Concerning the second coming…
Dan 8:13 Then I heard
a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was
speaking, "How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply,
while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and
the host to be trampled?"
Dan 9:27 “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for
one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and
grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes
desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out
on the one who makes desolate."
Dan 11:31 “Forces from him will arise, desecrate the
sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set
up the abomination of desolation.
Dan 12:11 “From the time that the regular sacrifice is
abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290
days.
Mat 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF
DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy
place (let the reader understand),
Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,
then recognize that her desolation is near.
These are primary scriptures related to “the end times”, in
reality they address the “second coming of Jesus”, which took place at a given
period within the first century. The “end of time” and the “end of the age” are
one and the same.
Here are a few fundamentals which govern my understanding:
·
The Bible is not a book, but rather a library of
66 books
·
The chapters, and verses were inserted –chapters
by, Stephen Langton in the 13th century C.E. The verses by, Robert Estienne in
the middle of the 16th century C.E. These divisions are not divine or even
accurate.
·
The Church began under Emperor Constantine, its
structure is based on the structure of the Roman Empire, and the Jewish temple.
·
The scriptures represent God’s story. The
account of creation, the fall of man and the reconciliation of man.
·
The Jewish scriptures are the account of God’s
relationship with his special people –Israel. The covenant promise was made to
Jews.
·
The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross marked the
fulfilment of God’s promises. Also the end of the story.
·
From the death of Jesus to the end of the age
(Jewish), was a period of transition.
·
The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem
circa 70 C.E marked the end of the age.
Looking at the prophecies in Daniel we come across the term
loosely used “end times”. Most prophecies are seen to be fulfilled in later
scriptures. While many aspects of Daniel’s prophecies confound us, a key to
understanding “the end of time” can be seen in the words of Jesus. “As He was
sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying,
‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of your
coming, and of the end of the age?’” (Mat 24:3)
Three parts to the question:
1. when
will these things happen (the destruction of the temple)
2. what
will be the sign of your coming
3. what
will be the sign … of the end of the age
Many interpret Mat 24 by subdividing the chapter into
segments; the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and future times. That
process is flawed, Jesus responded to the question, answering the three
sub-questions in a contiguous flow.
There are two points in the answer we need to note:
1. Therefore when you see the Abomination of Desolation
which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place…
(Mat 24:15)
2. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away
until all these things take place. (Mat 24:34)
The entire pericope comprises Jesus’ response. It must not
be butchered by churches endeavouring to prove their own theories of “end
times” or the “Rapture”. Most of those are human concepts and have no genuine
verification.
The question asked by the disciples of Jesus included
1. When will
the temple be destroyed?
2. What will be
the sign of the end of the age?
3. What will be
the sign of your coming?
Jesus links the prophecy of Daniel to his answer. The
destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was the most significant and final
event of the Jewish age. At that point the sacrifices stopped.
The Jewish revolt began in 66 C.E and ultimately brought
about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple circa 70 C.E. Jesus gave no specific
date, but provided a general period; “this generation will not pass away until
all these things take place.” Premillennialism, post-millennialism, and
a-millennialism are all theories based on “the second coming of Christ”. All of
these theories are based on the misinterpretation of prophecy, and the
manipulation of what is called the “Olivet Speech”, Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke
21.
There are numerous scriptures indicating that the first
Christians expected Jesus to return –soon. Many scholars believe that the
apocalypse of John was written at the close of the first century. I disagree
with that. The vision of John dealt with heavenly and earthly events, some of
the recent past, some of the present, and some of the near future. It was a
letter to encourage Christians at that time. Believers besieged by the tyranny
of Rome, and persecution by Jews looked toward the coming of Jesus, and the
hope of the kingdom. My belief is that the entire book is a vision concerning
the victory of Christ over evil. It is a book which at the time would have been
encouragement for believers. It was written prior to the destruction of the
temple. Had it been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, there would
have been mention of those event which took considerable place in prophecy. Some
teaching states that the first three books of Revelation are literal, and the
rest of the book is prophetic. That is wrong; people have to stop twisting
scripture to get the result they want. Understanding has to conform to the
Word, we need to stop forcing our understanding on scripture. Christians in the
mid-first century suffered through various persecutions. However, they seem to
have had great faith in Jesus as their king. Other than those inspired, few
would have had any better understanding of Christ’s return than we do. Looking
back it’s not too difficult to see that the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as Messiah
was based on their misunderstanding of what the Messiah was. There would have
been more acceptance for Judas Maccabeus as the Messiah during the revolt
against Syria, than for Jesus. Judas was a warrior and leader fighting to
restore Israel’s liberty and religion. Even now some scholars believe the
restoration of fortunes to be eschatological. Interpreters today stumble over
the same promises and prophecies as did the Jews. People seek physical
remedies, although we belong to a spiritual kingdom. It is not difficult to see
how the traditional expectations of the Jews prevented them from appreciating Jesus
the Messiah. I don’t see why churches today have to adopt traditions from the
past as bona fide principles.
Regarding the timing of the return of Jesus, Bertrand
Russell in the essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”, wrote:
I am concerned with Christ as He
appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one
does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He
certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before
the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great
many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, Ye shall not have gone over
the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come. Then He says, There are some
standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His
kingdom; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed
that his second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living.
That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good
deal of His moral teaching. …. The early Christians did really believe it, and
they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because
they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In
that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He
was certainly not superlatively wise.
I must say that although an atheist, Russell does appear “wiser”
than many religious teachers, (in his logic only), I agree with him concerning
when Jesus said he would return. There is no doubt in my mind that when Jesus
said he would return during the lifetime of some in his audience –he did. Under
no circumstances and with no amount of cajoling would I believe that Jesus did
anything other than what he said he would do. I categorically disagree with any
and all, attempts to manipulate scripture to suggest that Jesus didn’t return
within the timeframe he laid out.
I believe that if we were to apply the principle of Zero
Based Thinking to biblical interpretation, our doctrines and beliefs would be
significantly different to what they are presently. I also believe that 99% of
current church traditions and doctrines is based on what has been handed down
through time, and not on unbiased study. By way of example, consider that
Bibles are made up of two volumes, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. Two
meaningless and misleading titles. The Hebrew Scriptures were scrolls of
various writers. Ancient Jews didn’t agree entirely as to which were really
important and which were superfluous. As to Old and New, that designation has
reference to covenants, not to compilations of books. Jesus lived under the Old
Covenant, but the books about him are in the New Testament. All of Jesus’
teaching was under the Old Covenant. The compilation of religious books into a
single book may be convenient, but it has contributed to a host of false
doctrines. Zero Based Thinking would compel us to see the books of scripture as
single volumes making up a library of ancient qwritings. Chapters and verses
further muddy the water; treated as though they were by design they change and
obscure meanings. Many church scholars are lazy, their pursuit in study is to
confirm what they believe. Karl Popper proposed a process of empirical
falsification.
A theory in the empirical sciences
can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be
scrutinized by decisive experiments. Popper is also known for his opposition to
the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with
critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of
criticism in the history of philosophy".[1]
How many times have you heard, that just about anything can
be proven by scripture? That’s what Popper alleges takes place in science. Church
doctrines are largely proven to be correct by the mere number of scriptures
that support what you want to believe. Applying a simple form of Popper’s
proposal; for a doctrine or practice to be correct it must be un-falsifiable. If
one scripture can be presented that falsifies a doctrine, that doctrine must be
considered false. I wonder how many church doctrines would fail in the process
of falsifying them.
Believers who hold a different points of view are God’s
children and fellow citizens of God’s kingdom. What we believe concerning peripheral
issues, does not negate God’s love and grace. I have come to the conclusion
that corporate or institutional religion can be more of a hindrance than help.
People come to believe that commitment to a church is the same as commitment to
Christ –that’s not true. Churches are human organizations, supported by false
translation and interpretation of key words in scripture. Churches can be very
helpful as long as their focus is to support believers in their personal walk
with Christ. Our faith and commitment are very personal. If we look at the
teaching of Jesus we can’t help but see that he was concerned about each
person’s life and behaviour. Jesus taught that judgment was based on personal
attitudes and behaviour, not on religious ritual.
Then the King will say to those on His
right, “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me
something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a
stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you
visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.”[2]
It is appropriate to challenge traditional doctrine, maybe
that’s what Jesus may be suggesting when he said, “But seek first His kingdom and His
righteousness…”[3]
The statement is within a context of worry, and choosing a different way than
others.
zēteō - seek: If the heathen are
primarily concerned about food and clothes, Christians are to seek first the
kingdom of God and His righteousness (Mt. 6:32 f.; cf. Lk. 13:24). They are to
seek those things which are above (Col. 3:1).
… As the merchant in his search for fine pearls (Mt. 13:45) one day
finds a jewel for which he will sell all the rest, so man is to direct
everything towards the one great goal.[4]
prōtos – first: Very common is the use
of prōtos for "earlier," "preceding," which develops out
of a comparison between past and present.[5]
This meaning links what Jesus had been teaching his
disciples concerning worry, about “What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for
clothing?” that they would have done previously, but now as his disciples
the past was behind them and the present was to thrive in God’s kingdom, as one
made righteous through grace. The idea of seeking first for believers is a
“life principle”. That principle is to leave former ways of being religious to
please God, of doing things to secure salvation; those are human
characteristics. The present for believers is to live in Christ, being citizens
of God’s kingdom, and justified by the sacrifice of Jesus. As Paul wrote; that
I “…may be found in Him,
not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is
through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of
faith…”[6]
[1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2]
Mat 25:34-6
[4]
Theological Dictionary of the Bible, Vol 2, p. 893
[5]
Ibid Vol 6, p.866
No comments:
Post a Comment