What were they thinking??

[basilfo]

Sorry this is a bit long, but I would be interested in any of your thoughts on perhaps a different way to approach the correct interpretation of the Olivet discourse.

***********

The contents of the Olivet Discourse have been studied, dissected, and of course speculated on by most seeking an understanding of eschatology. Makes sense considering it comes from the best Source and is the longest continuous discourse in Scripture on the subject.

But, is it possible to arrive at a sound interpretation of the many elements of the OD, particularly the parousia, without first understanding the questions asked by the disciples? I submit that a preconceived notion of the disciples’ questions automatically bakes in a biased, perhaps misguided interpretation of the discourse. I believe those smarter than me call that eisegesis.

So let’s review the opening scene of the OD after removing our own eschatological templates and try to determine what theirs could have been (and maybe more importantly, what it could not have been.)

Mark and Luke record that the disciples only asked when the temple would be destroyed, and what would be the signs associated with that event.

Mark 13:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things be? And what [will be] the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?"

Luke 21:7 So they asked Him, saying, "Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign [will there be] when these things are about to take place?"

However, Matthew’s account attaches another aspect to the questions. He records that the disciples inherently associated both the 'end of the age' and 'Your coming' (the parousia) with the destruction of the temple of God.

Matt 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what [will be] the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

1. Do we know from Jesus‘ teaching, Scripture or Jewish theology at that exact moment in time (days before the crucifixion) what the disciples had been taught concerning the parousia and the ‘end of the age’? What did they think the parousia was and what age did they believe would end?

2. Why did the disciples immediately connect these two things (the parousia and the ‘end of the age’) with the destruction of the temple?

3. Is there any evidence from any source that they would have associated the destruction of the temple, along with the covenantal significance of such an event, with the physical destruction of the planet or earth as they understood it?

4. Is there any evidence from any source that they understood 'Your coming' (the parousia) to be a 'return' of Christ? In John 16, Christ says " A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father." But this is in reference to His crucifixion and resurrection, not a second advent.

5. Is the parousia referred to by the disciples prior to the OD different from other references to the parousia throughout the NT?

It seems that many today automatically posit that the disciples were asking about the timing and signs of a future, bodily return to earth of Christ. Is there any evidence that such a thought existed in their understanding at the time they asked the questions? If not, we ought not insert our prejudiced interpretation into their question.


Peace to you,
Dave

[TheForgiven]

It seems that many today automatically posit that the disciples were asking about the timing and signs of a future, bodily return to earth of Christ. Is there any evidence that such a thought existed in their understanding at the time they asked the questions? If not, we ought not insert our prejudiced interpretation into their question.


Peace to you,
Dave

Hello brother Dave! It's great to see you active in the Biblewheel forum again. It's been a while since I've seen you debating Preterism.

My own opinion regarding what they were thinking is this. I do not believe they were asking Jesus when He would return, particuarly when they had no idea He was leaving. IMHO, they were asking Him when He was coming to destroy the temple. Considering they read from the Septuagint, let us see what Daniel states regarding the temple being destroyed:


Daniel 9:26:

26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Now we of course understand that Jesus would be the hand that uses the Roman General (ruler/prince of the throne of Rome) to destroy the temple.

I use Daniel's letter because Jesus states his to the Apostles regarding the Abomination that sets up the Desolation.

In conclusion, the Apostles did not know Jesus was leaving, although they heard a few times previously that He was going to be killed, and raised on the 3rd day; yet they never understood what He meant. In reading the Gospel of John, He tells them that He must go away, and even then, they did not understand.

Thus, I believe they were asking the Apostles when He was going to declare Himself as the Messiah, force out the Romans, destroy the temple, and rebuild it into a more glorious temple.

Joe

[basilfo]

Hi Joe,
Good points above. The point my questions is basically this. How is it that 95/100 folks reading Matt 24:3 think the disciples were asking about the "second coming" at the "end of the world", if such a theory/teaching did not exist at the time?

So my question boils down to:

Did the teaching of the Messiah returning to earth physically after His death/resurrection/ascension exist in Scripture, Jewish understanding, or from Christ's teaching Himself AT THAT TIME? If not, how can one interpret the words of the disciples ("Your coming") in this way?

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe,
Good points above. The point my questions is basically this. How is it that 95/100 folks reading Matt 24:3 think the disciples were asking about the "second coming" at the "end of the world", if such a theory/teaching did not exist at the time?

So my question boils down to:

Did the teaching of the Messiah returning to earth physically after His death/resurrection/ascension exist in Scripture, Jewish understanding, or from Christ's teaching Himself AT THAT TIME? If not, how can one interpret the words of the disciples ("Your coming") in this way?

That is a very good question. I too have made the assumption in the past that the Apostles were asking Jesus about His second coming. This error is caused by a preconceived idea of a second coming, so when we read Matthew 24:3, we automatically assume, just reading the verse before we even understand it, to assume the Apostles were asking about His return.

Society has filled our minds since childhood about a second coming of Jesus. Popular myth has it that Jesus would one day return to resurrect all Christians who have died since the first century, leaving those that remain to destroy the world. The popular fictional movie "LEFT BEHIND" has left an even larger imprint the minds of our society. It seems that people are so obsessed with the doom of the world that even the film producers are making raving movies about the end of the world.

The only way to embrace the truth is to let go of what you accept as the truth.....especially when what you accept as truth has been found to be a lie.

I believe strongly that the Apostles were asking Jesus when He was coming to do all the things regarding the temple....not when He was returning, especially when they never understood his departure.

Joe

[basilfo]

Right again Joe. My question (mainly to any non-preterists) remains:

Did the teaching of the Messiah returning to earth physically after His death/resurrection/ascension exist in Scripture, Jewish understanding, or from Christ's teaching Himself AT THAT TIME?

If not, how can one interpret the words of the disciples ("Your coming") in this way?

[Rose]

That is a very good question. I too have made the assumption in the past that the Apostles were asking Jesus about His second coming. This error is caused by a preconceived idea of a second coming, so when we read Matthew 24:3, we automatically assume, just reading the verse before we even understand it, to assume the Apostles were asking about His return.

Society has filled our minds since childhood about a second coming of Jesus. Popular myth has it that Jesus would one day return to resurrect all Christians who have died since the first century, leaving those that remain to destroy the world. The popular fictional movie "LEFT BEHIND" has left an even larger imprint the minds of our society. It seems that people are so obsessed with the doom of the world that even the film producers are making raving movies about the end of the world.

The only way to embrace the truth is to let go of what you accept as the truth.....especially when what you accept as truth has been found to be a lie.

I believe strongly that the Apostles were asking Jesus when He was coming to do all the things regarding the temple....not when He was returning, especially when they never understood his departure.

Joe
I think you are absolutely right Joe, :thumb: it's what we go into Scripture believing. The preconceived ideas that we have been bombarded with from every angle, causes us to assume something that is not said in Scripture. It's only when we make a conscience effort to put those assumptions aside, that we can begin to see what is really being said.

As I have said many times, it wasn't until I studied the book of Revelation on my own, determined to understand this "mysterious" book and putting aside all the preconceived ideas I had gathered from many sources over the years....that God was able to open my eyes to the many wonders contained in this book that is "the revelation of Jesus Christ". Far from the Sci-Fi fantasy tale that is woven by many pastors and teachers of today, leading their followers down a trail of lies and deception. It is indeed a sad state that the mainstream church has gotten itself into.

God Bless

Rose

[CWH]

I think you are absolutely right Joe, :thumb: it's what we go into Scripture believing. The preconceived ideas that we have been bombarded with from every angle, causes us to assume something that is not said in Scripture. It's only when we make a conscience effort to put those assumptions aside, that we can begin to see what is really being said.

As I have said many times, it wasn't until I studied the book of Revelation on my own, determined to understand this "mysterious" book and putting aside all the preconceived ideas I had gathered from many sources over the years....that God was able to open my eyes to the many wonders contained in this book that is "the revelation of Jesus Christ". Far from the Sci-Fi fantasy tale that is woven by many pastors and teachers of today, leading their followers down a trail of lies and deception. It is indeed a sad state that the mainstream church has gotten itself into.


God Bless

Rose

Me too. I studied the book of Revelation on my own, determined to understand this "mysterious" book and putting aside all the preconceived ideas I had gathered from many sources over the years....that God was able to open my eyes to the many wonders contained in this book that is "the revelation of Jesus Christ". Finally, I began Io see many prophesies pertaining to the future which others may not see and they surprise even myself. I began to understand what the 7 seals are all about, the 7 trumpets and the 7 bowls, what the Beast is, the anti-christ, why jesus said "I am coming", why the beast "was alive, is now and yet to come".

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Me too. I studied the book of Revelation on my own, determined to understand this "mysterious" book and putting aside all the preconceived ideas I had gathered from many sources over the years....that God was able to open my eyes to the many wonders contained in this book that is "the revelation of Jesus Christ". Finally, I began Io see many prophesies pertaining to the future which others may not see and they surprise even myself. I began to understand what the 7 seals are all about, the 7 trumpets and the 7 bowls, what the Beast is, the anti-christ, why jesus said "I am coming", why the beast "was alive, is now and yet to come".

Many Blessings.


Hey Cheow,

Just exactly what did you learn about the meaning of the 7 seals, and the 7 Trumpets, and the 7 bowls,....and while were on the subject, why did Jesus say "I am coming"?, and what about the Beast who was alive and is now and yet to come?

I am anxiously awaiting your answers.....:yes:

Rose

[Rose]

Me too. I studied the book of Revelation on my own, determined to understand this "mysterious" book and putting aside all the preconceived ideas I had gathered from many sources over the years....that God was able to open my eyes to the many wonders contained in this book that is "the revelation of Jesus Christ". Finally, I began Io see many prophesies pertaining to the future which others may not see and they surprise even myself. I began to understand what the 7 seals are all about, the 7 trumpets and the 7 bowls, what the Beast is, the anti-christ, why jesus said "I am coming", why the beast "was alive, is now and yet to come".

Many Blessings.


Hey Cheow,

Just exactly what did you learn about the meaning of the 7 seals, and the 7 Trumpets, and the 7 bowls,....and while were on the subject, why did Jesus say "I am coming"?, and what about the Beast who was alive and is now and yet to come?

I am anxiously awaiting your answers.....:yes:

Rose

[CWH]

Hey Cheow,

Just exactly what did you learn about the meaning of the 7 seals, and the 7 Trumpets, and the 7 bowls,....and while were on the subject, why did Jesus say "I am coming"?, and what about the Beast who was alive and is now and yet to come?

I am anxiously awaiting your answers.....:yes:

Rose

Hi Rose,

Most of what I have written are in my previous posts and threads. It will be tedious to repeat again. It will be a long post word for word of the verses of the Revelations which I could hardly find time for. Why not you come out with your interpretations of the said topic by topic and I will come out mine.

There was once a long debate between Richard and Joel and now it seems a long debate between Rose and Cheow.:lol:

Many Blessings to you.

[basilfo]

Always nice to read pleasant generalities between all of us.......but.......I didn't anyone take a stab at the original question - except Joe. I agree with you Joe, that they could not have had "His return" in mind. But, just about all futurists believe they did. What (other than the aforementioned preconceived notion about the 2nd coming that is inserted into the scene) supports that mindset? They hardly grasped His death/resurrection/ascension.

I'm looking for OT Scripture or any other teaching they may have received at that time - and I promise, I'll only ask this one last time.

Thanks.

Dave

[gregoryfl]

Always nice to read pleasant generalities between all of us.......but.......I didn't anyone take a stab at the original question - except Joe. I agree with you Joe, that they could not have had "His return" in mind. But, just about all futurists believe they did. What (other than the aforementioned preconceived notion about the 2nd coming that is inserted into the scene) supports that mindset? They hardly grasped His death/resurrection/ascension.

I'm looking for OT Scripture or any other teaching they may have received at that time - and I promise, I'll only ask this one last time.

Thanks.

DaveDave,

If you are asking whether there are any writings before or during Jesus' time that would indicate that some back then possibly believed in a 2nd coming scenario, there is none (that I am aware of). What the evidence suggests is an understanding of 2 Messiahs, one to rule as king and the other to be a priest. There were also some who believed that there would be one Messiah who would fulfill BOTH roles. Apparently what the disciples believed about this time was that at some point Jesus would make himself known as Messiah in power, demolish all worldly rule, and restore Israel to glory. This time was described as the parousia, or the presence of the Messiah.

I believe the modern day idea of a 2nd coming of Christ is an idea born during the 1800's and read back into the text.

Ron

[TheForgiven]

Dave,

If you are asking whether there are any writings before or during Jesus' time that would indicate that some back then possibly believed in a 2nd coming scenario, there is none (that I am aware of). What the evidence suggests is an understanding of 2 Messiahs, one to rule as king and the other to be a priest. There were also some who believed that there would be one Messiah who would fulfill BOTH roles. Apparently what the disciples believed about this time was that at some point Jesus would make himself known as Messiah in power, demolish all worldly rule, and restore Israel to glory. This time was described as the parousia, or the presence of the Messiah.

I believe the modern day idea of a 2nd coming of Christ is an idea born during the 1800's and read back into the text.

Ron


:congrats: That's it brother Ron!!!! You got it! :woohoo:

That is exactly what was going through their minds. Remember when they first met Jesus, and how they would exclaim, "We have found the one; the Messiah". Knowing that they found the Messiah would mean that Israel would soon be restored to the glory days of Joshua, David, and Solomon. Israel was back bro! We're back! But then, sudden disaster struck their Messiah, and all of them began to doubt that He was the Messiah; Peter did. How could the Messiah die? How could He let his own race do this to him? Why doesn't He smite the Romans, declare Himself the King of the world, and save Himself from death?

It all had to do with God's ultimate plan. And His plan wasn't to declare a chosen race as the world national power. His plan was to unite the world unto Himself, and restore the fortunes of David, but only in this way; through the cross of Jesus Christ. Thus, in this way all Israel is saved, by bringing both them, and the rest of the world together, to be united under one King, one kingdom, and one God who desires to be in all.

That is why the Futurist notion of a 2nd coming to rebuild national Israel is false. This type of doctrine is not found in scripture; furthermore, it advocates racial division, and instills both pride and jealousy among all races. How so? If God were to declare one national race over the others, would this not cause jealousy? Sure it would. Yet God used Jealousy to bring the Gentiles unto Himself, making them part of Israel, that in the same way, some of the Jews would return to Him as well. Thus, both remnant and Greek became united under the same King, so that God's love may be expressed to all.

Futurist's understand the jealousy part, but they're taking it too far. They believe that God's plan is to restore Israel as it was in the ancient days, but that was never God's goal. As the scripture says, "God is no respecter of persons...", meaning, He doesn't take sides based on race, but based on His election of Grace. And Grace can only be found in Jesus.

In conclusion, the Apostles were never expecting Him to leave (during the Mt. Olive discussion), so they were not asking when He would return. They were looking forward to the majestic declaration of their new found Messiah to declare Himself as Israel's King, kick out the Romans, and bring back the glory days of Israel. They didn't understand the mysteries of God, but Jesus treated them like new born infants, feeding them bits and pieces of the Kingdom a little at a time. That's why He often used parables of their way of life (farming, fishing, etc.) to explain the nature of the Kingdom. Thus, if the Kingdom were to be a physical kingdom as the ancients, then He would have used those examples. But instead, Christ used expressions of their daily lives to explain the nature of the Church. Thus, God's goal was the establishment of the eternal Church, which is planted all over the world, unto eternity.

Joe