installment only deals with the first 14 of those.

In verse 4, Jesus instructs His disciples (and by implication you and I as well) to be certain that no one should be deceived. He then continues with things which could be misleading:

• False Messiahs
• Hearing of wars

 - but, the end is not yet! Remember that the disciples asked about the end of the age. What are they asking there? I am not prepared to say, because I do not know. Jesus could be referring to the end of the temple in that comment, or about the end of the age, whatever that is. Is that the end of Jewish focus and a focus for a while on the time of the Gentiles? Does that start with the destruction of the Temple, or with the start of the Church. Could be several things, these are just questions I ask, to get you to think about what is being communicated here.

In any case, the end is not yet, but Jesús continues to talk about things to come:

• nation will rise against nation
• kingdom against kingdom
• famines and earthquakes in various places. 

All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

Is kingdom against kingdom, basically the same as nation against nation? I have more questions than answers, I am just pointing out some questions which can be asked and for us to ponder. For one thing, that word nation in the passage, is the Greek word ethnos. It CAN mean a nation like were think of it. We think of that as a country, with borders and a government, etc. However ethnos, can be a distinction of different types of peoples, such as Jews and Gentiles. "The nations" is a phrase in the Bible which frequently refers to Gentiles, non-Jews. It can be different cultures, ethnicities, etc. most anyway people can divide and come against each other. We will come across this again in a moment.

Kingdom against kingdom. Again, different groups of people under different kings? How about the kingdom of Satan, or kingdoms of the world, against the kingdom of God. I am inclined to think this last thing is not in view here, since that has always been a battle, and is not very useful as a sign since it is ongoing and somewhat invisible, without some point in time where we could go "aha, that is it!".

Famines and earthquakes. That one is hard for me. Not that the words are difficult, it just strikes me that those have always been with us. Some commentators note (correctly?) that this occurred already. Many people think that this is true of our own time. To that I sometimes wonder, it that is the case actually? Or is that what we perceive because of our enhanced communication and detection ability. Does it even matter - is perception as valid as reality? The one thing I do think about it though, is that for it to be a sign, is has to be something noticeable to whichever people or time will be around to perceive it as out of the ordinary.

That these things are the BEGINNING of birth pains, means that there are more birth pains to come, does it not? Now we get to that, more birth pains:

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 

Ouch! Those birth pains ARE painful!

Whoever this is written to, is debated. First, it was spoken to the disciples, but it is recorded here in writing for those who would read the New Testament. Does this apply to Christians? Is it for Jews only? Both possibilities are argued, but I would not be too quick to limit it to Jews, as some do. Yes, these disciples were Jews. However, these disciples are also those who will be teaching others, who are the beginning of the church. We'll get into this a little more in a subsequent post, but for now I would say let's consider that these people, whoever are being spoken of, are persecuted for HIS name's sake. To me, personally, I think Christians are more likely to be persecuted for HIS name's sake, than Jews are, unless of course we are talking about Messianic believers, which is certainly a possibility, especially if this in taking place in the early time of the church, not a future time yet to come. The context of the chapter, certainly has a local focus, the temple, those in Judea, reference to sabbath keeping etc. That being said, Christians have been persecuted even to death, over the last 2000 years, and still are today.

We see again another warning about being deceived - mislead by false prophets, we certainly have seen that and continue to see that at work. I think it is also true, that we are seeing lawlessness increase, and love growing cold.

Finally in this part we have:

13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

In verse 13 we learn that it is the person who endures who will be saved. It is tempting to see the word saved there and apply that to salvation - as in the salvation to eternal life. After all the Bible does speak to that fact that those who persevere in their faith are the saved ones (Phil 1:6, 1 Jo 2:19, etc.), but I am not at all sure that is in mind here. That is a possibility, but there are other possibilities. Saved from what? If we could answer that question with certainty, perhaps we would be more confident in our assessment. 

Consider that there are different senses in what the "End" might be. The end of the temple - will some be saved as opposed to some being lost to the sword of Roman soldiers? Is this the end of some Jewish age, the end of the age as a reference to when things are finished at and then Jesus arrives at His second coming? Again, I have more questions than I have answers, so just some thoughts to prompt our thinking. Matt 10:22 says basically the same thing. I would suggest also, that it might be a good idea to look at what Luke says - what does his wording make you think?

Finally (for this section of my comments, we come to v 14:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

There again, we have the reference to "the end". I had mentioned that we would run into the word ethnos again. Here it is as "nations".  This part is interesting. These nations, are in the whole world. Almost certainly that means a larger area that Israel, or even the middle east! Does the "whole world" here, mean the whole known world that the original listeners would be aware of, for example the Roman empire? Does it mean the whole world as we know it now, including places like Australia, and the Americas?

Some people are intrigued by that last possibility.

Some say that there are about 2200 languages that do not have a Bible, perhaps about as many people groups (ethnos?) and therefore, the end will not come until those peoples are reached. In the mind of people who believe this, it may mean that Jesus will not come again until they are all reached with the gospel. The flip side of that coin is, that the busier the church gets at going out into that world with the gospel, the shorter the time will be until His return.

What do you think?

I know that was a lot to read but I promise, I did restrain myself. If you read this far, thank you for being patient with me!

[AdHoc]

On 2/7/2022 at 8:06 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

This is just something I stole from my own post in the Bible 365 club, and I thought I would share it here. I tried to refrain from making the post too controversial, and I do not plan to do any arguing over it in this study area either. Such debates belong in the Prophecy/Eschatology section of the forum. So here are some thoughts and observations for the first part of Matt 24:

Matt 24, verses 1 to 14

Having read this passage literally hundreds of times I'd estimate, it will take some self control to limit my comments.

First thing I would note, is that the disciples are asking a twofold or threefold question. It is twofold because it is about

1 timing/chronology and

2 a sign.

It is perhaps threefold, because the sign part has two elements, His coming AND the end of the age.

Before getting into more of the meat of the passage, I would like to make a note about the word "coming" that they were asking about. Coming, in English can be a verb, or a noun. The word in Greek here is parousia (or a derivative thereof). Without getting into the technical minutia of the language, basically parousia, is made up of two words. Para, means alongside, ousia means I am. Parousia is a noun, it is an event, and it depicts a person coming alongside, a coming to be with. Some Bibles translate it as arrival, or presence. In other words, "What is the sign of your coming to be with us?" would be a way to paraphrase that questions. Now, it is a twofold question, or a three fold one?

I tend to go with twofold, because they ask for the SIGN, not the SIGNS! I am not sure it really matters, because Jesus goes into quite some detail in his answer. It is helpful to look at the contexts of their question. They had earlier been at the temple, and there Jesus told them, that it would all be torn down. The temple was the center of Jewish life. To hear that it was going to be destroyed, even pondering it's destruction due to the massive stones it was fashioned from, must have been nearly unthinkable and quite shocking. Later, across the Kidron Valley, on the Mount of Olives, they asked "When shall these things be?"

When is this temple going to be destroyed? Jesus prediction ultimately came true in 70 A.D. when a Roman army under Titus, came and indeed, destroyed the place. So now we know the mindset of the apostles which spawned their curiosity. It is good to note also, that they were interested in a sign, and in the timing, and I shall get to that in a moment. I think it is good to note that Jesus, in His reply, gave a lot of effort to the chronological aspects of His answer. You can see that by noting the words and phrases like "then", "at that time", "not yet", "immediately after" in Matthew 24. I would also like to point out, that if one wants to study the end times, this is the place to start. Why would I say that? 

• It is a chronological question
• Jesus gave a chronological answer
• There is no higher authority that Jesus
• It is the most thoroughly developed  passage in scripture on the subject
• The words seem to be literal, not figurative and hard to grasp as the Book of Revelation is
• He is giving this information to his disciples
• Jesus instructed his disciples to make more disciples, who would make more disciples, and to pass what He said, onto disciples, that is you and I (if we are  Christians).

The daily reading of the Bible 365 club for this is 35 verses, this installment only deals with the first 14 of those.

In verse 4, Jesus instructs His disciples (and by implication you and I as well) to be certain that no one should be deceived. He then continues with things which could be misleading:

• False Messiahs
• Hearing of wars

 - but, the end is not yet! Remember that the disciples asked about the end of the age. What are they asking there? I am not prepared to say, because I do not know. Jesus could be referring to the end of the temple in that comment, or about the end of the age, whatever that is. Is that the end of Jewish focus and a focus for a while on the time of the Gentiles? Does that start with the destruction of the Temple, or with the start of the Church. Could be several things, these are just questions I ask, to get you to think about what is being communicated here.

In any case, the end is not yet, but Jesús continues to talk about things to come:

• nation will rise against nation
• kingdom against kingdom
• famines and earthquakes in various places. 

All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

Is kingdom against kingdom, basically the same as nation against nation? I have more questions than answers, I am just pointing out some questions which can be asked and for us to ponder. For one thing, that word nation in the passage, is the Greek word ethnos. It CAN mean a nation like were think of it. We think of that as a country, with borders and a government, etc. However ethnos, can be a distinction of different types of peoples, such as Jews and Gentiles. "The nations" is a phrase in the Bible which frequently refers to Gentiles, non-Jews. It can be different cultures, ethnicities, etc. most anyway people can divide and come against each other. We will come across this again in a moment.

Kingdom against kingdom. Again, different groups of people under different kings? How about the kingdom of Satan, or kingdoms of the world, against the kingdom of God. I am inclined to think this last thing is not in view here, since that has always been a battle, and is not very useful as a sign since it is ongoing and somewhat invisible, without some point in time where we could go "aha, that is it!".

Famines and earthquakes. That one is hard for me. Not that the words are difficult, it just strikes me that those have always been with us. Some commentators note (correctly?) that this occurred already. Many people think that this is true of our own time. To that I sometimes wonder, it that is the case actually? Or is that what we perceive because of our enhanced communication and detection ability. Does it even matter - is perception as valid as reality? The one thing I do think about it though, is that for it to be a sign, is has to be something noticeable to whichever people or time will be around to perceive it as out of the ordinary.

That these things are the BEGINNING of birth pains, means that there are more birth pains to come, does it not? Now we get to that, more birth pains:

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 

Ouch! Those birth pains ARE painful!

Whoever this is written to, is debated. First, it was spoken to the disciples, but it is recorded here in writing for those who would read the New Testament. Does this apply to Christians? Is it for Jews only? Both possibilities are argued, but I would not be too quick to limit it to Jews, as some do. Yes, these disciples were Jews. However, these disciples are also those who will be teaching others, who are the beginning of the church. We'll get into this a little more in a subsequent post, but for now I would say let's consider that these people, whoever are being spoken of, are persecuted for HIS name's sake. To me, personally, I think Christians are more likely to be persecuted for HIS name's sake, than Jews are, unless of course we are talking about Messianic believers, which is certainly a possibility, especially if this in taking place in the early time of the church, not a future time yet to come. The context of the chapter, certainly has a local focus, the temple, those in Judea, reference to sabbath keeping etc. That being said, Christians have been persecuted even to death, over the last 2000 years, and still are today.

We see again another warning about being deceived - mislead by false prophets, we certainly have seen that and continue to see that at work. I think it is also true, that we are seeing lawlessness increase, and love growing cold.

Finally in this part we have:

13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

In verse 13 we learn that it is the person who endures who will be saved. It is tempting to see the word saved there and apply that to salvation - as in the salvation to eternal life. After all the Bible does speak to that fact that those who persevere in their faith are the saved ones (Phil 1:6, 1 Jo 2:19, etc.), but I am not at all sure that is in mind here. That is a possibility, but there are other possibilities. Saved from what? If we could answer that question with certainty, perhaps we would be more confident in our assessment. 

Consider that there are different senses in what the "End" might be. The end of the temple - will some be saved as opposed to some being lost to the sword of Roman soldiers? Is this the end of some Jewish age, the end of the age as a reference to when things are finished at and then Jesus arrives at His second coming? Again, I have more questions than I have answers, so just some thoughts to prompt our thinking. Matt 10:22 says basically the same thing. I would suggest also, that it might be a good idea to look at what Luke says - what does his wording make you think?

Finally (for this section of my comments, we come to v 14:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

There again, we have the reference to "the end". I had mentioned that we would run into the word ethnos again. Here it is as "nations".  This part is interesting. These nations, are in the whole world. Almost certainly that means a larger area that Israel, or even the middle east! Does the "whole world" here, mean the whole known world that the original listeners would be aware of, for example the Roman empire? Does it mean the whole world as we know it now, including places like Australia, and the Americas?

Some people are intrigued by that last possibility.

Some say that there are about 2200 languages that do not have a Bible, perhaps about as many people groups (ethnos?) and therefore, the end will not come until those peoples are reached. In the mind of people who believe this, it may mean that Jesus will not come again until they are all reached with the gospel. The flip side of that coin is, that the busier the church gets at going out into that world with the gospel, the shorter the time will be until His return.

What do you think?

I know that was a lot to read but I promise, I did restrain myself. If you read this far, thank you for being patient with me!

My hope is that my posting is seen as additional information to the above, and not a challenge. I'll try to lay forth a framework that might help lead to understanding this passage.

From this passage, Acts Chapter 1 and Romans Chapter 9, we can deduce that the heart of a Jew is concerned with the destiny of Israel. The disciples here in Matthew 24 were disturbed by Jesus' prophecy. In Acts 1 they inquired if God would restore Israel, and Paul was willing to swap his eternal security for Israel's, even though he was converted. If we add the whole Old Testament to this, we see that God too is very vocal about Israel's future. So it should come as no surprise when a good part of our Lord's answer to the three questions in 24:3 concerns the Jews. And the fact that the disciples asked for "signs" attests to their Jewishness (1st Cor.1:22). Our Lord Himself had hard words to say about giving a "sign" and we learn that the Church should not seek signs but live by faith. But here the Lord tolerates the request for a "sign".

The contents of Matthew 24:1-31 is almost exclusively Jewish. We have;

1. The Temple - seat and center of the Jewish religion
2. False Christ's - a Jewish problem since the still look for their Messiah
3. False prophets - a Jewish problem which is contrasted with "False TEACHERS" for the Church
4. Daniel the prophet - a Jew who prophesied to "HIS people"
5. The Abomination of Desolation - a something that happens among "Daniel's People"
6. Judea - the tribal area of the kingship of Israel
7. Jerusalem - the center of Jewry and its religion
8. Those who "SEE" the Abomination of Desolation - that is, those living nearby Jerusalem

But the objection may arise that the disciples preaching the gospel, being hated and delivered to synagogues is a Christian matter. If true, this breaks the train of things Jewish. The answer is that preaching the gospel to all nations IS a Christian matter, but since Israel is in dispersion among all nations, the disciples would be as much preaching Christ to the Jews as the Gentiles. And it was this very group that are here addressed by the Lord Jesus that were sent to the "CIRCUMCISION" (Gal.2:7-9). It is another Apostle, born out of time - Paul (1st Cor.15:8), who was sent to the uncircumcision. And thus Luke, in the same context, gives the clue;

 12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, ... 16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; ... 19 In your patience possess ye your souls. (extract Luke 21:11–19)

It is clear to whom they go with the gospel if the are "delivered to a synagogue", and hated by "parents, brethren, kinsfolk and friends".

But at once another more pressing point needs to be addressed; In what way is a man "SAVED" by "ENDURING" (v.13)? In the Bible, there are multiple meanings of the word "saved". Noah was "saved", but not from the Lake of Fire. He was saved FROM water by the Ark. But 1st Peter 3:20-21 says that Noah was saved BY water. This "salvation" is not a salvation from the Lake of Fire, but from memories of the past evil of before the flood. Contemporary Christian doctrine is that we are "saved" by faith and this salvation is to avoid the wages of sins and have, as our final destiny, heaven. The first part is correct, but from Genesis 1:26-28, man is made to subdue and rule the earth. Salvation and rebirth are not for going to heaven, but to fulfill God's reason for making man.

"Salvation" is a PROCESS wherein a man goes from a destiny of destruction to a destiny of being in the likeness and image of Christ (Rom.8:29). But this grand work that is made effective by faith is FOR a PURPOSE - FOR being part of Christ's Kingdom ON EARTH (Lk.19:17-19). We are "saved" from God's wrath by Christ's death. We are saved from being useless by having eternal life. Eternal life enables us to to be "like" Christ in expression and moral testimony. And rebirth makes us sons of God TO INHERIT the earth - all this by faith. But then follows a time of training for kingship. So "salvation" is the FULL process of being restored to the image and likeness of Christ AND being made a co-king with Jesus in His KINGDOM. We see this in Matthew 19 where our Lord Jesus says that it is almost impossible for a rich man to ENTER THE KINGDOM. Faith does its work in respect of what Christ has done, but then the training starts. When our Lord told His disciples that it was almost impossible for a rich man to enter the KINGDOM, the disciples who were constantly under the teaching of Jesus, understood that NOT entering the Kingdom was not being SAVED (Matt.19:25). It is like Prince Charles of Great Britain. He is BORN to royalty and is heir. But if he refuses his training, becomes a drug addict and murders people, he will be locked in jail and NO inherit his throne.

So also the Christian. The PROCESS of salvation means, (i) repenting of sin and sins, (ii) believing in the efficacy of Christ's Work, (iii) calling on the name of Jesus, (iv) being refined by trials ( 1st Pet.1), (v) adding virtues to our faith (2nd Pet.1), (vi) doing God's will (Matt.7), (vii) being resurrected with a body like Christ's, and (viii) being found worthy to be a co-king of Christ's when He comes back to earth (Lk.19:17-19). That is, we are saved from perdition by faith FOR THE PURPOSE of being co-kings of Christ when He returns. And while the first part is by FAITH, the goal of salvation, to rule the earth, is by your BEHAVIOR. In Mathew 7:21-23 one enters the Kingdom by "DOING the will of the Father". On the other hand, one an be disqualified from the KINGDOM by evil and fleshly WORKS (1st Cor.6:9-10, Gal.5:19-23, Eph.5:5).

In Matthew 24:13, being saved is addressing how we fare before the judgement seat when REWARDS will be given. It assumes that you are born again and have eternal life.

The passage (Matthew 24:1-31) continues to the first "sign" - when they SEE the Abomination of Desolation. This starts the three and one half year Tribulation. Those in Judea must flee to the mountains. The Great Tribulation runs its course and then at its close are the next "SIGNS" - the disruption of the heavenly bodies. Then follows the last "sign" - the "SIGN of the Son of Man". Scholars have speculated what it is. The Bible does not say, but it could be a cross, for the next thing to happen is Jesus, having been hid in the clouds, judging the Church, now bursts forth and is recognized by "the people of the LANDS" because of His WOUNDS (Rev.1:9). But this speculative. What the "sign of the Son of man" is, is not given.

The Church will have been raptured to the clouds and return with Jesus, so the appearing, or "Revealing" of our Lord Jesus over the "Lands" is to save Jerusalem, fight Armageddon, and RESTORE Israel. Then the angels are sent to the "four winds" to collect whosoever was scattered there - ISRAEL (Jer.49:38, Ezek.37:9).

Much more detail can be gleaned from this passage, but essentially it is the prophecy of Christ's coming ("parousia" - His "presence") as the Jewish convert will see it in connection with Israel. It partially answers the questions of verse 3. It addresses how things pan out for the Jews, not because the Jews will read and believe the New Testament, but the burning question for every Jewish convert, like Paul in Romans 9, 10 & 11, is, "what happens to Israel at Christ's coming?" This section starts with the Temple (70 AD), and ends with Israel's gathering from the four winds at that unknown date. The whole context is about Jews and how they fare through this age.

The next section, from Matthew 24:32 only has TWO SIGNS because it addresses the Church. It is not our subject here, but you will notice that Matthew 24:32 onward starts with a parable and concerns moral issues with God's servants and virgins. This next section addresses the Church.
 

[AdHoc]

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

Can you explain that? What do you mean by when saying the text of Matthew 24:31 is "exclusively Jewish"?

That was the content of my posting. I judge that you have not missed that because you actually did not assail one of the proofs I brought. Where you differ, and I refer to previous debates we've had, is that you place the fulfillment of prophecy at a different point in time to me. Since that is not the content of the OP, and in a recent posting of yours you made a point of sticking rigidly to the theme of the OP, I'll let my posting stand as it is. The term "Christian Eschatology" is foreign to me. If we look for a Savior from heaven, what prophecy is of import to a Christian? We are to live by faith - not events. As I posted, in the section of the Olivet Discourse concerning the Church, only one event is mentioned - and that, by parable. If you want to dispute the timing of the fulfillment of events, I will quote the verse under discussion - Matthew 24:3. Any prophecy in Matthew 24 after verse 3 concerns; (i) "when shall these things be, (ii) what will be the sign of your coming, and (iii) what will be the sign of the end of the age?"

 

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

No, it's not so clear. 

The reason it's not so clear is that Paul and Peter both preached toboth audiences. While it is true, they were "sent" to those respective populations, 1) they were sent by man and not God, and 2) they inevitably preached to both simply as a matter of both groups being substantially integrated outside of the nation of Israel. Luk2 21:16 is cited as evidence but the fact is both men were killed in Rome by Gentiles, not kinfolk. According to Acts 9:20, as well as Acts chapters 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 26, this same Luke cited above reports Paul preaching in synagogues to Jews often and repeatedly. Almost all the way up to his death in Rome. Remember also the conflict that arose between Paul and Peter over Peter's differing presentations between Jewish and Gentile converts.  We therefore see that taking verses like Lk. 21:16, Acts 11:3, and Gal. 2:7 on their own and not in light of the whole scripture, or all that the scriptures have to say on the subject, leads to a misconception Paul and Peter had different audiences to whom they preached. 

 

 

 

.

You have either missed what I said, or you want a dispute for dispute's sake. Did I not say that "it was a Christian matter" and that the Apostles would preach to ALL Nations? Here is my statement verbatim;

17 hours ago, AdHoc said:

The answer is that preaching the gospel to all nations IS a Christian matter, but since Israel is in dispersion among all nations, the disciples would be as much preaching Christ to the Jews as the Gentiles.

 

[Alive]

1 hour ago, AdHoc said:

have either missed what I said, or you want a dispute for dispute's sake. Did I not say that "it was a Christian matter" and that the Apostles would preach to ALL Nations? Here is my statement verbatim

This is characterizing a brother with ill intent and not acceptable. Please, knock it off.

Make your points in love rather than seeing something in a brother you cannot know.

[Omegaman 3.0]

At least now I know that a few people have read the post! 

[missmuffet]

The Olivet Discourse contains Christ's teaching on the end of the age, the period leading up to His coming to set up His kingdom on earth. It details the prophecy of the coming kingdom and the time of reward and blessing for those who trust in the Lord. 

Matthew 24:4-14                                             Revelation 6

Rise of false messiahs(24:4-6)                       Rise of Antichrist(6:1-2)

Wars and rumors of wars(24:6-7)                  Peace taken from the earth(6:3-4)            

Famines and earthquakes(24:7-8)                  Famine (6:5-6)

No parallel                                                         Death of earth's population(6:7-8)    

Persecution and martyrdom(24:9-14)            Martyrdom(6:9-11)

 

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

There's nothing in scripture explicitly mentioning native Americans, or Polynesians (for example). This places us in the position of having to figure out what any given mention of these terms means in the context of scripture, because much of scripture is not about anything outside itself. 

Point taken, but I am not convinced that it is outside of Gods' wisdom in revelation, that things in scripture later can become relevant, to those who will need it at the right time. As an example of that, I would take it that preaching to the uttermost parts of the world, would include Polynesians, not merely the world known to readers of scripture at the time of it's writing. I am expecting that you would agree with that, explicit or not!

[MattLovesCoffee]

On 2/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Some say that there are about 2200 languages that do not have a Bible, perhaps about as many people groups (ethnos?) and therefore, the end will not come until those peoples are reached. In the mind of people who believe this, it may mean that Jesus will not come again until they are all reached with the gospel. The flip side of that coin is, that the busier the church gets at going out into that world with the gospel, the shorter the time will be until His return.

What do you think?

What you said at the end here fails to take into consideration all the other hundreds upon hundreds of End Times prophecies. For example Revelation 14:6-12, "Next I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven with everlasting Good News to proclaim to those living on the earth — to every nation, tribe, language and people..." So His return is not dependent on us preaching the Gospel but that the preaching will be via angels and will happen at a predetermined time during the Tribulation, the latter half.

And we cannot make it speed up because God already established when it would all occur. Back in the Torah God told us the 6+1 pattern in Genesis 1, in the 7 Festivals, the layout of the Temple, the Sabbath Rest law and various other laws in the Torah (when you open your prophetic eyes). Both the Psalms and 2 Peter say "one day is as a thousand years" and both are in context of knowing the timing of prophetic fulfilment. The Epistle of Barnabas might not be canon but it dates to the first century and provides valuable insight to how the first believers thought. In chapter 15:1-6 it shows they already knew that from Adam to the end of the age would take 6000 years, they realised the Sabbath Rest was a prophecy, which would then be followed by the Millennial Reign of Messiah. Christ was crucified in 33CE, being the most scholarly consensus, so we're looking at 2033CE being Messiah's return in the third quarter of the year, and late 2026CE for the commencement of the Tribulation. From the crucifixion to His return will take 2000 years, being prophetic days 5 and 6 on the Sabbath Rest calendar. Even Genesis 1 Day 5 spoke of marine life flourishing and flying creatures and dinosaurs. Day 6 spoke of mankind being created. Now the fifth millennium (33CE to 1033CE) was known for the Gospel going to the nations (a.k.a. prophetic for the seas). Believers overcame sin (flying above), and the dinosaurs represent the philosophy of man, Institutionalized Christianity and Islam. The sixth millennium (1033CE to 2033CE) has seen mankind spread all over the earth, and is finishing strongly with the religion of man. The great problem with Christianity is the failure to understand the Torah, if Christians today knew it they would know the "day nobody knows" is NOT referring to Messiah's return to earth on the Day of Atonement (the tenth day of the seventh month) but rather to the Day of Trumpets (the first day of the seventh month which the Jews call the unknown day), which precedes the Tribulation, and we call it the Rapture (Isaiah 57:1-2; Revelation 3:10). It's also a secret because God has not told the year He will take His Church, but there are only five possible years (opportunities) left. All the End Times prophecies are beginning to converge rapidly now.

Read The End of the Beginning by Ken Power, available for free to read online and download from his website. He digs deep into the Olivet Discourse of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and you'll see that it's not strictly chronological.

Edited March 2, 2022 by MattLovesCoffee
Grammar/spelling. Changed "Day 1" to "Day 5".

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

(my apologies for the length)

Nah, none needed. I also am a windbag, inkbag, and pixelbag as it suits the occasion. Some things cannot be said succintly without sacrificing relevance.

I do not find myself, fundamentally, disagreeing with anything you wrote above (I think)! I do however question things like people exegetical hierarchies. The first thing I want to know about them, is where in the Bible, do we find this list. In this case, where in the Bible does it say to understand the test as the original author and his audience, would have understood it? It that is not is scripture, then it is manmade, invented by sinners with corrupted thinking. I am not saying it is wrong, nor even ill advised, I am just not sure I have seen that outline in scripture, so I am suspect.

Adding to the suspicion, it what I think is a demonstrable fact, that the authors did not always understand what they wrote, and in the case of the Apostles at least before Pentecost, they did not understand what Jesus said either. Certainly Jesus said in essence a few times:

"Are you really this dull?"

The temple of His body, is a case in point, where they were like "Aha, now I get it, he meant his body, DOH!". Now, with that perspective in mind, you can get an idea of how reliable it can be  to try to understand things as the audience would have understood them. Sone things were written in parable, to be misunderstood, by those they were not intended to reach. Jesus had to explain those, but He has not explained them all. There are passages (Daniel) where the meaning was hidden, sealed, until a certain, later time. I am not convinced that this is not the case for eschatology now, though that is sort of an argument from silence. It seems to me that much of the symbolism of Revelation makes little or no sense to me, but I expect they will make sense to those they need to make sense to, when the time comes.

In cases like that, one of my exegetical rules would be to understand scripture not in a literal sense (although I think that is the first way to consider it), but recognizing in not only (if even that) how the audience would have understood, but allowing for the fact that not all writing is the same style. There is history, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic literature etc. Mind you, I have no Theological training (in the sense that I have not been to seminary), so I am just a struggling layman, not to be believed. However, I am also wise enough to know, that having ThD after your name, also does not make on right, it just makes one educated.

A number of years ago, I published a sort of list of principles I use (I do not go down a checklist, they are just second nature to me as I read/study), in fact I use some of them reading any text, not just Bible. Right or wrong, I don't know, but I think so far, they have served to guide me fairly well. People here, of course disagree with me from time to time, but I notice also, that usually they do not do so from any impressive exegesis either, lol. My list here was in 2008, so I might have added or subtracted some in the last 14 years, always learning, always refining.

There are a few things that I am not comfortable with. 

One, things are spiritually discerned. To me it is obvious, that we have the Spirit to guide our understanding. By obvious, I mean that is what I understand the scripture to say. The problem is, that here on the forums (and outside of them) there are lots of people who disagree with me, and I with them, and them with each other. Some ideas are contradictory, so they cannot all be correct, but they could all be incorrect. I certainly do not have the confidence (AKA pride) to say to someone "I am right and you are wrong, because I have the Holy Spirit inside of me!".

Another thing that troubles me a little, is the question, of how do we know that the Bible is inspired? By that I do not mean scripture that God has inspired, I see that as a given, even though it is circular reasoning. What I mean is, are the 66 book I have, the right ones? Could there be 65, or 67? I take it by faith, in the Bible, that my faith in God is justified, and that strikes me as a bit creepy, lol.

Anyway, I appreciate your replies Josheb. I find them well thought out, rational, well researched, and I can tolerate the length because of those features.

[Omegaman 3.0]

25 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Let me take the opportunity to point out something to which heed might be taken. The opening statement assumes something about Omega that 1) is nowhere in evidence and 2) you have no way of knowing. It was posted his statement "fails to take into consideration." Not only is that not necessarily true, but knowing Omega's views as I do based on time spent trading posts with him, I know Omega has NOT failed to consider the point. 

Thanks, I was thinking that too, but rather than point out what is obvious to me, and Matt had no way to know, I was just going to let it slide, as I did not want it to go too far off the topic of those few verses, I have enough sidetracking me already!

and yes, Welcome Matt - how does one resist the pun?