Facts to be Considered by All Full Preterists

[Origen]

A Pantelist - extreme hyper grace - interpretation (reading into the text) of 2 Cor.5:19 that has been expressed on these forums is that the world’s sins - past, present & future - have been forgiven already. This is like the hyper grace doctrine of the likes of Joseph Prince, except Prince limits the forgiveness of all sins (past, present & future) to believers, i.e. Christians. Hence the label “extreme hyper grace” for this Pantelist opinion of 2 Cor.5:19.

There is a principle of bible interpretation that says to interpret difficult, unclear or obscure passages in light of the clear statements of Scripture. IMO if we interpret the difficult passage of 2 Cor.5:18-6:1 in light of the rest of the New Testament, there are clear passages that indicate that forgiveness of sins is conditional. So 2 Cor.5:19 should not be understood as supporting the extreme hyper grace position.

Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.

[davo]

So now instead of reading the scriptures to learn ‘how do I get saved?’ (and the possible ramifications if I don’t get it right ) we can ask ‘now that I realize what God has done through Christ and the love He exhibited, What can I do… What’s my job description?’

Just speaking for me, once I got my head around the notion that reconciliation has happened, it was a game changer.

Yes Chad… and have you ever noticed how when plain, clear and obvious texts cross, question or undermine cherished presuppositional dogmas’ brought to said texts that such texts magically then become “difficult, unclear and obscure”… LMAO!!

[Origen]

Some difficulties, unclearness & obscurities of the 2 Cor.5:18-6:1 passage were detailed in the post #297 of this thread and the url thread referred to therein at Facts to be Considered by All Full Preterists

It has never been addressed, let alone refuted, by the Pantelists with anything but a light dismissal as with the previous post.

[Hermano]

How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?

Davo:
Mt 16:28 “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Did Jesus get this wrong…?

Davo, that’s wonderfully provocative! So I’ll be too. Since the Gospels record Jesus as asserting that he did not know the timing of his return, on what basis are we sure that lacking such omniscience and truly becoming human still means that he can’t be incorrect about various information? So e.g., when Jesus stated that the mustard seed is the smallest seed there is, was that too necessarily correct?

A similar issue may arise from Paul’s statements in his earlier epistles that he expects not to see death because Jesus will bring the consummation and resurrection first. But in his later letters, he says he doesn’t know, and may well experience death before God intervenes. Could it be that such writers faithfully record their vantage point at the time, but they do not have infallible knowledge of all such things?

The above quote from Bob Wilson is from another thread, but I would rather address it here.

Origen already argued that Mt. 16:28 (and Mk. 9:1 and Lk. 9:27) are referring to Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration of Jesus, which immediately follows those verses. And that John further saw the Second Coming as described by him in Revelation. I agree with Origen’s explanation.

But regarding Bob’s contention above that the apostle Paul may have been confused about the timing of the Second Coming, here is what futurist Professor Arthur Bloomfield, in his book, Signs of His Coming: A Study of the Olivet Discourse, has to say,

“Many prophecies are expressed in the words of he people who will be living when the prophecy is fulfilled. Jeremiah said, ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen.’ Revelation repeats it, applying it to a city that has not yet been built. The prophecy is put in the words of the people who will see it happen.

Many prophecies are so worded that when they happen, the prophecies will read as though they were current news items. This is one of the most remarkable features of prophecy. Paul used this principle when he wrote, ‘Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up.’

Some have argued from this that Paul expected to live until the resurrection, and that he was greatly deceived as to the time. But other statements of Paul show that he was well-informed; as, for instance, ‘That day shall not come, except here come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.’

Rather, Paul was conforming to standard prophetic practice in putting the prophecy in the words of the people who will be living when the time comes.”

[davo]

Origen already argued that Mt. 16:28 (and Mk. 9:1 and Lk. 9:27) are referring to Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration of Jesus, which immediately follows those verses. And that John further saw the Second Coming as described by him in Revelation. I agree with Origen’s explanation.

You surprise me Hermano… I took you to be a more rational thinker, but I could stand corrected

So you agree with Origen that at the Transfiguration Jesus came not only “in the glory of His Father” and “with His angels” but He also DID indeed “reward each according to his works” AS PER verse 27… you know, that little thing we call ‘context’?

What Greek text are you following that tells you the apostles were rewarded for their works at the Transfiguration? You know, following Origen’s juvenile dot-to-dot M/O doesn’t do much for your credibility… let alone basic common sense.

[Origen]

So you agree with Origen that at the Transfiguration Jesus came not only “in the glory of His Father” and “with His angels” but He also DID indeed “reward each according to his works” AS PER verse 27… you know, that little thing we call ‘context’?

Evidently Hermano was referring to post # 446 here:

How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?

There are other options, besides what the conventional theologians pick. Perhaps seeing is having visions? The seeing of the vision that immediately follows that verse (Mt.16:28) is one of the most popular conventional theologians options in interpreting the same passage: “It is important to see when Matthew 16:28 was literally fulfilled. To find a literal fulfillment we need only look to the next chapter (Matthew 17), where we find that the “some standing here” refers to Peter, James and …

Which states:

“there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

There are other options, besides what the conventional theologians pick. Perhaps seeing is having visions?

The seeing of the vision that immediately follows that verse (Mt.16:28) is one of the most popular conventional theologians options in interpreting the same passage:

“It is important to see when Matthew 16:28 was literally fulfilled. To find a literal fulfillment we need only look to the next chapter (Matthew 17), where we find that the “some standing here” refers to Peter, James and John and “seeing the Son of man coming in His kingdom” refers to the transfiguration. This is confirmed by 2 Peter 1:16-18 where the transfiguration is said to be “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The transfiguration was a marvelous preview of the Lord’s future coming in His kingdom majesty.”

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/matt16.htm

“The Lord’s promise refers to literally seeing—in a picture . . . in a foreview—the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (a preview of Christ in the glory of His kingdom), which is in perfect accord with all other scripture revelation on the subject, and particularly as to the nature of the kingdom. It is in perfect harmony with all other scripture (2 Pet. 1:20), including the immediate context, and thus the correct and genuine literal interpretation.”

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/pretjv06.htm

Mt.17:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead
Mk.9:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Of course, with Mt.16:28 in mind, there are also John’s visions as recorded in the book of Revelation of the coming of Christ in His kingdom.

[Origen]

P.S. to the previous post:

"“The purpose of the transfiguration was primarily confirmation. It confirmed several vital facts. One of these was the reality of a future kingdom. The very fact that the transfiguration took place attests this. The presence of Old Testament saints on earth with Christ in a glorified state is the greatest possible verification of the kingdom promises in the Old Testament. The reality of this kingdom is also evident from the connection of the transfiguration with the promise of Matthew 16:27-28. The Son of Man was going to come one day to judge the world and establish His kingdom (Matthew 16:27). As an earnest of the coming of the kingdom three disciples were permitted to see the Son of Man in His kingdom (Matthew 16:28). This is exactly the manner in which Peter uses the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21).”

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/pretjv06.htm

[Hermano]

Origen already argued that Mt. 16:28 (and Mk. 9:1 and Lk. 9:27) are referring to Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration of Jesus, which immediately follows those verses. And that John further saw the Second Coming as described by him in Revelation. I agree with Origen’s explanation.

You surprise me Hermano… I took you to be a more rational thinker, but I could stand corrected

So you agree with Origen that at the Transfiguration Jesus came not only “in the glory of His Father” and “with His angels” but He also DID indeed “reward each according to his works” AS PER verse 27… you know, that little thing we call ‘context’?

What Greek text are you following that tells you the apostles were rewarded for their works at the Transfiguration? You know, following Origen’s juvenile dot-to-dot M/O doesn’t do much for your credibility… let alone basic common sense.

No Davo, I believe the Transfiguration and the Second Coming are two distinct events, one past, and one yet future.

Futurists like me believe that the theophany of Christ in his glory, on a mountain, with “angels” (messengers Moses and Elijah, and three disciples) was a foretaste, a prophetic foreshadowing, of his future glorious Second Coming, to a mountain, with angels (and with all his disciples, Rev. 19:14). Further, futurists believe the mountain of his return will be the same as the mountain of his departure, that is, the Mount of Olives, or Olivet (cf. Zechariah 14:4 and Acts 1:12).

Luke 9:26-29 (NIV)

Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray.

As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.

[Paidion]

Hi Dave, you asked:

How can reconciliation happen when only one side declares it?

The answer is that there is no way that it can. To try to avoid that fact by suggesting that the reconcilation between God and man is somehow different in meaning from the reconciliation between two people is but an ineffective device to support a theological position.

As for “conciliation,” that word can be a synonym for “reconciliation.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s third definition of the word is: “to make compatible : reconcile” and gives as an example: “It is hard to conciliate the views of labor and management on this point.”

And now let’s examine carefully Paul’s teaching about reconciliation:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Cor 5:17-6:1 ESV)

Yes, God (through Christ) reconciled “us” to Himself. But who is this “us”? Does it refer to everyone in the world? By no means! It refers to us who are “in Christ” and who are “a new creation.” So because we ARE reconciled to Christ (On our part we have repented, have had a change of heart and mind about how we were living and have submitted to Christ and His commandments to us) we have been given the ministry of reconciliation—to lead others to repent and be reconciled to God also. So what is that message according to Paul? Is it to announce to them that they are already reconciled? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Our message to them is “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” Read it. It’s right in the text. Why would we implore them to be reconciled to God if they already WERE reconciled?
“In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” the phrase “was reconciling” in a continuous tense. If it were an accomplished fact, why this tense of continuity? Yes God WAS reconciling the world, and God STILL IS reconciling the world, and will CONTINUE reconciling the world until each and every individual repents of his wrongdoing and submits to the Lordship of Christ.

Also, those of us who have been reconciled to God are being saved, not primarily from punishment, but from the evil itself in our lives—from SIN.

The angel of the Lord said to Joseph concerning his wife Mary:

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. (Matt 1:21 ESV)

The apostle Paul wrote:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Rom 6:1,2 ESV)

[Hermano]

For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them [“reckoning to them their trespasses,” YLT]. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. (NLT) 2 Cor. 5:19.

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. (NIV) 2 Cor. 5:20.

Why would we implore them to be reconciled to God if they already WERE reconciled?

I have to go with Davo (and Maintenanceman) on this one.

maintenanceman:

He says, “be reconciled to God”, not in the context that reconciliation is contingent on some action, but as a brother wanting them to realize what has happened.

Again bang on the money Chad. The essence then of what Paul is saying is this… “you’ve been reconciled… now come live in the fullness of it!”

((I might add… this understanding is an inclusive prêterist rationale (pantelism) and is not generally held to by those embracing standard prêterism; but inclusion IS the logical implications of FULL prêterism IMO.

To reiterate, I am a futurist, not a pantelist. I also lean toward the Christus Victor/Ransom position on the atonement, and believe that the lake of fire is lovingly purgative for those who do not receive Christ during their lifetime.

Yet I believe everyone is already reconciled to God by the death of Christ. Although, again, each person needs to be saved by the life of Christ:

Rom. 5:6-11
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

When did God demonstrate this love by dying for us? “While we were still sinners,” according to verse 8. When were we reconciled to God? Verse 10 says it was "while we were enemies” that He reconciled us to Himself through the death of the Son. Reconciliation happened before we believed.

As I commented earlier on this thread, alienation from God is in people’s minds:

The god of this age continues to blind people with his lies and accusations. However, the devil was disarmed at the cross, when his works dogma was nailed to it. Col. 2:14-15. Now we are to tell people that the dogma (the legalistic embellishments and threats mistakenly added to God’s communications by Moses, and others) was not from God; from God is only a free invitation to abundant life.

As “evangelical universalists,” we enjoy a better understanding of God’s true nature: that ALL will eventually be saved and make it to heaven—

-Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1 Tim. 2:4.

-The living God, who is the Savior of ALL people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Tim. 4:10.

-For as in Adam all die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22.

But, again, just what are people saved from? Lies. Captivity to a false identity.

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies IN YOUR MINDS because of [as shown by] your evil behavior. Colossians 1:21.

So, the problem is in people’s minds, not with God, never with God. People need to hear and understand the gracious invitation back to full life in Christ, their true identity.

So we are to tell people the good news, and implore them to be reconciled to God, since He is already reconciled to them.

[LLC]

Paidion:

Why would we implore them to be reconciled to God if they already WERE reconciled?

I have to go with Davo (and Maintenanceman) on this one.

Hermano, I have to agree with Paidion on this one.

Yet I believe everyone is already reconciled to God by the death of Christ. Although, again, each person needs to be saved by the life of Christ.

No offense, but you seem to be talking in circles. If you are still practicing evil, you are not reconciled to God. I would say that if you are reconciled to God then you are “saved”.

[Hermano]

Hermano, I have to agree with Paidion on this one.

Hermano:

Yet I believe everyone is already reconciled to God by the death of Christ. Although, again, each person needs to be saved by the life of Christ.

No offense, but you seem to be talking in circles. If you are still practicing evil, you are not reconciled to God. I would say that if you are reconciled to God then you are “saved”.

I believe all people were reconciled to God through the death of Christ, according to my understanding of Romans 5:10—“For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

Repentance or faith in Christ does not cause God to be reconciled to us. His Son’s death did that. However, we are saved from sin, hell, and the lake of fire through changing our minds (repentance), accepting the good news of our reconciliation through the death of Christ, and being born again. Hence we then also become reconciled to God in our understanding.

So although it does indeed sound like “talking in circles,” there seems to be both the technical (or positional) aspect and the experiential aspect of reconciliation: our finally accepting the good news of God’s reconciliation to us in Christ (and being born again), in a real sense also equals our “being reconciled to God.”

[Paidion]

I believe all people were reconciled to God through the death of Christ, according to my understanding of Romans 5:10—“For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

Hermano, did you read my post concerning this idea? Who are the “we” in the context? I showed from another passage on reconciliation that the “we” are those who have repented and submitted to God. Similarly here.

It doesn’t say, “If, while we were enemies,” it says “If being enemies.” The latter eliminates the confusion. The idea is that being enemies of God,without having performed acts of righteousness, we can still be reconciled to God. We didn’t do anything to earn this reconciliation. But we still need to repent and submit. We cannot be reconciled to God until we are willing to let go of our sinful lifestyle and begin to obey God’s law as revealed through Christ’s teachings (These are largely found in Matthew 5,6, and 7).

[anon12438761]

I think a possible confusion arises because we are Universalists; we are tempted to think that when Paul says things like “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!" the ‘we’ is referring to all mankind, whereas it is obvious - to me, anyway - he is speaking to Christian believers.
I can see no reason to believe that the world - all of mankind - is reconciled to God, unless some obscure meaning of ‘reconciled’ is put forth. Context!

[Origen]

As I commented earlier on this thread, alienation from God is in people’s minds:

I’d add also in the entire soul - mind, will, emotions - & in their spirit & nature.

[Origen]

I believe all people were reconciled to God through the death of Christ, according to my understanding of Romans 5:10—“For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

Hermano, did you read my post concerning this idea? Who are the “we” in the context? I showed from another passage on reconciliation that the “we” are those who have repented and submitted to God. Similarly here.

It doesn’t say, “If, while we were enemies,” it says “If being enemies.” The latter eliminates the confusion. The idea is that being enemies of God,without having performed acts of righteousness, we can still be reconciled to God. We didn’t do anything to earn this reconciliation. But we still need to repent and submit. We cannot be reconciled to God until we are willing to let go of our sinful lifestyle and begin to obey God’s law as revealed through Christ’s teachings (These are largely found in Matthew 5,6, and 7).

The “we” of Romans 5:10 is those of faith, not the world of unbelievers. The verse does not say reconciliation occurred at the moment of Christ’s death, but “through” His death.

Verse 9 says we (those of faith) have been justified by His blood. Was that without faith? No, it was conditional on faith:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (Rom.5:1)

So likewise the reconciliation of verse 10 is conditional on faith.

[Origen]

Yes Chad… and have you ever noticed how when plain, clear and obvious texts cross, question or undermine cherished presuppositional dogmas’ brought to said texts that such texts magically then become “difficult, unclear and obscure”… LMAO!!

On the one hand we have clear evidence in Scripture that forgiveness of sins is conditional:

Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.

Lk.24:47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

On the other hand we have your statement of 2 Cor.5:19, which you claim as support for, but which makes no mention of, the forgiveness of sins, let alone an already accomplished unconditional forgiveness of all human beings sins - past, present and future.

So, obviously, i’m going to interpret the 2 Cor.5:19, which does not even mention forgiveness - let alone an unconditional forgiveness of all sins of all time - in light of clear passages above that refer to forgiveness and make it conditional.

Therefore, until you can (1) provide proof that your difficult passage, 2 Cor.5:19, is talking about all sins of everyone being forgiven and (2) that all the clear scriptures i’ve listed don’t mean what they say, your above quoted remark looks terribly lame.

[davo]

No Davo, I believe the Transfiguration and the Second Coming are two distinct events, one past, and one yet future.

Hermano, you are being conveniently forgetful or evasive… the main text in view to which you AGREED with Origen is that of Mt 16:28 — to which as I pointed out IN CONTEXT IS the parousia, of which you yourself acknowledge is a distinct event apart from the transfiguration. The solid foundation of verse 27 proves beyond doubt to what verse 28 refers when it says… “reward each according to his works” — there is NO evidence here, as you say that such was… “referring to Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration of Jesus”, NONE whatsoever!

Not only that… there was NO threat of death upon or towards any of these disciples as ‘the church’ per sé was not even in existence at that time to experience ANY tribulation or persecution leading to death… NONE! An honest and logical reading of Mt 16:27-18 IS the Parousia, period.

No offense, but you seem to be talking in circles. If you are still practicing evil, you are not reconciled to God. I would say that if you are reconciled to God then you are “saved”.

No offense LLC… but what a load of croc! How often by your own standard, which no doubt much be fairly flexible, are you or have you been… on again—off again in your “reconciled/saved” status before God according to your own behaviouralism? Nah… doesn’t wash does?!

I think a possible confusion arises because we are Universalists;

BINGO… you got that right.

…we are tempted to think that when Paul says things like “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!" the ‘we’ is referring to all mankind, whereas it is obvious - to me, anyway - he is speaking to Christian believers.

DUN DUN… you got that wrong. Wrong only in that you conflate two passages that although referring to reconciliation the former IS speaking directly to believers WHEREAS the latter unequivocally ALSO references those beyond the believers’ circle.

I can see no reason to believe that the world - all of mankind - is reconciled to God, unless some obscure meaning of ‘reconciled’ is put forth. Context!
Now davo will lhao at this, use the word ‘context’ and we’ll be back where we started.

You are welcome to swallow Paidion’s loopy logic, but here’s what you have…

IF “the world” of 2Cor 5:19 ONLY references “believers” i.e., Paidion’s “us” THEN welcome to the Calvinist Club! — that’s their argument.

No one denies the “we” of Rom 5:9-11 speaks to believers BUT to deny “the world” of _2Cor 5:19 speaks of anyone beyond believers is LAUGHABLE! Dave… can you honestly swallow that!?

Let’s put Paidion’s practice to the text. Let’s assume his/the Calvinist position is kosher… let’s arbitrarily apply his same principle to this famous evangelical text with this same odd, uncalled for and illogical twist — and there is NO scope for complaining or whining that his rule magically can’t or shouldn’t fit here…

Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world of believers that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever of the believers believe in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.

LOOPY! Not only that, but given you agree… apply your logic Dave back to 2Cor 5:19… HOW/WHY are “believers” being implored to be reconciled IF/WHEN they ALREADY were? You see… it’s a STUPID argument (world = believers) in the first place that WHEN with consistency is applied back to the rationale of those who peddle it destroys that very, if I may be so blunt, loopy logic.

[maintenanceman]

So as I was just thinking things out, I’ve arrived at no new place at all! As to eschatological theories, I think I’m just agnostic. My fervent hope is that Christ will return for the second or third time - I don’t really know - and put things right.

Here is an alternate view, though apropos…

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 12:06 | Andrew Perriman
Eschatology
Hermeneutics and narrative
Here’s another example of how we can let theology or dogma get in the way of good biblical interpretation. Bill Mounce, whose mostly excellent exegetical notes I read from time to time, discusses the translation of Mark 13:29, which in the ESV reads:

So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
The problem that Mounce addresses is the translation of the phrase engus estin (“is near”). There is no pronoun in the Greek. If we supply “he”, as in the ESV, it appears to make Jesus say that the Son of Man will return within a single generation, which “of course, he didn’t”. This would leave us with what Mounce calls “one of the great conundrums in the gospels”.

The NIV, however, supplies “it”—”it is near”, referring, as Mounce sees it, not to the coming of the Son of Man but to the destruction of the temple. So if the interpreter does not want to entertain the possibility that Jesus got the timing of the end-of-the-world badly wrong, he or she may simply uncouple the train of the second coming from the caboose of the war against Rome and allow history to pull them further and further apart.
Mounce argues that the disciples’ question in Mark 13:4 is really two questions: i) What are the signs that the temple will be destroyed? and ii) What will be the signs preceding Jesus’ return? He suggests that verses 5-23 narrate events leading up to the destruction of the temple. Then, “in typical prophetic telescoping, Jesus skips thousands of years” so that verses 24-27 describe his return, before jumping back thousands of years to the destruction of the temple in verses 28-31, which was to happen within a generation, only to jump forwards once more to the second coming in the last paragraph of the chapter.

Now Mounce knows far more about New Testament Greek than I do, but it seems to me that he has preserved the dogmatically required reading at the expense of the narrative-historical integrity of the text.
The only reason to drive a massive temporal wedge into the text at this point is to protect the dogma that Jesus is still to return.1. The disciples ask Jesus two questions: i) When will these things be? and ii) What will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished? In both questions “these things” can only refer to the events leading up to the destruction of the temple. In Matthew, it is true, the disciples distinguish between the destruction of the temple and the parousia of Jesus at the close of the age (Matt. 24:3). But Matthew emphatically connects the vision of the Son of Man coming on the clouds with the Roman invasion of Judea: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days…” (Matt. 24:29). Mark also has “in those days, after that tribulation” (13:24). The only reason to drive a massive temporal wedge into the text at this point is to protect the dogma that Jesus is still to return.

2. Luke makes explicit what is near—the kingdom of God:
   And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Luke 21:29–33)
   Would Mounce want to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple constituted the coming of the kingdom of God and exclude from that the kingdom motif of the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and glory? Notice that earlier Mark linked the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of his Father and the coming of the kingdom of God with power as events that would take place within a generation:
   For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. … Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. (Mk. 8:38–9:1)
   Prophetic telescoping is an invention of Christian exegetes.3. We don’t find the sort of “prophetic telescoping” in the Old Testament that would provide a plausible precedent for Mounce’s interpretation of Jesus’ teaching here. Prophetic telescoping is an invention of Christian exegetes. The prophets describe future historical events—judgment on Israel, judgment on the nations. They may generate hopes that are not fulfilled in the actual historical circumstances, as things turn out, but that is not what we have with Mounce’s reading of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse. Mounce argues that Jesus speaks in a very confusing manner about two distinct events, separated—as things turn out—by goodness knows how many thousands of years.

3. Mounce has to give a much better explanation of why the discourse is constructed in this chronologically chaotic fashion. The literary signals all work against it, and it removes the climax from the detailed and clearly important account of the tribulation of the coming years. Is it really plausible to argue that Mark’s readers would not have read it as a single, coherent apocalyptic narrative? It makes much better literary and theological sense to suppose that the coming of the Son of Man is conceived as an “event” of climactic significance for the communities of disciples that had to go through the tribulation described in 13:5-23.

4. The imagery of the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory points to the expectation that at a time of national crisis for Israel a persecuted individual or community would be vindicated and given authority to rule. Jesus will make this point to Caiaphas: “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk. 14:62). The destruction of the temple provides exactly the right historical context for the fulfilment of such an expectation. The coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven is not an end-of-the-world event. The imagery of cosmic disorder—sun and moon darkened, stars falling, powers shaken—is standard prophetic-apocalyptic language for political crisis.
   The final point to make, briefly, is that this is not a matter of taking away from traditional dogma. It is about recovering narrative-historical perspective. It is the same as with the Jesus is Lord / Jesus is God debate. Even if the orthodox affirmation is “correct” in some way, it too often diverts attention from the much more important and fundamental argument that the New Testament is attempting to put forward.
   In this case, I don’t think that the orthodox affirmation is “correct” in some way. I don’t think that the New Testament presents the coming of the Son of Man in clouds as an end-of-the-world event—the final judgment and renewal of creation is stated in quite different terms. But that is not simply an argument for an alternative eschatological schema. It is an argument for grasping the concrete, historical grounding of the story of God’s people, for understanding the theological force of historical events, and for affirming the historical immediacy of God’s saving action on behalf of a faithful suffering community.

Dave, I hope you have had time to skim the Russell book, it is quite enlightening!

Peace.

[Hermano]

Hermano: No Davo, I believe the Transfiguration and the Second Coming are two distinct events, one past, and one yet future.

Hermano, you are being conveniently forgetful or evasive… the main text in view to which you AGREED with Origen is that of Mt 16:28 — to which as I pointed out IN CONTEXT IS the parousia, of which you yourself acknowledge is a distinct event apart from the transfiguration. The solid foundation of verse 27 proves beyond doubt to what verse 28 refers when it says… “reward each according to his works” — there is NO evidence here, as you say that such was… “referring to Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration of Jesus”, NONE whatsoever!

Let me show where I distinguish between what relates to the past Transfiguration of Christ and the yet future Second Coming of Christ, in the three parallel accounts:

Matthew 16:27-17:2

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. [The Second Coming]

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” [The Transfiguration]

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. [The Transfiguration]

Mark 8:38-9:2

“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” [The Second Coming]

And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” [The Transfiguration]

Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. [The Transfiguration]

Luke 9:26-29

“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels. [The Second Coming]

“But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.” [The Transfiguration]

Now it came to pass, about eight days after these sayings, that He took Peter, John, and James and went up on the mountain to pray. As He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening. [The Transfiguration]