Hello Rotherham,
You said:
Rotherham wrote:Advent does not refer to PRE-advent, but refers to the event. The disciples asked for signs of his ADVENT, not his PRE-advent, so the signs were signs not of the PRE-advent stage, but of the advent itself.
I also believe that Advent does not refer to the PRE-Advent, but refers to the event. In this case the "event" is explicitly identified as the complete destruction of the temple. Matthew makes this event synonymous with the "parousia" in the question that is in the mind of the disciples. Jesus answers the question as if answering both questions in the same breath, as if the parousia
is the destruction of Jerusalem. If the destruction of the Jewish Age (system of things) is a "type" of the TELOS-PAROUSIA-SYNTELEIA-JUDGMENT-MANIFESTATION-REVELATION, then the destruction of the World's Age (system of things) is the final TELOS-PAROUSIA-SYNTELEIA-JUDGMENT-MANIFESTATION-REVELATION.
Rotherham wrote:Nor do I think your handling of the word "sunteleia" is accurate. You claim that it is used interchangeably with telos, but I fail to see any evidence of that whatsoever.
The words are different, and they are not
always interchangeable. The usual meaning of "telos" is interchangeable with one common meaning of "synteleia" -- although both words are sometimes used with different meanings. Still, the most common use of "synteleia" refers to the final part -- the final eschatological expections -- of the "last days" -- not the entire era, or entire generation
that will include the "synteleia". There can be other times when "synteleia" appears to refer to the final part of the Jewish era, or the entire World era since the time the Christian era overtook the Jewish era, nearly 2000 years long, from Jesus' time through the still-future Judgment Day.
The SYN (together) portion of SYN-TELeia and the verb SYN-TELeo, is probably more similar to our idea of something being "altogether" ended -- meaning "completely" ended - destroyed. In a more literal sense it could be the VERY END when all the things that were concluding are finally now at the same time "altogether" concluded. This happens near the very end when everything is now truly at its end, not just some of the things. This may be one of the reasons that it became the key word to describe the "end of all things" -- "the end of time" -- "the end of the world".
Here are some examples from the New World Translation:
Matthew 28:20 And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion (SYNTELEIA) of the system of things.”
If the Synteleia is only from 1914 through Judgment Day, in your Watchtower version, then Jesus is only promising to be present here UNTIL 1914. He is no longer with us, unless, of course, the words are being used interchangeably. Therefore, Jesus is really saying, "I am with you until the END."
Also note again that Jesus was referring in Matthew 28 to "preaching and making disciples" which you say goes from the SYNTELEIA on down to the TELOS (per Mt 24:14). So why is Jesus emphasizing the idea that he is going to be with us during this era of preaching activity
untilthe SYNTELEIA? According to your definitions, it should have been
through the SYNTELEIA and
until the TELOS!
Matthew 10:22 and 24:13 he that has endured to the end (TELOS) is the one that will be saved.
1 Thes 3:13 to the end that he may make YOUR hearts firm, unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the presence (PAROUSIA) of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.
1Cor 1:8 He will also make YOU firm to the end (TELOS), that YOU may be open to no accusation in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Note that this judgment day (blamable/unblamable) is at the "Day of the Lord Jesus Christ" and is also called the "Parousia". Linguistically, the Christian's condition at the TELOS is a pre-requisite or co-requisite to being found unblamable/unaccusable at the "Day of our Lord" or "Parousia". In other words the TELOS comes either BEFORE or at the same time as the PAROUSIA/"Day of the Lord"/JUDGMENT. Obviously "at the same time" makes more sense than BEFORE, making TELOS the same as PAROUSIA. (Note that we need to be unblamable at the PAROUSIA. This parallels 1 Cor 1:8 that we need to be unblamable to the TELOS.)
Matthew 13:39-40 The harvest is a conclusion (SYNTELEIA) of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion (SYNTELEIA) of the system of things.
Matt 12:43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Note that "at that time" when the righteous shine in the kingdom is the SYNTELEIA and that this is a parallel to Revelation 2:26 where this time is called the TELOS when the righteous shine in the kingdom.
Rev 2:26 And to him that conquers and observes my deeds down to the end (TELOS) I will give authority over the nations,
Note also that the weeds are burned at the SYNTELEIA and they are burned at the same time as when the righteous shine in the kingdom. You teach that the weeds are burned at the TELOS, which must therefore be the SYNTELEIA here.
1 Peter 4:7 But the end (TELOS) of all things has drawn close. Be sound in mind, therefore, and be vigilant with a view to prayers.
1 Thes 5:23 be preserved in a blameless manner at (to) the presence (PAROUSIA) of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, the TELOS of ALL things has drawn close. This refers to an ending together of multiple things. Literally SYNTELEIA means an "ending together". So again the TELOS and SYNTELEIA are interchangeable in this sense. 1 Thess has again used the expression about being unblamable right up to the PAROUSIA. You know very well that Christians need to be unblamable right up to the TELOS. Otherwise the idea in your version of PAROUSIA, could mean that we only need to be unblamable up until 1914.
1 Cor 8:11 Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends (TELOS) of the systems of things have arrived.
Hebrews 9:26 - But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion (SYNTELEIA) of the systems of things
These are cases where the perspective of the writer treats the current age as the END which have already arrived because of being so close to the end/conclusion. In both of these cases, EVEN if you understand this to be the JEWISH AGE referred to - we still have TELOS and SYNTELEIA used interchangeably.
Rotherham wrote:There is a reference that is of particular value here and it is Hebrews 9:26 which says:
26 Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.
This is one of the cases where SYNTELEIA refers to a final age, but where the length of that final age, as you say, can last for years. This usage is also used interchangeably with TELOS, as we just saw in 1 Cor 8:11. The theme of Hebrews leads us to believe that this is very likely the Jewish age -- the "Temple" (Old Covenant) age, although the idea might still be valid for the entire "END TIMES" period that we have been living in since Jesus' time. (In this case, I think it's NOT the entire END TIMES of the world, nor the "New Covenant" age coinciding with the "WORLD" system of things, for lack of a better name, in which Jesus has promised that he may appear at any moment - because that age would begin especially "immediately after the tribulation of those days" upon Jerusalem.) But this is always an implied secondary meaning due to the fact that the "sunteleia" of the Jewish age is also a type of "the end of the WORLD (systems)." Even in 1 John we see that "it is the final hour", the "world is passing away". You would agree that this was written AFTER the Jewish Temple age. 2 Peter 3 implies that Jesus prophesied the ridiculers will be here in the last days making fun of the idea of the "parousia" ever arriving, but 2 Peter now treats it as if this period of last days is now upon them in the present tense -- yet still offers the possibility that God's patience could allow things could also go on another 1,000 years.
If you believe Hebrews 9:26 means a "conclusion" of a period that could go from 4 BC to 70 CE, then Hebrews must refer to his sacrifice in 33 CE which happened during that period. If you believe that his sacrifice
itself was effectively, the "end of the Jewish system," then Jesus' manifestation of the sacrifice at that point was both the SYNTELEIA and the TELOS of that Jewish system. I prefer the idea that it refers to a period of time here, and the age had begun its final events. I say it was also the "TELOS of that system of things", because 1 Cor 8:11 also uses that phrase prior to the full end of the Jewish Age in 70 CE. Yet the TELOS has already "arrived" prior to 70 CE. Obviously it's another sense in which SYNTELEIA and TELOS are interchangeable.
Rotherham wrote:Hebrews here tells us that Jesus manifested himself at the conclusion of the system of things, which means it could have been as early as his birth but certainly no later than his baptism, and we know that the conclusion of the systems of things was STILL continuing and would continue to finalize until the destruction of Jerusalem. This tells us that the sunteleia is a time period LEADING to an end, just as Thayer's describe it as.
True. But the
ranges of meanings still stands, and this is only one of them. "Theological dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1" by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, Geoffrey William Bromiley, page 1163, gives the following about the word synteleia, which also pretty much matches the meanings of the verb form "synteleo":
* Outside the Bible this word means "common accomplishment" (also "taxes"), "cooperation," "execution," "completion," "conclusion".
* In the LXX it has such varied senses as "execution," "totality," "satiety," "fulfillment," "conclusion," "cessation" and "destruction."
* In Daniel LXX it is a technical term for the eschatological "end" (cf. 11:35, 12:4), though it may also mean "end" in a more general sense (9:26).
* It is a technical apocalyptic term in the Testaments of the Twelve, sometimes with the thought of "completion".
Qumram has a reference to the "end" of time.
* The NT uses the term only in eschatological sayings....In Matthew the phrase "end of the age" refers to events that have yet to take place, including the judgment.
* Of the apostolic fathers, only Hermas uses synteleia (the "end"). ... The apologist Tatian uses it in the context of resurrection and judgment. ...
Rotherham wrote:You claim you don't believe that the Granville Sharp rule has any bearing at Matthew 24:3, so show me a Biblical example otherwise and I will drop it. If not, then Biblical pattern and precedent stands explicitly against your non-acceptance.
I don't believe it has a bearing on it because, technically, Granville Sharp rule states (per Wikipedia): “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same
person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle ...”. Daniel Wallace summarizes: "when the construction article-noun-και-noun
involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person."
There are a few points here. The rule was specifically about personal references, personal entities, pronouns, titles. You are referring to non-personal entities here. Even with personal entities, the idea that there is a rule with no exception could bias us to believe we are looking at the rule when we actually ARE looking at an exception. Also the same article points out that the Church Fathers didn't follow the rule, nor did they make use of the rule when arguing Christ's divinity as either doctrine or heresy.
Also, there are texts of Matthew including the Textus Receptus which use the text: τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. Blueletterbible shows that GNT Morph uses the text: τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. So some texts evidently don't even give us the Granville Sharp pattern to begin with in Matthew 24:3. (the latter is article-noun-kai-
article-noun). It's hard for me to believe that it could have been such a "key" rule if it were lost sight of so soon after the original text was transmitted.
Rotherham wrote:When it comes to the sign that was asked for, Jesus clearly corrected the idea that it would not be a single thing that would be the sign, but it would be numerous things. He did not try and demonstrate that it was just one thing for the language throughout the Olivet Sermon denies such and idea. The very words of Jesus that says "When you see ALL these things occur" then you should know that his revelation from heaven is near which was described as the sign of the Son of Man that all nations would beat themselves in lamentations over. When Jesus said that when you see ALL these things, what were the ALL things he was talking about?
The clearest correction that Jesus provided had little to do with a "sign" versus "signs." The disciples asked for a sign to know when the
destruction of Jerusalem's Temple was about to take place. You can't take one account over the others and discard how this same question is worded in the other gospel accounts. It all must basically mean the same thing:
Matthew wrote:“Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your PAROUSIA and of the SYNTELEIA of the system of things?”4 And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU.
Mark wrote:“Tell us, When will THESE THINGS be, and what will be the sign when all THESE THINGS are destined (JUST ABOUT) to come to a conclusion? (SYNTELEO/TO BE FINISHED/TO BE DESTROYED)” 5 So Jesus started to say to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU.
Luke wrote:“Teacher, when will THESE THINGS actually be, and what will be the sign when THESE THINGS are destined (JUST ABOUT) to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that YOU are not misled.”
If the verses are not contradictory, then the PAROUSIA refers to the DESTRUCTION. The same verb used in Mark 13 is SYNTELEO. When they say in Luke, "When will this happen?", it must mean the same thing: "When will this destruction happen?"
Where I've added "(JUST ABOUT) [to]" I'm using the sense from the Bible dictionaries and the NWT in places like Acts 16:27 where the jailer is "just about to" do away with himself and Peter calls out in the "nick" of time.
I'm sure you can see the parallels of Matthew 24 to Ezekiel 7:15:
14 "They have blown the trumpet and there has been a preparing of everybody, but there is no one going to the battle, because my hot feeling is against all its crowd. 15 The sword is outside, and the pestilence and the famine are inside. Whoever is in the field, by the sword he will die, and whoever are in the city, famine and pestilence themselves will devour them. (LXX and Codex Sinaiticus, etc, SYNTELEO - ) 16 And their escapees will certainly make their escape and become on the mountains."
So, a word for a final destruction is translated into "koine" Greek as SYNTELEO. Jesus told them about a final destruction and the disciples asked for a sign of when THESE THINGS are ABOUT to BE DESTROYED (SYNTELEO). (Mark 13).
The same thing happens in Jeremiah 14:12.
NWT wrote:When they fast, I am not listening to their entreating cry; and when they offer up the whole burnt offering and the grain offering, I am taking no pleasure in them; for by the sword and by famine and by pestilence I am bringing them to their end (LXX, SYNTELEO).”
Note how the NWT uses the idea of being brought to their END. They are being devoured/destroyed. And the NT Greek word chosen for the Hebrew word here is the same word that Mark uses: SYNTELEO. So SYNTELEO doesn't just mean END, it can refer directly to "DESTRUCTION" and this is therefore a valid translation according to Thayer and other Bible dictionaries.
It's obvious from Bible usage in Luke 4:13 that it is the "end of all things together" that SYNTELEO refers to. Note the NWT here: "
13 So the Devil, having concluded (SYNTELEO) all the temptation, retired from him until another convenient time."
It's obvious that the Devil wasn't
in the midst of a concluding period of time of temptation. He wasn't still
concluding the temptation and then left in the middle of this conclusion. No, obviously he concluded -- MADE A FINAL END -- to ALL the temptation, then he left him. This idea fits EVERY use of SYNTELEO in the NT. It doesn't mean "drawing to a conclusion"; it means "finalized, fulfilled, finished, completed, concluded, devoured".
So, regarding the "sign" versus "signs", I don't believe that Jesus "clearly corrected" the idea that there would not be a SINGLE sign, but that there would be MANY signs. He was really correcting the idea that they should be LOOKING for a sign at all. The major sign of the parousia comes immediately AFTER the destruction. So it could be very misleading to look for signs prior to the parousia. This doesn't mean that there would NOT be plenty of warning signs, but none of them, no pattern, no combination, would help them pinpoint the PAROUSIA. No one knew the day or the hour of the PAROUSIA because it would come upon them by surprise. Like a thief in the night. People would be doing things they do in their natural life and suddenly be taken away. It would be like it was for most of the world in Noah's day when people were living life as if nothing was going to change: eating, drinking, getting married, but the parousia would SWEEP THEM AWAY -- take them by surprise.
So you are right that there will be plenty of warning signs, but these aren't the kind that could help them. They might be
misled by wars, and reports of wars, and earthquakes, but these were
not signs of the end they were asking about -- these were things that could also come as
a beginning of many more things they would experience. There were already plenty of the same signs happening in 33 CE that would continue to happen up through 70 CE. But not one of these signs was going to help anyone predict the "sudden destruction" the "surprise" the "being swept away". Every possible "sign", every one of these supposed "advanced warnings of the destruction" could potentially mislead them. Not only that, there were going to be lots of possible ways they could be misled or lose their focus. Instead they could focus on their responsibilities as Christians, and then, even if the day would come as a thief -- it would not overtake them in a way that would produce lasting damage.
There is also a way of looking at the passage that indicates that he is clearly warning them not to look all these potential signs as THE sign. His first words in response to the request for a sign were
"do not be misled". His presence would still come as a surprise. Jesus, the man, may not have known the time for the final parousia. The Father knew, but the Son of Man didn't know and the angels didn't know anything more than that it COULD come at any moment starting from the point immediately after the "sign" of Jerusalem's destruction.
There are many additional clues about why the disciples would have asked the question
the way they did, and why Jesus answered the way he did. These clues are in the OT prophecies and in other Jewish beliefs of the time found outside the Bible. Some of the ones outside the Bible use very similar wording about Jewish expectations of the time. It seems to me that Jesus may have been correcting some of the ideas they might have learned to expect from extrabiblical sources. I see a summary of some of these ideas here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2366.htm but I haven't completed my own study of this literature yet, so I can't say much more about it yet.
At any rate, as I've said before, the expression "until ALL these things occur" is not stated until after the mention of Jerusalem being surrounded and therefore the final throes of tribulation on the city and its people. This is after things have gotten unimaginably bad in the city: famine, pestilence, starvation -- when it would look like there could not be any survivors. But the length of time the Romans would use for destruction was cut short so that some flesh could be saved. And the idea makes even more sense for the the final Parousia. Since there are no specific signs of his final Parousia, it can't come until ALL these things have occurred: the predictable Jerusalem signs and then the immediate transition afterwards to a time where nothing further is predictable by signs. (If it were predictable, then the final parousia could no longer come as a surprise like the flood that swept so many people away. In this sense, the fulfillment of the prophecy, the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple, becomes "THE SIGN," the very last possible sign that the parousia can now start at any time. From this point onwards, it could come as a surprise at any moment, immediately -- or 1,000 years from now, perhaps when it's least expected.
I agree that the "ALL these things" is a key to understanding, but we disagree on what is refers to exactly. I think it refers to the fact that you can't draw any conclusions from all the many things that will always continue to occur and which other people would naturally think of as an eschatological sign - like a great earthquake, for example. The expression "ALL these things" never occurs until AFTER "THESE THINGS" include the very destruction of Jerusalem that the disciples asked about -- and which they also referred to as "THESE THINGS".
Rotherham wrote:You can't take one account over the other and discard what is said in one account and treat it as inconsequential. You must take all the accounts of the same thing and include everything that was said to have the complete picture, not one or the other. Matthew clearly uses the preaching of the good news to all the nations as a sign for the end because he states THEN the end will come. Therefore, that was clearly one of the things included in ALL the things that would tell them the revelation of Jesus from heaven was about to happen.
I believe completely that you must take all the accounts and include everything as important to the whole picture. You can't pick and choose what you believe is important and dismiss parts as unimportant. (Which is exactly what I think you are doing by ignoring the sense of all the phrases about beginnings vs endings -- and things that will happen, but which could mislead you if you feel they are answers to a question about a "sign".)
But was the preaching really a "sign" of the end? Remember that this end must refer to the end of the Temple system they had asked about. Jesus is still focused on things that will happen in the next generation until that end (TELOS). He wants the disciples to focus on their responsibility as appointed evangelists.
And, indeed, this preaching work was indeed preached to the "entire inhabited earth" in the first century. At least, that's how the Bible presents it:
Col 1:23 -- the hope of that good news which YOU heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven. Of this [good news] I Paul became a minister.
Rom 1:8 -- YOUR faith is talked about throughout the whole world.
Romans 10:17,18 -- In turn the thing heard is through the word about Christ. 18 Nevertheless I ask, They did not fail to hear, did they? Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the extremities of the inhabited earth their utterances.”
Rom 16:25 -- Now to him who can make YOU firm in accord with the good news I declare and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the sacred secret which has been kept in silence for long-lasting times 26 but has now been made manifest and has been made known through the prophetic scriptures among all the nations in accord with the command of the everlasting God
But everything you read here must be taken in context with the rest. Jesus first portion of the answer is about not being misled, seeing things happen but realizing that the END is not yet. (Things like War, or seeing false representers of Christ). Before the final end they may see many things that make them think the final end is upon them, such as even greater wars, earthquakes, food shortages, but even these are things to expect, that are just beginnings of the distressful things that might effect them, not part of the sign of the end. In fact, lots of things will happen before the end of the Jewish system. Some of those things will unavoidably be a part of the disciples' personal experiences. They have a responsibility commanded upon them to preach before the end comes and this will be related to tribulations and persecutions, death, betrayal, false preaching. All these things will happen before the end comes, even closer to the time of the telos, and things will continue getting worse right up until the telos. So bad that unless provisions were made in advance (such as this prophetic warning) most of Jesus' disciples would die in the TELOS of the Temple. In this context, no matter how bad things get, they still would NOT be able to use these things as a definite proof that the very end -the final end- the PAROUSIA -- was upon them.
Rotherham wrote:Luke mentions that Jesus said, after mentioned the great tribulation that when you see these THINGS, not this ONE THING, but THESE THING occur, lift your heads up because your deliverance is getting near. Since Matthew makes it clear that the composite included things BEFORE the mentioning of the great tribulation, there is no reason to discard the other things he spoke of in the very same breath.
Answered above. All things must include the FINAL destruction of the Temple. So Jesus is saying that looking for signs is meaningless. It won't happen until ALL these things are finished. No combination or composite set of these signs is valid; no claim that these are "greater" than ever before is valid. That's because things will go from bad to worse.
The tribulations of the final destruction can be worse than anything ever seen before. Therefore nothing seen before the end can be used to determine if it is truly a sign of the very end.Rotherham wrote:The very fact that those signs were called the "beginning of pangs of distress" makes no sense in the overall historic view because they wouldn't be the beginning of anything unless they were somehow different in nature then the all the other historic earthquakes, famines, pestilences and wars. The fact that they are referred to as a BEGINNING of something shows they had to be different in nature or they would not be the beginning of anything, just more of the same. Frankly, there would have been no need to even mention those things if they were not significant to the sign, if they were not part of ALL those things which would tell them the revelation was near.
In the overall historic view, all the earthquakes, even great earthquakes, are ALWAYS just "beginnings" of the tribulations for Christians between 33 and 70. They would be beginnings only because things could potentially get so much worse for them. They might be persecuted to the death, hailed before the authorities, turned against by their own families, subjected to lawlessness. And surely you know that you don't want to take this argument too far because there is nothing different about earthquakes, famines, and pestilence around 1914, historically speaking. Earthquakes apparently continue to average fewer and less powerful every year. The population of the earth continues to explode, in great part, because of soap and water and the fact that so few major pestilences and famines have wiped out peoples in the last century as compared with say the 14th century. Wars, on the other hand, have followed technology. So while there has probably never been a day without war on earth somewhere since 33 CE, the wars are greater and greater in terms of the numbers of people that can be transported to battlefields, and the destruction of the weaponry. However, this too, is not something you can use as any kind of predictable sign that the Parousia is upon us. It's ALWAYS upon us, and no war of any size can be proven to be THE ADVANCE WARNING sign. That's what the disciples wanted and that's why they could be so easily misled. If you WANT a sign, you will see it in whatever you want to see it in. Human nature. There will be wars, but don't be misled by them. Don't think you've just seen one of the signs that can help you predict the parousia/end/telos/synteleia.
Rotherham wrote:Jesus' warning was against the ones who would personally claim to be Christ and say the due time is near in the sense that they would know the day and the hour. The reason we know that to be true is because later Bible writers specifically said that the "due time has approached" or the "end of all things is near". Should we not listen to them because they said this? There is clearly a difference then between what his inspired writers were doing and what he said would be going on in that verse.
Some could personally claim to be the Christ. This would no doubt happen. We know it did happen several times before 70 CE. But these disciples in 33 CE were not about to be fooled by that kind of impostor, they were more likely to be fooled by those who agreed that Jesus is the Christ but would still mislead many. In more modern times, there were also those who did both. Charles Taze Russell taught that he and all faithful believers in his day WERE "THE CHRIST." He also taught that Jesus was THE CHRIST. He taught that many others who would go to heaven were NOT THE CHRIST. He also taught that many who would remain on earth were NOT THE CHRIST. He taught that he and others were the mediator, a teaching that infected Jehovah's Witnesses for over 100 years. But he also deceived many into thinking that the last days had started in 1799 and that Jesus PAROUSIA had started in 1874, that the resurrection had already occurred, and a multitude of other false teachings. There is nothing wrong with stating and believing that the due time has approached and that the "end of all things is near". What's wrong is seen in the context of Jesus' words that these people would think they might be able to predict the timing of the parousia. Do not be misled, there will be false prophets who think they are seeing signs that can help them predict the time of the synteleia/parousia. It's not the fact that ALL Christians already know we are in the last days from the time of the end of the Jewish era until now. It's the intention to use signs to tell people that they have more truth about the time of the end, that to them the timing is not going to be a surprise, or they already know the time of Jesus arrival. We all know from all the things happening that we are in the SEASON where we have to watch out at all times and be prepared at all times. We all know that "summer is near" that "harvest is near", but we don't use any of these specific combinations of events and occurrences as signs that specifically give us knowledge of the times and seasons. We know that's what Jesus was warning against, because he used parables and allegories and illustrattions of how the parousia would come as a surprise in a very large portion of the Olivet Sermon.
Rotherham wrote:He surely couldn't mean that it would be wrong for all time for his followers to ever say, "the end is near" or the "time has approached" or both John and Peter should no longer be listened to.
(Revelation 22:10) He also tells me: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near.
(1 Peter 4:7) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. . . .
33 Likewise also YOU, when YOU see all these things, know that he is near at the doors.
Wouldn't it be pretty stupid for Christians to know he was NEAR at the doors and not say anything? Of course it would and would be remiss if we didn't. That is obviously not what Jesus was talking about in that verse in Luke.
We have always had every reason to believe it's just as close as Peter had reason to believe in his day, and as John had reason to believe in his day, and as Luther had reason to believe in his day and as Charles Russell had reason to believe in his day. The difference was that Charles Russell, for example, tried to promote specific signs about Jesus from the hidden "inner chambers" of the Great Pyramid, measuring the Pyramid's "entrails" from lengths of various criss-crossing airshafts and drainage shafts, or from astrological signs in the heavens like the direction of the Pleiades and the direction of the star Draconis, or from numerology by counting the probable ages of the animals brought to a sacrifice. He turned the OT genealogies (chronologies) into arguments of doctrine about when Christ returns. In other words he dabbled in false prophecy. He claimed "special knowledge" about 1799, 1844, 1874, 1877, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915. This is what Jesus warned against, because it's not the Christian way of looking at the end times. The Christian way is NOT to be concerned with the times and seasons, but to be concerned with what sort of people we ought to be at all times. With respect to the PAROUSIA, Paul said, "Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, YOU need nothing to be written to YOU. For YOU yourselves know quite well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night." The best thing then for a Christian to do is to be prepared at all times so that we are not overtaken as if by thieves. Unfortunately, there are still so-called Christian groups who are promoting this kind of false Christianity that promotes specific signs, which tends to promote "works" based on how close we are to the "end". This use of fear and pretension of special knowledge (not even known by the Son or by angels) is what Jesus infers is "unfaithful and indiscreet". It is the opposite of the faithful and discreet servant who is the Christian serving others humbly without a concern for the "timing" of the end.
Rotherham wrote:There is no indication whatsoever that the signs he gave them, once he assured that them that it would not be singular event, like a war, were FALSE signs. there is absolutely nothing in the context that indicates that in the least. In fact, in Revelation, when Jesus takes his crown, it is immediately followed by global war and famine, in direct harmony with his words at the Olivet Sermon.
When Jesus took his crown in 33 CE, there were definitely wars and famines and pestilence that have continually followed throughout history. This was just as Jesus predicted in the Olivet Sermon. Revelation is showing us that Jesus began to
rule in the midst of his enemies. One of those enemies (horses) is Death, which is the last enemy. This was a comfort to those Christians who suffered greatly through the ages, even to the point of martyrdom (Rev 6). Jesus was already ruling as King of Kings, but that there was much to be done throughout the Gospel Age. It's exactly as Apostle Paul puts it in 1 Cor 15:25,26:
25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.
Note, again, that all kings are already subject to Christ in this passage, and that Jesus is already "ruling as king" in the midst of his enemies -- not just sitting there waiting as the Watchtower has attempted to convinced so many people. We do not yet SEE all these things under his feet, but they are already being made subject to him according to Paul. Jesus conquered Death himself and it is already subject to him. He will go on conquering to
complete his conquest when the first and second resurrection is complete and that which is mortal puts on immortality. Similarly he already conquered sickness and hunger through miracles, he was already given the keys to Death and Hades. He will complete his conquest in the new heavens and new earth.
Rotherham wrote:You continue to rant on about the wrongness of the identification of the 24 elders but the scriptures are as clear on that as they are anything else. They are REDEEMED by the BLOOD of CHRIST, so there is NO QUESTION as to who they are and there is NO QUESTION as to when they end up in heaven, AT his PAROUSIA. Therefore the visions of Revelation, which ALL take place passing in front of the backdrop of what was introduced in the 4th chapter, are ALL in the time of the PAROUSIA, no other time fits historically with the REDEEMED in heaven.
Already answered. No need for further ranting. Same with your further points about agreement with commentaries. Same with your points about symbolic language versus spelled-out explanations in prophecy.
I think the point about the "ecclesia" and the promoting of private and numerous interpretations is important, and I think a truthful discussion could be very damaging to your own perception of the ecclesia, harmoniousness, interpretations and necessary adjustments. For example, I think it is very relevant that your "ecclesia" (actually your ecclesiastical leaders) taught for many years that the man on the white horse in Revelation 6:2, who takes his crown, was none other than the BISHOP OF ROME! I think that your attempts to view of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation are much more reasonable, but they still have problems that you will not be able to see. When the ecclesiastical leaders changed their view of the man on the white horse, the ecclesia followed. There is an unhealthy and very disturbing culture in your ecclesia to merely follow the leaders. Of course, there have always been just enough hints in the Watchtower that following the human leaders is tantamount to following the leading of God's spirit, therefore it is tantamount to following God himself. Working from the other side, there have always been just enough hints that openly expressing disagreement with the private interpretations of your leaders is a form of expressing doubt, lack of faith, lack of waiting on Jehovah, disunity, lack of respect for Jehovah's organizational arrangements.
You could no more go against the current view, or tell me if you disagreed, as a Watchtower follower in Rutherford's day could express disagreement with the "fact" that the Pope was the man on the white horse. This is why I don't think you would even notice that the weaknesses of your own view about the beasts of Revelation and Daniel. Yet these weaknesses are of the same type as the weaknesses of the views you reject.
I believe that the ecclesia is built up primarily through working together to do charitable works. The discussion of the academic side of Christianity -- theology, etc -- can also encourage and build up when we take into account how the spirit has been poured out from God throughout the past ages. But the primary goal of this is not to produce further complications and technicalities of doctrine, but to encourage us to get through our lives with encouragement from past examples so that we too can continue to serve our fellow man with good works. Our spiritual life motivates us to express it in good conduct, love for fellowman expressed by charitable works, material support for one another, and reminders to one another that we are motivated by God's love already expressed towards us. This is the prime reason for associations of ecclesia:
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as YOU behold the day drawing near.
Rotherham wrote:You claim that it could have been explained just like it was to his disciples but you will note that this was only for his disciples and they are rarely spelled out in detail in the scriptures. The ecclesia is left to the determination of those which are not spelled out. Otherwise, it would produce private interpretations from one person to the next, which is not what God wants. Actually, the way prophecy should be handled bespeaks the unity of God's ecclesia, not the disunity.
You say that "private interpretations" is NOT what God wants, but I think it is EXACTLY what God wants -- as long as ideas about the theological and academic side of Christianity are discussed openly and in the proper spirit. When one person in the congregation wished to speak up with "knowledge" or "prophecy", this was a way for the ecclesia to respect their view and perhaps pray that they could also respond with a view. ALL in the ecclesia were expected to be concerned over the meaning and acceptance of spiritual understanding of difficult matters. Each person, "great and small" had to take care not to give too much weight to those claiming to be apostles or prophets. God no doubt wanted each person to concern themselves and come to their own private conclusions on matters of meaning of various "inspired utterances". They would need to decide, for example, whether Enoch or Assumption of Moses or Revelation or Philemon or Jude was inspired, or which portions of the documents in question were to be considered "scripture". The ability of the "body" to decide on such matters was based NOT just on the decisions of a few who took the lead, but the participation of ALL who could participate in a mature way.
1 John 4:1 (NWT) wrote:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world."
Mature Christians shouldn't still need someone to teach them.
Hebrews 5:12 wrote: For, indeed, although YOU ought to be teachers in view of the time, YOU again need someone to teach YOU from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God; and YOU have become such as need milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone that partakes of milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
John 16:3 wrote: "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."
None of these differences in doctrine (i.e., what one beast MUST mean to you at the present moment) will make much difference in the overall schema, when you remember that the true ecclesia's purpose for each gathering is to exhort each other to
good works, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, cure the sick, shelter the homeless, care for the widows and orphans. It's not powerful works of prophecy that make any real differences in the TRUE ecclesia. Those differences are minor and superficial. The REAL teaching is about doing good because we are responding to God's love in imitation of Christ. Nothing else should get in the way.
Remember that "religious" leaders will tend to want to concern themselves with doctrinal matters as opposed to the true spiritual matters. There is a place for some of this. But
true spiritual matters means responding in our "spirit" with "fruits of the spirit" -- from the heart we bring forth true spiritual treasure. And that treasure is not "preaching" doctrine, but "preaching and teaching" how all of us can respond to God's love by, in turn, helping our fellow man. True religion is unselfishly looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation and conduct that is different from the selfish goals of the world -- the fruits of the flesh.
James 1:27 wrote: 27 The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.
Religious leaders, as is very common among Jehovah's Witnesses, will tend to want to point to their own great works, their spiritual blessed organizational paradise and their wonderful prophecies that were fulfilled in them. Rather than focusing primarily on giving water to someone thirsty, or clothing, food or shelter to someone in need. That's why Jesus warned:
Matthew 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.
Matt 23:4 They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of men 5 All the works they do they do to be viewed by men; 8 But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness.
Matt 22:37: He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”
Matt 25:35 For I became hungry and YOU gave me something to eat; I got thirsty and YOU gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and YOU received me hospitably; 36 naked, and YOU clothed me. I fell sick and YOU looked after me. I was in prison and YOU came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked, and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to you?’ 40 And in reply the king will say to them, ‘Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did it to one of the least of these my brothers, YOU did it to me.’
Rotherham wrote:Prophetic interpretation and parabolic understanding then does become somewhat a matter of trust. It becomes a matter of trust in those you regard to be the ecclesia of God. As long as the constituents of a prophecy or parable do not contradict known logic, history or other scriptures, then the ecclesia should promote a singular view to the best of their ability and the individuals members should concur to that view rather than go around preaching and teaching different private views of prophecy. Otherwise there would be no reason why God would even care to assure us that prophecy was not born from private interpretation.
There is nothing wrong with teachers promoting a singular view they believe to be correct. But it is the responsibility of the rest of the ecclesia to continue to speak up for a continual building up, even if it means disagreeing with that singular view. The primary, important things -- love justice mercy and faithfulness -- are not put in any danger by such discussions of "knowledge" or "doctrine".
Apostle Paul doesn't speak to the Ephesians as if all good sense and wisdom have to continually come from a central source. He asks for respect of his own views but prays that the congregation will also be able to continually build up in more knowledge and good sense WITHOUT continued reference to Paul's views. Note:
Ephesians 1 wrote:8 This he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and good sense, 9 ...that we should serve for the praise of his glory, we who have been first to hope in the Christ...13 But YOU also hoped in him after YOU heard the word of truth, ...YOU were sealed with the promised holy spirit,...15 That is why I also, since I have heard of the faith YOU have in the Lord Jesus and toward all the holy ones, 16 do not cease giving thanks for YOU. I continue mentioning YOU in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give YOU a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him; 18 the eyes of YOUR heart having been enlightened...
Everyone is responsible to do their part as their study, prayer and contemplation of spiritual utterances moves them to respond and build up and grow harmoniously. Everyone is responsible to contribute as the spirit moves them, and the more acceptance of that spirit to each individual member, the more they gain in terms of knowledge. Leaving it up to those who SAY they are "the teachers" and "the leaders" and "the governing body" of the body is the OPPOSITE of what Jesus said he had in mind. It's not a political thing where leaders who agree with other leaders get voted into the positions of authority. It's based on gifts that the members of the ecclesia can recognize. It's the loving interaction with other members of the congregation that can make gifts stand out. Note, later in Ephesians:
Ephesians 4 wrote:11 And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, for the building up of the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ; 14 in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body, by being harmoniously joined together and being made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed, according to the functioning of each respective member in due measure, makes for the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
You will claim of course that your method is adequate and makes perfect sense to you and is in line with these passages. That's fine for you, then. You may have found an ecclesia with a suitable mix of teachers and evangelizers for your own comfort level. I don't claim that you are not a Christian. I only claim that there are other ecclesia which would appear better for another Christian's desire to respond in a different way to the spirit motivations God has put in their heart.
In any case, I'm sure some collections of brotherhoods making up the entire ecclesia of Christ's body will favor certain gifts over others. As long as our PRIMARY goal is to support our fellow brothers, neighbors, and fellow man in their time of need, then we have at least understood the most important thing about religion and spirituality. If the private interpretation you accept from someone else on a prophetic passage makes sense to you, this is also fine, but it's not nearly as important. Nothing about prophecy, especially if it's intended to provide evidence of where we are in the stream of time relative to God's coming judgment, is important to Christian conduct. It may easily become counter-productive to the motivation of Christian conduct because it infects the reasons for the hope within us. We might do more because we know the end is close (Heb 10:25) -- but this can't be our primary motivation. We shouldn't make a doctrine about how we have special knowledge that the end is near. Jesus condemned that type of thinking.
Rotherham wrote:True, you and I would be considered as having different private interpretations compared to just ourselves, as could many others who take different views, but that again is not the point. Who do you think I trust as the ecclesia of God? Is it you or someone else? No, it isn't. In fact, do you even claim to be representing the ecclesia of God in some fashion? I can certainly see far more consistency with logic, history and Biblical pattern and precedent in their interpretations then the ones you and others have presented.
There is NOTHING scripturally wrong with having private interpretations. We SHOULD have them. And we should be also be willing to have these readjusted by those who have good reasons for their private interpretations. We should NEVER accept an interpretation just because we trust and respect the person who taught it to us. We should TEST the inspirations/spirits. We should QUESTION like the Bereoans.
Of course I claim to be representing the ecclesia of God in some fashion. Just as you should. I do not believe I have any gift that makes me a teacher of doctrine. But we should all teach by example. My relatives and friends all know that my reason for activities in charities and hospitals is due to my hope in Christ. Others may get involved in the same activities for different reasons and that doesn't matter to me. I don't think we need to make a big deal about our Christian works, but if anyone asks they will know it is due to my desire to imitate Christ's example and that my motivation for helping others is because God helps all of us without regard to our status or our religion.
I also know who you trust as the "ecclesia" of God, and I know that you have no choice but to see more consistency with logic, history and Biblical pattern and precedent in their interpretations than those who present differing views. This doesn't mean much to me, because I can look at their track record. I can also know that the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses saw the very same consistency and Biblical patterns in their prior "true" views which they now consider to be false. So it is clear that your interpretation has continually meant that
it is important to accept false views without question. This can be dangerous, but fortunately it's mostly about the academic side of Christianity -- not "looking after orphans and widows". In my opinion, there is too much emphasis on literature distribution in lieu of looking after orphans and widow, but I can see that active members are treated pretty well by each other.
I also believe that most of motivations of Christian-oriented works by Jehovah's Witnesses is not primarily a motivation by fear, or just by the idea that the end is near. (If that were the case, I'd think I'd see all JW's selling all their belongings, giving it to the poor, and preaching their unique doctrines.) I see a lot of dangers among JWs, but I also see a lot of good, a lot of keeping without spot from the world, very little that warrants harsh judgment. I happily accept you as part of the ecclesia of God -- a God who doesn't judge us on the distinctions of doctrine, religion, borders, titles or status, etc.
Rotherham wrote:I believe I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the prophecies of Revelation are all parousiac prophecies because they are all back dropped by the presence of the 24 elders. I also believe I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that the Olivet sermon was not a singular sign but was clearly composite with many aspects. I also believe that I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that the little horn in question could not be Antiochus Epiphanes and could not have manifested itself until far after 33 CE. I do not believe that your explanations and interpretations fit with Biblical precedent, nor do they fit logically with the actual words of the prophecy when compared to history.
I believe you have not demonstrated what you claim. I believe I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that what you claim about the 24 elders is worthy of ridicule. Many of your beliefs about the Olivet Sermon are not impossible within the context of portions of the passages, but are highly inconsistent with the entire sermon, several specific passages within the sermon and many other related scriptural passages. I see that you have a tendency to create patterns of evidence which only work by completely ignoring contradictory evidence.
What you have presented in defense of your position on the beasts of Daniel contains many problems very similar to those in support of Antiochus Epiphanes. I see problems with the Antiochus hypothesis, too, but I don't expect you to understand why your interpretation has several of the same problems. If you'd like to take a shot at presenting your precise view, I can show you why, but your real difficulty will be in understanding how I can read the passage as related to both Antiochus and then again as Rome from another perspective and then again as our current Empire-driven world from another perspective. Obviously, I don't think we were meant to focus JUST on Antiochus Epiphanes here.
Rotherham wrote:I also believe that I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that a person, such as king David, could be called king by God himself long before he actually became king, because he was anointed to BECOME the king, he was the king-designate. There is absolutely no reason that the same could not happen to Jesus. In fact, as is often the case, David's journey to the throne in Jerusalem parallels Jesus journey to the same. David was called king by God when Samuel anointed him to be king in front of his father and brothers, but he was not the true king yet. Later, he became king JUST over the tribe of Judah and for the first seven years of being king he did not reign in Jerusalem. It wasn't until after the death of Mephibosheth that David actually became king over all Israel. Just like Jesus, who was anointed early on to be the king of God's kingdom, and could be called king because of that anointing, became the king first over just the Christian congregation, then later, he became king of the world.
Here we are at the original problem again. King-Designate may be a valid view of recognizing a kingship. In God's eyes, he can call someone for a station in life long before that person is even born. That "appointment" makes God's will a "fait accompli" from His perspective. But we humans are also capable, through faith, in acknowledging someone's future station and seeing them as if in that station. Faith is assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. It let Abraham await a "city having real foundations" from God. It's as if we can see what is currently invisible. So, while "King-Designate" might be a valid reason that some called Jesus a "king" when he was born, or even while he was recognized as a "king" between his baptism before 33 CE, it seems that you have really gone too far when you have to start dismissing the words of the apostles -- looking for all kinds of loopholes -- no matter how many times the apostles mention that Jesus has begun ruling as king since his death in 33 CE.
Or perhaps because Messiah was a name for the Messiah/King and Messiah means "anointed" you could also say that, from the human perspective, David was actually King from the moment people understood the reason for his "anointing". The same would work for Jesus. Some understood his "Anointing" as his "Messiahship" and therefore he was "King/Messiah" at his anointing (baptism).
But I'm also willing to agree that Jesus was a King-Designate between baptism and death -- but so close to his throne for those few months or years that he was to be regarded as King by all who had true faith. His Kingship would take on a more important, higher ranking, heavenly role in 33, which makes him in a sense, a King-Designate from his anointing through his death. But for many of those of true faith at that time, he was seen as no less than the King of Israel.
But your non-Biblical reason for dismissing his true Kingship immediately upon his resurrection is too transparent for me to give it any credence. You are looking for a technical reasons to call Jesus a King on David's throne ONLY in some future time long after 33 CE, but also long before Judgment Day (around 100 years before, or more.) You have some "technical" reason for this because it supports an idea that would partly exonerate some religious leaders from a long series of false prophecy. It's merely a kind of "nationalism" for you, then.You want your particular "party" to be right about something that appears to have failed on all other fronts. The Watchtower books once published
"88 proofs" that 1874 was the date for Christ's Parousia". You're now down to only one or two lines of evidence that keeps the 1914 theory hanging by a thread. It fails on historical, chronological, and Biblical grounds, but your ecclesiastical leaders have asked you, so far, to keep promoting it and supporting it. I can't respect such anti-Biblical beliefs -- especially when I see what they are based on. If they were based on other difficult scriptural interpretations, you'd give people more reason to consider it. I went ahead and considered it anyway and found that even on ALL your grounds, it's not even based in the slightest on scriptural issues.
I'll look again at all your comments and see if you have made any arguments that I should respond to any further.
Regards,
Bill