twisted imminency doctrine

[Fisherking]

Not biblical. You are believing traditions of men, not God's word.

I have been called to preach for 37 plus years sister. You can't refute anything I posted I see.

 

[JulieB67]

I have been called to preach for 37 plus years sister

And that matters how? My old pastor is well into his 90s and sadly still preaching false doctrine.

You can't refute anything I posted I see.

I already did although you refuse to see it. Again, Christ will appear only one more time -a second time. I provided the verse. Paul never states anyone is raptured to heaven - and you did not provide verses stating so, etc. We have to take the bible as a whole -chapter by chapter and verse by verse. And all throughout the NT, it's "thy coming, the coming of the Lord" and so on. It's not "comings". We cannot add to God's Word to suit our own doctrine.

Where are the verses that state Paul's mystery is a pretrib rapture to Heaven? If they were there I would certainly believe it. That's what got me heavily into the Word to begin with. Because someone once planted that seed for me years ago that it was not biblical. And I wanted the truth from the Word, not man. And they were right, it's not there. Pretrib rapture believers have to split his second coming/advent into two events because that's they only way they can make their doctrine work. I would rather let the scriptures speak for themselves and if Christ describes his coming as "after the tribulation of those days" I will take his word for it not man's.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And that matters how? My old pastor is well into his 90s and sadly still preaching false doctrine.


I already did although you refuse to see it. Again, Christ will appear only one more time -a second time. I provided the verse. Paul never states anyone is raptured to heaven - and you did not provide verses stating so, etc. We have to take the bible as a whole -chapter by chapter and verse by verse. And all throughout the NT, it's "thy coming, the coming of the Lord" and so on. It's not "comings". We cannot add to God's Word to suit our own doctrine.

Where are the verses that state Paul's mystery is a pretrib rapture to Heaven? If they were there I would certainly believe it. That's what got me heavily into the Word to begin with. Because someone once planted that seed for me years ago that it was not biblical. And I wanted the truth from the Word, not man. And they were right, it's not there. Pretrib rapture believers have to split his second coming/advent into two events because that's they only way they can make their doctrine work. I would rather let the scriptures speak for themselves and if Christ describes his coming as "after the tribulation of those days" I will take his word for it not man's.

I completely agree. Scripture only teaches one future coming of Christ. It specifically says He will appear the second time (Hebrews 9:28) and never says anything about Him also appearing a third time. When He comes from heaven it will be in the same manner that He ascended there (visibly and bodily). The pre-trib rapture theory is not taught in scripture anywhere.

Paul taught that the rapture will occur in direct relation to the second coming of Christ and he absolutely did NOT teach that those are two separate events. He indicated that the wrath of Christ will come down on His enemies on the same day that the rapture occurs (1 Thess 4:14-5:3, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Thess 2:1). He never taught that there would be a time of tribulation in between the rapture and the second coming and that isn't taught anywhere else in scripture, either. As you pointed out, Jesus taught that He is coming once in the future and it will be "after the tribulation of those days" (Matt 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27). It's very clear.

 

[claninja]

I'm not hostile to Pretribbers--Dispensationalism has some powerful points. I too believe that God will save Israel. I too am a Futurist.

But until 1830 there was no real Pretrib School in the Christian Church. And there is a reason for that. There was no Pretrib Teaching in the Bible, and nobody saw it for many hundreds of years!

Pretribbers read back into the Bible what was never there. They see the exhortation to "always be ready" as a theology of Imminence.

But it was never meant to be taken that way. We are always to be ready, morally and spiritually, because Christians are always to live right. There is nothing there about "Christ can come today."

And so, Pretribbers, believing "being ready" meant that Christ can come "at any time," began to project back into history the false notion that the Bible teaches a Pretrib Rapture.

It was never taught though because it simply wasn't in the Scriptures. Darby invented it.

While I agree that the idea of being ready because the “pretrib rapture” could occur at any moment is more of a modern interpretation of scripture, I can at least understand where the “being ready because of the imminence” comes from. —->

The author of Hebrews told his audience Christ was coming in a little while without delay. (Hebrews 10:37)

John told his audience it was the last hour, and they knew this because the antichrist had appeared, and many had gone out from the church. (1 John 2:18-19)

James told his audience that the coming the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8)

Peter told his audience that the end of all things had drawn near (1 Peter 4:7)

Paul told his audience that the appointed time had grown short and the world was passing away (1 Corinthians 7:29-31).

If you couple these imminent statements with the exhortations to “keep watch” and “be ready” (Matthew 24:42, 44), then it’s not so hard to see where the pretrib rapturists get their beliefs of “being ready because the time is near”

 

[RandyPNW]

While I agree that the idea of being ready because the “pretrib rapture” could occur at any moment is more of a modern interpretation of scripture, I can at least understand where the “being ready because of the imminence” comes from. —->

The author of Hebrews told his audience Christ was coming in a little while without delay. (Hebrews 10:37)

John told his audience it was the last hour, and they knew this because the antichrist had appeared, and many had gone out from the church. (1 John 2:18-19)

James told his audience that the coming the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8)

Peter told his audience that the end of all things had drawn near (1 Peter 4:7)

Paul told his audience that the appointed time had grown short and the world was passing away (1 Corinthians 7:29-31).

If you couple these imminent statements with the exhortations to “keep watch” and “be ready” (Matthew 24:42, 44), then it’s not so hard to see where the pretrib rapturists get their beliefs of “being ready because the time is near”

True, the language can easily project "imminence" if we allow for the idea that Christ and his Kingdom have nothing prior to them that needs to be fulfilled. However, if we believe, properly, that certain things must precede Christ and his Kingdom, we must see the language a little differently, in my opinion.

When I tell my wife when I'm doing a job that I'll be back "shortly," I often mean that I will get back "when I can." In my mind, it could be in just half an hour. But in the end, it may turn out to be one or two hours! Was it really "shortly" that I returned if I come back a couple hours later? Well, it depends....

In my view, we in the modern world tend to see things with scientific precision. Language of "shortly" must mean something a little more precise.

But biblically, "shortly" can be more relative to the things that are going to take place. It may look like an eternity that we've been banished from God by Adam's sin, and also by our own sins. But once Christ's atonement has been made, an eternity of separation from God has suddenly become "shortened," and our "redemption has drawn nigh."

So in my view, it is initially clear that before Christ can come, and before the Kingdom can come, certain things must happen. The Gospel must be preached to all nations. And the Antichrist must come and persecute the saints for 3.5 years. That is stated quite explicitly in Dan 7.

So how then can it appear that Christ's Kingdom is "near" at Christ's 1st Coming? It is because his immediate act of redemption will abbreviate the time we must wait until his Kingdom comes.

If the King has come already at his 1st Coming, then his 2nd Coming, together with his Kingdom, must follow behind. It may be a long ways off time-wise, in the scientific sense. But in the biblical sense, the impact of the Kingdom is already "near," bringing men into the Kingdom, and exposing antichrists as pretenders. There is an immediate impact, despite the continuing distance.

George Ladd did a great work in this regard in his book "The Presence of the Future." The thesis was just that, that Christ's 1st Kingdom was an introduction to elements that would consummate in the eschatological Kingdom. He was the King of the future Kingdom. And as such, elements of his future reign were already in evidence--his ability to save, and his ability to defeat the Devil.

So when we speak of the "nearness" of the Kingdom, what we are really doing is suggesting that Christ has already brought the powers of the Kingdom "near" so that we can live by it, live righteously by it, and be saved by it. This is so that we can participate fully in the Kingdom when it comes in the eschatological sense.

Please note what "near" means in the following verse, as it applied under the Law...

Deu 30.14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

You can see here that "near" can mean a proximity in distance, as well as a proximity in time. In the case of obedience, God's Spirit and God's Kingdom must have its presence in and near us so that even though it seems far from us we can actually live in it.

Similarly, when Christ came, Heaven still seemed distant. But he had brought it near so that we can actually make use of it now, meaning that our ultimate entry into Heaven is relatively near, or the next big thing on the agenda of Salvation.

There is, I think, 2 senses of how Christ spoke of the "nearness" of his Kingdom. One involved the immediate need for the Jews to prepare for imminent judgment to be revealed in 70 AD. The Jewish People had an immediate need to repent, or be judged in that coming event.

But there was also an immediate need to respond to God's word which continued to be near and in them. Christ's Kingdom was near in the sense that it was available. It was within reach, even though it remained distant in time.

So there was this tension involving time in the coming 70 AD judgment. And there was also this tension in terms of distance in the sense that the tools were immediately available to prepare now for more immediate events preceding the ultimate reward or judgment of Christ's eschatological Kingdom. The Kingdom continued to be far off, but its impact was more immediate and near.

I realize I seem to be a little confused about this. But I'm trying to work it out...

 

[claninja]

True, the language can easily project "imminence" if we allow for the idea that Christ and his Kingdom have nothing prior to them that needs to be fulfilled. However, if we believe, properly, that certain things must precede Christ and his Kingdom, we must see the language a little differently, in my opinion.

When I tell my wife when I'm doing a job that I'll be back "shortly," I often mean that I will get back "when I can." In my mind, it could be in just half an hour. But in the end, it may turn out to be one or two hours! Was it really "shortly" that I returned if I come back a couple hours later? Well, it depends....

In my view, we in the modern world tend to see things with scientific precision. Language of "shortly" must mean something a little more precise.

But biblically, "shortly" can be more relative to the things that are going to take place. It may look like an eternity that we've been banished from God by Adam's sin, and also by our own sins. But once Christ's atonement has been made, an eternity of separation from God has suddenly become "shortened," and our "redemption has drawn nigh."

So in my view, it is initially clear that before Christ can come, and before the Kingdom can come, certain things must happen. The Gospel must be preached to all nations. And the Antichrist must come and persecute the saints for 3.5 years. That is stated quite explicitly in Dan 7.

So how then can it appear that Christ's Kingdom is "near" at Christ's 1st Coming? It is because his immediate act of redemption will abbreviate the time we must wait until his Kingdom comes.

If the King has come already at his 1st Coming, then his 2nd Coming, together with his Kingdom, must follow behind. It may be a long ways off time-wise, in the scientific sense. But in the biblical sense, the impact of the Kingdom is already "near," bringing men into the Kingdom, and exposing antichrists as pretenders. There is an immediate impact, despite the continuing distance.

George Ladd did a great work in this regard in his book "The Presence of the Future." The thesis was just that, that Christ's 1st Kingdom was an introduction to elements that would consummate in the eschatological Kingdom. He was the King of the future Kingdom. And as such, elements of his future reign were already in evidence--his ability to save, and his ability to defeat the Devil.

So when we speak of the "nearness" of the Kingdom, what we are really doing is suggesting that Christ has already brought the powers of the Kingdom "near" so that we can live by it, live righteously by it, and be saved by it. This is so that we can participate fully in the Kingdom when it comes in the eschatological sense.

Please note what "near" means in the following verse, as it applied under the Law...

Deu 30.14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

You can see here that "near" can mean a proximity in distance, as well as a proximity in time. In the case of obedience, God's Spirit and God's Kingdom must have its presence in and near us so that even though it seems far from us we can actually live in it.

Similarly, when Christ came, Heaven still seemed distant. But he had brought it near so that we can actually make use of it now, meaning that our ultimate entry into Heaven is relatively near, or the next big thing on the agenda of Salvation.

There is, I think, 2 senses of how Christ spoke of the "nearness" of his Kingdom. One involved the immediate need for the Jews to prepare for imminent judgment to be revealed in 70 AD. The Jewish People had an immediate need to repent, or be judged in that coming event.

But there was also an immediate need to respond to God's word which continued to be near and in them. Christ's Kingdom was near in the sense that it was available. It was within reach, even though it remained distant in time.

So there was this tension involving time in the coming 70 AD judgment. And there was also this tension in terms of distance in the sense that the tools were immediately available to prepare now for more immediate events preceding the ultimate reward or judgment of Christ's eschatological Kingdom. The Kingdom continued to be far off, but its impact was more immediate and near.

I realize I seem to be a little confused about this. But I'm trying to work it out...

I agree that certain things must happen first —-> Jesus used the metaphor of when fig trees and other trees begin to sprout leaves then you know summer is near, to demonstrate that when the events of the Olivet discourse would occur then they would know the kingdom of God is near. In this case, “near” would NOT mean distance, but time. Near in distance wouldn’t really make sense in this case.

Luke 21 - 29Then Jesus told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near.31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

So when you have the NT authors actually living through the events of the Olivet discourse (wars, earthquakes, pestilence, famines, false prophets and Christs, persecution, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, mass falling away, and destruction of Jerusalem), it’s not surprising that they are also saying the time is “near”, “short”, “in a little while without delay”, and it is “the last hour”, especially considering Jesus’ metaphor above.

Near, in these instances has no other contextual meaning outside of literal nearness in time when you consider the metaphor of knowing the signs that summer is near.

As to your story, If I told my wife I would return from the store quickly or shortly and came back several hours later, she would be questioning what took so long, if I came back a day later she would be extremely upset. If I came back several years later, I would no longer be married.

God can tell us when things are far off, like he did through Daniel at the end of Daniel 8, so I don’t think there is a need to explain away near being actually a long time, unless one is trying to foist up a certain tradition.

For one last point, let’s compare James and Matthew, especially when considering the metaphor the of the leaves sprouting to indicate summer is near.

Matthew 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door

James 5:8-9 8You, too, be patient and strengthen your hearts, because the Lord’s coming has drawn near. 9Do not complain about one another, brothers, so that you will not be judged. Look, the Judge is standing at the door!

 

[RandyPNW]

I agree that certain things must happen first —-> Jesus used the metaphor of when fig trees and other trees begin to sprout leaves then you know summer is near, to demonstrate that when the events of the Olivet discourse would occur then they would know the kingdom of God is near. In this case, “near” would NOT mean distance, but time. Near in distance wouldn’t really make sense in this case.

Luke 21 - 29Then Jesus told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near.31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

So when you have the NT authors actually living through the events of the Olivet discourse (wars, earthquakes, pestilence, famines, false prophets and Christs, persecution, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, mass falling away, and destruction of Jerusalem), it’s not surprising that they are also saying the time is “near”, “short”, “in a little while without delay”, and it is “the last hour”, especially considering Jesus’ metaphor above.

Near, in these instances has no other contextual meaning outside of literal nearness in time when you consider the metaphor of knowing the signs that summer is near.

As to your story, If I told my wife I would return from the store quickly or shortly and came back several hours later, she would be questioning what took so long, if I came back a day later she would be extremely upset. If I came back several years later, I would no longer be married.

God can tell us when things are far off, like he did through Daniel at the end of Daniel 8, so I don’t think there is a need to explain away near being actually a long time, unless one is trying to foist up a certain tradition.

For one last point, let’s compare James and Matthew, especially when considering the metaphor the of the leaves sprouting to indicate summer is near.

Matthew 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door

James 5:8-9 8You, too, be patient and strengthen your hearts, because the Lord’s coming has drawn near. 9Do not complain about one another, brothers, so that you will not be judged. Look, the Judge is standing at the door!

Yes, I agree that "nearness" certainly had a *time* element, although neither can I deny that "nearness" also had a spatial element, such as we read in the Law that God's word had to be close, or nearby, in order to enable Israel to obey that word. The presence of God's word itself was the empowerment of men to fulfill that word.

But yes, the "fig tree" metaphor indicated a seasonal shift that seems, on its face, the opposite of what we would expect from the context. The context suggests an imminent, comprehensive judgment against Israel, which occurred in 70 AD. And yet the metaphor suggests a seasonal shift from Spring to Summer--something we may see as more positive than negative.

And yet, it is what it is. Jesus saw his 1st Coming as a positive for Israel, despite the negativity associated with his rejection by Israel and its developing judgment. It would provide an atonement for Israel's ultimate restoration, and the more immediate salvation of individuals in Israel who would accept him.

It was a "Summer" that would produce, instead of good fruit, a barren landscape. The 2nd Coming and its restoration of Israel would be preceded by the judgment of 70 AD and by the appearance of many antichrists and false prophets, which were indeed seen in Israel prior to 70 AD.

So these "Birth Pain" signs were said, by Jesus, to preceed not just his 2nd Coming to restore Israel but also would preceed the 70 AD judgment. It was the appearance of Christian persecution by the Jews that would present the sign of impending judgment in 70 AD, along with early signs of God's displeasure, including famines and earthquakes, and signs in the heavens, which took place at Christ's death. News of wars, or rumors of wars, portended the coming authority of Rome to put down rebellion, not just in neighboring countries, but soon in Israel, as well.

So yes, this "nearness" involved a "time" element. But it involved a definition of the Kingdom not just in the escahtological sense, but also in the spatial sense. The judgment of 70 AD would not be the coming of the Kingdom in an eschatological sense, but it would come in the spatial sense, by bringing heaven's judgments to earth in Israel.

In ancient prophecies it was said by God that in bringing historical judgments to Israel He would "reveal Himself to Israel." It was written, "then they will know that I am God."

This is also how God revealed the Kingdom near to Israel in a spatial sense in 70 AD, by revealing Christ's judgments in the 70 AD event. Then Christ would be revealed in that day, even though the Kingdom remained aloof in the eschatological sense.

It's a complex issue for me. Thanks for your patience as I try to explain how I've tackled this subject since the 1970s!

 

[Douggg]

The Only Person Who knows when the rapture/resurrection event will take place is God the Father.

Since the rapture/resurrection event has not taken place yet, the window for it to happen is getting smaller.

Be open to the possibility that the rapture/resurrection could happen even today - as it is in God the Father's Hands as to when. And live our lives as God wants us to as Christians.

Since Jesus said when we see things happening that point to His Return, look up because our redemption draws near. That's where we are at right now as the parable of the fig tree generation, and the conditions in the world are time of the end when travel and knowledge increased (Daniel 12:4).

So stay positive and look forward to the redemption of our bodies.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Only Person Who knows when the rapture/resurrection event will take place is God the Father.

Not the point for me. The Scriptures state that some things must happen *before* the Rapture/Resurrection Event. The preaching of the Gospel to all nations must precede the Return of Christ for his Church. And the Reign of Antichrist must take place before Christ's Kingdom can return with his glorified saints.

Since the rapture/resurrection event has not taken place yet, the window for it to happen is getting smaller.

Any event that claims to be a Pretribulational Rapture Event, or a Preliminary Kingdom event is a lie and a deception. Paul positively excludes any such notion in 2 Thes 2. The Return of Christ for and with his Church must be preceded by the Reign of Antichrist because when Christ Returns, it will actually be to *defeat the Antichrist!*

Be open to the possibility that the rapture/resurrection could happen even today - as it is in God the Father's Hands as to when. And live our lives as God wants us to as Christians.

Nobody is disputing that we should live our lives as God wants us to live as Christians. What is at dispute is whether Christ can return *on any day,* and whether the reign of Antichrist must *precede* the 2nd Coming of Jesus for his Church.

If I'm right, then it is *against the Scriptures* to declare that Christ can return *on any day,* and *before the Reign of Antichrist.* 2 Thes 2 explicitly forbids such a notion.

I will *not* be open to biblical error! The fact you are concerns me, though I do understand that Pretribulationism has a history dating back almost 200 years now.

Since Jesus said when we see things happening that point to His Return, look up because our redemption draws near. That's where we are at right now as the parable of the fig tree generation, and the conditions in the world are time of the end when travel and knowledge increased (Daniel 12:4).

So stay positive and look forward to the redemption of our bodies.

Who has suggested I'm not positive about the redemption of our bodies? It would be insane for us not to be excited!

But looking up for that redemption is not synonymous with imminent expectation. It is a reflection upon our constant hope that our physical redemption is coming soon--not that it could take place *at any time.*

2 Thes 2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he [Roman imperial rule] is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

Paul then goes into detail about the constitution and effect of the Reign of Antichrist, not as if the Church will miss these things, but in order that the Church may deal with these things even before he arrives.

2 Thes 2.9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Douggg]

If I'm right, then it is *against the Scriptures* to declare that Christ can return *on any day,* and *before the Reign of Antichrist.* 2 Thes 2 explicitly forbids such a notion.

It is against scriptures that the rapture/resurrection "must" take place before the 70th week begins.

It is not against scriptures of there being a "possibility" that the rapture/resurrection takes place before the 70th week begins.

 

[claninja]

Yes, I agree that "nearness" certainly had a *time* element, although neither can I deny that "nearness" also had a spatial element, such as we read in the Law that God's word had to be close, or nearby, in order to enable Israel to obey that word. The presence of God's word itself was the empowerment of men to fulfill that word.

But yes, the "fig tree" metaphor indicated a seasonal shift that seems, on its face, the opposite of what we would expect from the context. The context suggests an imminent, comprehensive judgment against Israel, which occurred in 70 AD. And yet the metaphor suggests a seasonal shift from Spring to Summer--something we may see as more positive than negative.

And yet, it is what it is. Jesus saw his 1st Coming as a positive for Israel, despite the negativity associated with his rejection by Israel and its developing judgment. It would provide an atonement for Israel's ultimate restoration, and the more immediate salvation of individuals in Israel who would accept him.

It was a "Summer" that would produce, instead of good fruit, a barren landscape. The 2nd Coming and its restoration of Israel would be preceded by the judgment of 70 AD and by the appearance of many antichrists and false prophets, which were indeed seen in Israel prior to 70 AD.

So these "Birth Pain" signs were said, by Jesus, to preceed not just his 2nd Coming to restore Israel but also would preceed the 70 AD judgment. It was the appearance of Christian persecution by the Jews that would present the sign of impending judgment in 70 AD, along with early signs of God's displeasure, including famines and earthquakes, and signs in the heavens, which took place at Christ's death. News of wars, or rumors of wars, portended the coming authority of Rome to put down rebellion, not just in neighboring countries, but soon in Israel, as well.

So yes, this "nearness" involved a "time" element. But it involved a definition of the Kingdom not just in the escahtological sense, but also in the spatial sense. The judgment of 70 AD would not be the coming of the Kingdom in an eschatological sense, but it would come in the spatial sense, by bringing heaven's judgments to earth in Israel.

In ancient prophecies it was said by God that in bringing historical judgments to Israel He would "reveal Himself to Israel." It was written, "then they will know that I am God."

This is also how God revealed the Kingdom near to Israel in a spatial sense in 70 AD, by revealing Christ's judgments in the 70 AD event. Then Christ would be revealed in that day, even though the Kingdom remained aloof in the eschatological sense.

It's a complex issue for me. Thanks for your patience as I try to explain how I've tackled this subject since the 1970s!

Definitely complex

I think what I was trying to say was that that metaphor points to “signs” prior to the event. When the “sign” occurs, such as fig trees sprouting leaves, then the event was near to occurring or arriving, in this case summer time.

Therefore, when those see the signs of the Olivet occur (persecution, gospel going to the whole oikoumene, false Christs, mass falling away, armies surrounding Jerusalem, etc..) then the they would know the event of the parousia/or kingdom of God was near to occurring or arriving.

This understanding isnt necessarily where the issue is though.

The issue is that we have NT authors explicitly telling their audiences, in the first century, that the time is near, short, in a little while without delay, and that it’s the last hour.

In other words, if certain events must first occur before the time can be imminent, according to your argument, why in the world are the NT authors telling their audiences the time is near and the coming of Christ is in a little while without delay, if certain events have not occurred yet (at least not yet occurred according to the futurist’s interpretation)???

 

[RandyPNW]

Definitely complex

I think what I was trying to say was that that metaphor points to “signs” prior to the event. When the “sign” occurs, such as fig trees sprouting leaves, then the event was near to occurring or arriving, in this case summer time.

Therefore, when those see the signs of the Olivet occur (persecution, gospel going to the whole oikoumene, false Christs, mass falling away, armies surrounding Jerusalem, etc..) then the they would know the event of the parousia/or kingdom of God was near to occurring or arriving.

Actually, that isn't how I see it. The "Birth Pain" signs were there to indicate the nearness of the time of the Abomination of Desolation, which I interpret to be the Roman Army desolating Jerusalem in 70 AD.

For example, Jesus' Disciples were to recognize in the nearby wars of the Roman Army that Rome would soon be visiting them in Jerusalem. The "rumors of wars" sign was actually an early warning of imminent combat by the Roman Army.

The sign of Israel's persecution of Christians was a sign of God's imminent judgment in 70 AD. The climactic and geological disruptions were signs of God's displeasure, soon to be unleashed in full in 70 AD. They were signs that presaged Israel's judgment in 70 AD, not signs of the end of the age or of the 2nd Coming of Christ.

Jesus was asked about the timing of both the fall of the Temple and his 2nd Coming. Jesus indicated that the 1st event, the fall of the Temple, could be anticipated by the early warning signs just prior to Rome's invasion.

On the other hand, the there was to be no way of knowing precisely the day of Christ's Return or of the end of the age. At best, we can go back to Daniel 7, and recognize that when Rome, the 4th Beast, reorganizes under the Antichrist, and when Antichrist himself reigns for 3.5 years, then the end is near.

We won't know the day or the hour, but we may know the month or the year. The world, regardless, will reject any notion that the age is ending or that Christ is coming. Jesus will come "as a thief" for those who do not believe. The Church will be expecting him.

This understanding isnt necessarily where the issue is though.

The issue is that we have NT authors explicitly telling their audiences, in the first century, that the time is near, short, in a little while without delay, and that it’s the last hour.

Yes, and as I've been saying, the proximity of the Kingdom to unsaved mankind is greatly shortened by the redemption Christ obtained for us on the cross. Now, the Kingdom is near, and can actually be touched when we sign onto membership in the Kingdom even now.

That's what makes it "near," namely, the proximity to us both timewise, in a relative sense, and spatial wise, in the sense of taking hold of it. The eschatological Kingdom is so near that its substance can actually be laid hold of in our own lives now. Time is not a barrier to those who are securely attached to the future Kingdom.

In other words, if certain events must first occur before the time can be imminent, according to your argument, why in the world are the NT authors telling their audiences the time is near and the coming of Christ is in a little while without delay, if certain events have not occurred yet (at least not yet occurred according to the futurist’s interpretation)???

They knew it because they knew Dan 7. Paul did not spell it out, and John didn't spell it out, because they were already under the dominion of the 4th Kingdom, namely Rome. It would be death or at least the appearance of sedition to proclaim Rome as a "beast," to be destroyed by Christ.

In speaking primarily to Jews in Israel, Jesus was in fact declaring things that would have to happen before his Coming. He was declaring the urgency of the Kingdom's judgment because it was already at hand, through the coming invasion of Rome.

Jesus said that the Gospel had to be preached to all nations, and that Israel would go into exile until their regathering in the future. And Jesus, in a parable, indicated it would be a "long time."

Exiles do take a long time. Jesus said it would be the worst punishment in Israel's history, and that would have to far exceed the 70 years Babylonian exile.

So when John spoke of it already being the "last hour," he was speaking of a prophetic time clock, in which redemption had already happened, and people had to act like it was indeed the "last hour."

Today is the Day of Salvation. It is already the "Last Hour," even if the consummation of the age itself remains a long ways off.

I know it's tough for us to see things this way. But it's what I believe the Apostles were trying to say. They were spelling out that Dan 7 had to happen 1st. That's what Paul taught in 2 Thes 2.

And Jesus plainly said that antichrists would have to come 1st. Obviously, he drew upon the prophecy of Antichrist himself in speaking of "false Christs" and "false prophets." They had to come 1st, before the age would come to an end. 1st the sins, and then the judgment.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Definitely complex

I think what I was trying to say was that that metaphor points to “signs” prior to the event. When the “sign” occurs, such as fig trees sprouting leaves, then the event was near to occurring or arriving, in this case summer time.

Therefore, when those see the signs of the Olivet occur (persecution, gospel going to the whole oikoumene, false Christs, mass falling away, armies surrounding Jerusalem, etc..) then the they would know the event of the parousia/or kingdom of God was near to occurring or arriving.

This understanding isnt necessarily where the issue is though.

The issue is that we have NT authors explicitly telling their audiences, in the first century, that the time is near, short, in a little while without delay, and that it’s the last hour.

In other words, if certain events must first occur before the time can be imminent, according to your argument, why in the world are the NT authors telling their audiences the time is near and the coming of Christ is in a little while without delay, if certain events have not occurred yet (at least not yet occurred according to the futurist’s interpretation)???

How do you reconcile your understanding of terms like "near", "short" and "a little while" with what Jesus said in passages like these:

Matthew 25:1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

Matthew 25:14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them.

So, do the verses that say His coming is near contradict Jesus saying His coming would not be for "a long time"? Of course not. We know that scripture never contradicts itself. So, how do we reconcile scriptures that say His coming is near with those that say it wouldn't be for "a long time"? Peter also hinted that His coming would not likely occur for a long time in 2 Peter 3 where he felt the need to point out that no one should think that Jesus is being slow to return just because it has been a long time from man's perspective. Man's perspective doesn't matter. He will return when the time is right after giving mankind as much opportunity as He desires to repent first and it won't be a long time from His perspective.

So, here is what each of us should be willing to do. We should be each explain how His coming can be both near and not for a long time. So, I will explain my understanding of that and I ask that you do the same.

Let's look at what Peter said first.

1 Peter 4:7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

So, what is the context of this verse? Was Peter saying that the end of all things was literally near? Would you agree that the following passage refers to the same thing as what Peter was referring to in 1 Peter 4:7?

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

If 2 Peter 3:10-12 doesn't describe the end of all things then I don't know what does. So, I think it's clear that this passage is referring to the same thing as 1 Peter 4:7. So, in what sense was Peter saying that the end of all things was near? From a human perspective or from the Lord's perspective? We can see in the 2nd Peter 3 passage that Peter made the point that the Lord is not being slow to come again even if it may seem that way from the human perspective. What matters is the Lord's perspective and He's not being slow to come because He is not affected by time. So, from His perspective, His coming is near because no amount of time is not near from His eternal perspective. So, even a long time from man's perspective is near from the Lord's perspective. That is how I believe verses like 1 Peter 4:7, James 5:8 and others are meant to be understood.

And that allows for reconciling verses like those with verses like those from Matthew 25 where Jesus indicated that His second coming wouldn't be for "a long time". He was talking about it being a long time from man's perspective, not His perspective. We need to differentiate between those two perspectives if we want to understand verses that speak of the timing of His return properly.

Clearly, Jesus has not returned yet and He did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD, so I have history on my side here. My view is supported by the fact that He hasn't come yet. Surely, both Peter and James were referring to the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ when they referred to His coming and He has not yet appeared gloriously. That is still our future hope.

 

[claninja]

Actually, that isn't how I see it. The "Birth Pain" signs were there to indicate the nearness of the time of the Abomination of Desolation, which I interpret to be the Roman Army desolating Jerusalem in 70 AD.

For example, Jesus' Disciples were to recognize in the nearby wars of the Roman Army that Rome would soon be visiting them in Jerusalem. The "rumors of wars" sign was actually an early warning of imminent combat by the Roman Army.

The sign of Israel's persecution of Christians were a sign of God's imminent judgment in 70 AD. The climactic and geological disruptions were signs of God's displeasure, soon to be unleashed in full in 70 AD. They were signs that presaged Israel's judgment in 70 AD, not signs of the end of the age or of the 2nd Coming of Christ.

Jesus was asked about the timing of both the fall of the Temple and his 2nd Coming. Jesus indicated that the 1st event, the fall of the Temple, could be anticipated by the early warning signs just prior to Rome's invasion.

On the other hand, the there was to be no way of knowing precisely the day of Christ's Return or of the end of the age. At best, we can go back to Daniel 7, and recognize that when Rome, the 4th Beast, reorganizes under the Antichrist, and when Antichrist himself reigns for 3.5 years, then the end is near.

We won't know the day or the hour, but we may know the month or the year. The world, regardless, will reject any notion that the age is ending or that Christ is coming. Jesus will come "as a thief" for those who do not believe. The Church will be expecting him.

Yes, and as I've been saying, the proximity of the Kingdom to unsaved mankind is greatly shortened by the redemption Christ obtained for us on the cross. Now, the Kingdom is near, and can actually be touched when we sign onto membership in the Kingdom even now.

That's what makes it "near," namely, the proximity to us both timewise, in a relative sense, and spatial wise, in the sense of taking hold of it. The eschatological Kingdom is so near that its substance can actually be laid hold of in our own lives now. Time is not a barrier to those who are security attached to the future Kingdom.

They knew it because they knew Dan 7. Paul did not spell it out, and John didn't spell it out, because they were already under the dominion of the 4th Kingdom, namely Rome. It would be death or at least the appearance of sedition to proclaim Rome as a "beast," to be destroyed by Christ.

In speaking primarily to Jews in Israel, Jesus was in fact declaring things that would have to happen before his Coming. He was declaring the urgency of the Kingdom's judgment because it was already at hand, through the coming invasion of Rome.

Jesus said that the Gospel had to be preached to all nations, and that Israel would go into exile until their regathering in the future. And Jesus, in a parable, indicated it would be a "long time."

Exiles do take a long time. Jesus said it would be the worst punishment in Israel's history, and that would have to far exceed the 70 years Babylonian exile.

So when John spoke of it already being the "last hour," he was speaking of a prophetic time clock, in which redemption had already happened, and people had to act like it was indeed the "last hour."

Today is the Day of Salvation. It is already the "Last Hour," even if the consummation of the age itself remains a long ways off.

I know it's tough for us to see things this way. But it's what I believe the Apostles were trying to say. They were spelling out that Dan 7 had to happen 1st. That's what Paul taught in 2 Thes 2.

And Jesus plainly said that antichrists would have to come 1st. Obviously, he drew upon the prophecy of Antichrist himself in speaking of "false Christs" and "false prophets." They had to come 1st, before the age would come to an end. 1st the sins, and then the judgment.

we are getting into too many points, and your argument is getting a little confusing, so I’ll start with this —> the “spatial” argument.

I don’t think your argument really works, considering the metaphor of the fig tree. I don’t think “near” is being used in terms of spatial closeness like your example of the law being near to one’s heart. Even Thayer’s Greek lexicon has “near” in Luke 21:30-31 to be time oriented ->

“of Time; concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass: Matthew 24:32; Matthew 26:18; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:30, 31;”

it really doesn’t make sense for the summer to be near to a person by means of close distance or proximity when the fig trees sprout leaves. Instead It makes more sense that knowing summer is near in time when fig trees sprout leaves. And because Jesus is using this metaphor to make a point about the kingdom of God being near when the events of the Oliviet discourse begin to occur, TO BE CONSISTENT, understanding near as time oriented is much more appropriate than spatial distance/proximity, like your example of the law being close to one’s heart. So I just don’t think your interpretation is appropriate, as it is not consistent with the context.

 

[RandyPNW]

we are getting into too many points, and your argument is getting a little confusing, so I’ll start with this —> the “spatial” argument.

Please allow me to summarize my view for ease of understanding.

1) The Birth Pain signs were primarily "early warning" signs heralding the 70 AD event. But they included a sense of the general character of the age leading to final judgment. Sinful religious people and sinful pagans, leading to Divine judgment. The fall of Israel, leading to a long Dispersion of the Jewish People.

2) The "Last Hour" time metaphor is related to realized redemption and our spatial access to Christ's Salvation. That is, now that Christ has already died for our sins we have a time block dedicated to getting Saved before the End. The proximity of God's Kingdom to us, which should not be confused with the escahtological Kingdom, gives us access to its power to save us. This is a different kind of "nearness," not to be confused with strictly the time element of "nearness."

3) Many prophecy teachers erringly focus on the "Abomination of Desolation" as the Antichrist, or associated with "Daniel's 70th Week." The AoD was, I believe, the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, followed by a long age of Jewish punishment, or Tribulation. Daniel's 70th Week depicted this 70 AD judgment, and not the Antichrist.

I don’t think your argument really works, considering the metaphor of the fig tree. I don’t think “near” is being used in terms of spatial closeness like your example of the law being near to one’s heart. Even Thayer’s Greek lexicon has “near” in Luke 21:30-31 to be time oriented ->

“of Time; concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass: Matthew 24:32; Matthew 26:18; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:30, 31;”

it really doesn’t make sense for the summer to be near to a person by means of close distance or proximity when the fig trees sprout leaves. Instead It makes more sense that knowing summer is near in time when fig trees sprout leaves. And because Jesus is using this metaphor to make a point about the kingdom of God being near when the events of the Oliviet discourse begin to occur, TO BE CONSISTENT, understanding near as time oriented is much more appropriate than spatial distance/proximity, like your example of the law being close to one’s heart. So I just don’t think your interpretation is appropriate, as it is not consistent with the context.

The "Fig Tree" metaphor was meant to represent the "early warning signs," leading to the 70 AD judgment of Israel. They were prepared, with Christ in their midst, to obtain national salvation. But God knew the majority did not have a right heart, making judgment imminent for the nation.

So this time frame is truly "imminent." But it is not suggesting an imminent Return of Christ. On the contrary, answering the question about when he would Return and set up his Kingdom he indicated that prior to that event Israel would be defeated by the Romans and sent into a long exile, before being regathered as a nation. While many Christians from all nations are being saved now, national Israel will not be saved until the end of this evangelical period.

So the sense of "imminency" has more to do with the imminency of Israel's judgment. But it equally has a sense of the urgency in our being in the "Last Hour" of history--a time in which we must accept evangelization or fall into Divine judgment. Israel, in her ignorance, will at a later stage in evangelical history respond to the call for her Salvation, and will at that time be regathered.

Therefore, I think "nearness" can be used in different ways in the Bible, and must be interpreted contextually. It can be used as a metaphor in order to establish an urgency, even if this extends over a long period of time.

But it can also represent a literal imminency, such as when Israel's judgment was just around the corner. The Romans came to judge Israel in their sins in Jesus' very generation, albeit 40 years after his death. God was patient, but Israel did not pay attention to the urgent need to repent overall.

 

[claninja]

How do you reconcile your understanding of terms like "near", "short" and "a little while" with what Jesus said in passages like these:

Matthew 25:1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

Matthew 25:14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them.

So, do the verses that say His coming is near contradict Jesus saying His coming would not be for "a long time"? Of course not. We know that scripture never contradicts itself. So, how do we reconcile scriptures that say His coming is near with those that say it wouldn't be for "a long time"? Peter also hinted that His coming would not likely occur for a long time in 2 Peter 3 where he felt the need to point out that no one should think that Jesus is being slow to return just because it has been a long time from man's perspective. Man's perspective doesn't matter. He will return when the time is right after giving mankind as much opportunity as He desires to repent first and it won't be a long time from His perspective.

So, here is what each of us should be willing to do. We should be each explain how His coming can be both near and not for a long time. So, I will explain my understanding of that and I ask that you do the same.

Let's look at what Peter said first.

1 Peter 4:7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

So, what is the context of this verse? Was Peter saying that the end of all things was literally near? Would you agree that the following passage refers to the same thing as what Peter was referring to in 1 Peter 4:7?

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

If 2 Peter 3:10-12 doesn't describe the end of all things then I don't know what does. So, I think it's clear that this passage is referring to the same thing as 1 Peter 4:7. So, in what sense was Peter saying that the end of all things was near? From a human perspective or from the Lord's perspective? We can see in the 2nd Peter 3 passage that Peter made the point that the Lord is not being slow to come again even if it may seem that way from the human perspective. What matters is the Lord's perspective and He's not being slow to come because He is not affected by time. So, from His perspective, His coming is near because no amount of time is not near from His eternal perspective. So, even a long time from man's perspective is near from the Lord's perspective. That is how I believe verses like 1 Peter 4:7, James 5:8 and others are meant to be understood.

And that allows for reconciling verses like those with verses like those from Matthew 25 where Jesus indicated that His second coming wouldn't be for "a long time". He was talking about it being a long time from man's perspective, not His perspective. We need to differentiate between those two perspectives if we want to understand verses that speak of the timing of His return properly.

Clearly, Jesus has not returned yet and He did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD, so I have history on my side here. My view is supported by the fact that He hasn't come yet. Surely, both Peter and James were referring to the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ when they referred to His coming and He has not yet appeared gloriously. That is still our future hope.

Just as when a fig tree sprouts leaves, you know summer is near, SO ALSO when the apostles were to see the events of the Olivet discourse occurring ( false Christs, mass falling away, gospel going to the whole oikoumene), then they would know He was near/the kingdom of God was near.

The Long Journey/bridegroom tarrying refers to Christ’s ascension and long awaited return.

If there are writings in the NT that demonstrate the apostles claiming, around the time of the ascension, that Christ’s return was imminent, your argument would be valid. However, since there are no statements like this, your argument for me to reconcile a long time and near doesn’t really make any sense.

Why would the apostles claim Jesus’ parousia is near around the time of his ascension, before many of the events of the Olivet discourse? That would be contrary to the parable of the fig tree.

Quite the opposite, The NT statements of the being short, near, in a little while without delay, and its the last hour, were written decades (a long time) after the ascension

So if Jesus said when you see all these things happening - persecution, famine, false Christs, gospel going to the oikoumene, mass falling away, etc…then you will know the time is near, just as you know summer is near when the fig tree sprouts leaves, THEN why were the apostles writing “it was near” decades later (a long time) after many of the events of the OD occurred and near the destruction of Jerusalem?

 

[Marilyn C]

Believers on watch will see the signs that Christ laid out and know when the day is approaching. Pretribbers will not watch for the signs and not know the day is approaching because they believe Christ could return at any time. That imo puts them in danger of falling away.




It doesn't state they won't be here, it just states the day will not overtake them as a thief. If you read the next couple of verses we are to be watchman.

I Thessalonians 5:5 "Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness."

I Thessalonians 5:6 "Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober."

Paul is a second witness to Christ on the subject and both are talking to Christians (the disciples privately) and of course Paul to the Thessalonians, etc

Matthew 24:42 "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."

Matthew 24:43 "But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up."

No one knows the day or the hour but we are to watch for the signs he just laid out so we can watch and not let the day overtake us as a thief.



Matthew 24:3 "And as He sat upon the mount of Olives the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

It states "thy coming" which is no different than this


I Thessalonians 4:15 "For we say unto you, by the word of our Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent in no wise them which are asleep."

The only difference is the original subject of 1st These 4:13 is people worrying about their passed away loved ones. It's not about a pretrib rapture and was never taught to be. Paul was telling them what would happen with them and trying to comfort them with his words.

We have to take things in complete context.

Hi Julie,

Sorry I missed replying to you. Now I am a pretribber but I do not believe that Jesus could come any time. Times and Seasons are laid out in God`s word for Israel and the Body of Christ will be gone when that starts. We are to `watch` for the sings of the Day of the LORD (God Almighty in judgment). The prophet Joel tells us in Joel 2: 1 & 2 that when the northern great army comes over Israel`s mountains then that is the beginning of the day of the LORD. And that will be easy to see. The great army that ever was or will be coming down from the far north to Israel.

Now when you quote Matthew that is Jesus speaking to Israel. He came to them as their king, but they rejected Him. However, He will come again at the end of the trib, just as the 12 disciples saw Him go, on the Mount of Olives. (Acts 1: 12 Zech. 14: 4)

 

[claninja]

Please allow me to summarize my view for ease of understanding.

1) The Birth Pain signs were primarily "early warning" signs heralding the 70 AD event. But they included a sense of the general character of the age leading to final judgment. Sinful religious people and sinful pagans, leading to Divine judgment. The fall of Israel, leading to a long Dispersion of the Jewish People.

2) The "Last Hour" time metaphor is related to realized redemption and our spatial access to Christ's Salvation. That is, now that Christ has already died for our sins we have a time block dedicated to getting Saved before the End. The proximity of God's Kingdom to us, which should not be confused with the escahtological Kingdom, gives us access to its power to save us. This is a different kind of "nearness," not to be confused with strictly the time element of "nearness."

3) Many prophecy teachers erringly focus on the "Abomination of Desolation" as the Antichrist, or associated with "Daniel's 70th Week." The AoD was, I believe, the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, followed by a long age of Jewish punishment, or Tribulation. Daniel's 70th Week depicted this 70 AD judgment, and not the Antichrist.

The "Fig Tree" metaphor was meant to represent the "early warning signs," leading to the 70 AD judgment of Israel. They were prepared, with Christ in their midst, to obtain national salvation. But God knew the majority did not have a right heart, making judgment imminent for the nation.

So this time frame is truly "imminent." But it is not suggesting an imminent Return of Christ. On the contrary, answering the question about when he would Return and set up his Kingdom he indicated that prior to that event Israel would be defeated by the Romans and sent into a long exile, before being regathered as a nation. While many Christians from all nations are being saved now, national Israel will not be saved until the end of this evangelical period.

So the sense of "imminency" has more to do with the imminency of Israel's judgment. But it equally has a sense of the urgency in our being in the "Last Hour" of history--a time in which we must accept evangelization or fall into Divine judgment. Israel, in her ignorance, will at a later stage in evangelical history respond to the call for her Salvation, and will at that time be regathered.

Therefore, I think "nearness" can be used in different ways in the Bible, and must be interpreted contextually. It can be used as a metaphor in order to establish an urgency, even if this extends over a long period of time.

But it can also represent a literal imminency, such as when Israel's judgment was just around the corner. The Romans came to judge Israel in their sins in Jesus' very generation, albeit 40 years after his death. God was patient, but Israel did not pay attention to the urgent need to repent overall.

I agree nearness can mean close in distance or time based on the context. However, I completely disagree that near can mean its polar opposite in a “metaphorical” way. Such is nonsensical and more akin to philosophical gymnastics to foist a certain traditions. God can, through the prophets, tell us when things are literally far away, like Daniel 8, so no need to change the meanings of words.

In regards to the “last hour”, the context is the Antichrist, NOT spatial access to Christ. —> many Antichrists had come and had gone out from the church, that’s how they knew it was the last hour. So I completely disagree with your interpretation.

The fig tree parable pointed to that when the events of the Olivet discourse were happening then they would know the coming of the son of man/ kingdom of God was near (luke 21:30-31) in time, NOT spatial distance.

Luke 21:31 31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

Matthew 24:33 33So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door.

 

[RandyPNW]

I agree nearness can mean close in distance or time based on the context. However, I completely disagree that near can mean its polar opposite in a “metaphorical” way. Such is nonsensical and more akin to philosophical gymnastics to foist a certain traditions. God can, through the prophets, tell us when things are literally far away, like Daniel 8, so no need to change the meanings of words.

You can make that determination if you want. It may be debatable whether an "hour" can convey something different from a literal 60 minute segment, and as such be considered "metaphorical."

Perhaps I should've used the word "idiom." It may depend on how an author wishes to use the word "hour," to convey a unit of time other than a 60 minute segment. The "last hour," in my view, can convey the entire NT period as a single unit of time, used idiomatically.

In regards to the “last hour”, the context is the Antichrist, NOT spatial access to Christ. —> many Antichrists had come and had gone out from the church, that’s how they knew it was the last hour. So I completely disagree with your interpretation.

Yes, and I disagree with your characterization that the "last hour" is in reference to the eschatological Antichrist. The passage says, frankly, that an entire era is being covered, from the then-current time when various antichrists proliferated to the eschatological period when THE Antichrist would appear.

If John was suggesting that it would all take place in a single hour, that would be absurd--as I said, this is an idiomatic usage of the words "last hour." It did not all take place within 60 minutes.

So, we have to decide, based on the context, whether John is speaking of an extended age, or suggesting that he thinks it will all take place imminently, both the appearance of many antichrists, and the appearance of THE Antichrist. If it was the latter, than obviously, John was wrong.

The fig tree parable pointed to that when the events of the Olivet discourse were happening then they would know the coming of the son of man/ kingdom of God was near (luke 21:30-31) in time, NOT spatial distance.

As I said, the Birth Pain signs, and the Fig Tree parable, all spoke of the 70 AD event of Israel's judgment *in that generation.* That was a day in which Christ would be revealed *in the judgment,* but it was not the day of Christ's Return. The Fig Tree parable, therefore, was *not* indicating that Christ's 2nd Coming was as imminent as the 70 AD judgment.

Some of the signs that were to take place in Jesus' generation continued on throughout the age. For example, the preaching of the Gospel reached out to the Roman world in that day, but has continued throughout the NT age. The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD has led to an age-long Jewish Diaspora that was not limited to the 1st generation of the Church

They were not all indicated to be imminent events, the fall of Jerusalem and the 2nd Coming. Rather, they merely indicated they would all be fulfilled in the "last hour," using that term idiomatically.

The NT age is a single unit, and being that it was the final step in God's redemptive program, it is indicated to be the next, last, and smaller unit of time than all previous units of time taken as one. Compared to all of history, the current Christian age is a smaller unit of time.

If world history is depicted as a single "day," then the NT era of Christian redemption is the "last hour" of that "day." It is the final period of waiting for Israel's redemption and for the redemption of the whole world.

Luke 21:31 31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

Matthew 24:33 33So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door.

Jesus' revealed himself in judgment in 70 AD, but it was *not* his 2nd Coming. The coming of judgment is commonly referred to as the "Day of the Lord" in the prophetic Scriptures.

Unfortunately, people read "eschatological fulfillment" every time they read of the "coming of God" or of a "day of judgment" in the prophetic Scriptures. There are "days of God" and "days of great judgment" taking place in history. The final one, however, will be eschatological, and we have to differentiate between these things.

Here are a couple examples of what often are viewed as eschatological, when they are actually to be understood as historical...

Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything."

This took place in 70 AD, when the Roman Army was coming, and the Jews had to come down off of their rooftops and run for the hills. It was not the 2nd Coming, even if it sounds like it.

Rev 2.15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Jesus portrays himself as "coming" to the Nicolaitans of John's time. It was not the 2nd Coming!

Rev 3.10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

Pretribulationists like to view this "hour of trial" as the period of Antichrist's Reign. But it actually refers to the time in which the Philadelphians lived, which was in John's time. The Roman world at that time went through a period of trial, from which this particular church was mercifully excluded.

When we speak of the "Last Hour" or of the "nearness" of "God's Coming," we should not confuse the context in each case of it being used. We may speak of a time period, such as the close proximity of the 70 AD judgment to Jesus' Disciples. This is a proximity of time.

Or we may speak of a spatial access, God's Kingdom being near to us and as such, approachable. When an event is imminent, such as God's Coming in the 70 AD judgment, it also indicates that Christ has already come the 1st time, bringing his Kingdom near, as he said.

This conveys a spatial sense of the nearness of God's Kingdom so that Jesus' Disciples had immediate access to Salvation, while others, rejecting that message faced imminent judgment. The nearness in time, of God's judgment, also indicated the proximity we have to God's Kingdom in order to prepare for it.

Matt 4.17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

The implication of the relative nearness of judgment to Israel also implies the nearness of Salvation to them, in order to avoid it.

It depends on the context. If we mix contexts, we will get confused. If we keep each context separate the proper sense can be understood.

The imminency of judgment refers to the judgment of 70 AD. But the nearness of that event does not imply the nearness of Christ's eschatological Return, time-wise.

However, the "Last Hour" encompasses the entire age. We prepare now because the Kingdom is already near to us, since Jesus has come the 1st time. But we are preparing for an event that has been 2000 years and waiting.

Jesus' Disciples could get ready in their generation, and we can get ready in our generation, as well. The Kingdom is within our reach in all generations. And yet, it has been 2000 years and counting.

 

[claninja]

You can make that determination if you want. It may be debatable whether an "hour" can convey something different from a literal 60 minute segment, and as such be considered "metaphorical."

Perhaps I should've used the word "idiom." It may depend on how an author wishes to use the word "hour," to convey a unit of time other than a 60 minute segment. The "last hour," in my view, can convey the entire NT period as a single unit of time, used idiomatically.

Yes, and I disagree with your characterization that the "last hour" is in reference to the eschatological Antichrist. The passage says, frankly, that an entire era is being covered, from the then-current time when various antichrists proliferated to the eschatological period when THE Antichrist would appear.

If John was suggesting that it would all take place in a single hour, that would be absurd--as I said, this is an idiomatic usage of the words "last hour." It did not all take place within 60 minutes.

So, we have to decide, based on the context, whether John is speaking of an extended age, or suggesting that he thinks it will all take place imminently, both the appearance of many antichrists, and the appearance of THE Antichrist. If it was the latter, than obviously, John was wrong.

“HOUR” :
My argument wasnt that the word “hour” must mean a literal 60 minutes, so I apologize if there was any confusion. I agree the Greek word for hour, while can be a literal 60 minutes, can also mean a finite season/time span. I believe John was stating it’s the “last hour” or “last season” or “last time”.

“In the New Testament, ὥρα (hóra) primarily refers to a specific time or hour of the day. It can denote a literal hour, a period of time, or a significant moment. The term is often used to indicate the timing of events, both ordinary and eschatological. It can also imply a divinely appointed time or season, reflecting God's sovereign control over history.” (Strong's Greek: 5610. ὥρα (hóra) -- Hour, time, season)

“LAST”:
In 1 John 2:18-19, the word “last” in last hour is eschatos —>

“The term "eschatos" is used in the New Testament to denote the last in a series, the final stage, or the utmost degree of something. It often refers to the end times or the final events in God's redemptive plan, commonly known as eschatology. It can also describe the last or least in terms of rank or importance.” (Strong's Greek: 2078. ἔσχατος (eschatos) -- Last, final, utmost, extreme)

“. of the time nearest the return of Christ from heaven and the consummation of the divine kingdom, the following phrases are used: ἐσχάτῃ ὥρα, 1 John 2:18; ἐν καιρῷἐσχάτῳ 1 Peter 1:5” - thayers Greek lexicon

So John knew it was the “eschatological” or last hour because the antichrist, that they heard was coming, had already arrived. ****Since John literally said it was the eschatological or last hour because the antichrist had come, I disagree with your assertion that it is not related to eschatology****

1 John 2:18-19 18Children, it is the last (eschatos) hour; and just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last (eschatos) hour.

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

As I said, the Birth Pain signs, and the Fig Tree parable, all spoke of the 70 AD event of Israel's judgment *in that generation.* That was a day in which Christ would be revealed *in the judgment,* but it was not the day of Christ's Return. The Fig Tree parable, therefore, was *not* indicating that Christ's 2nd Coming was as imminent as the 70 AD judgment.

Some of the signs that were to take place in Jesus' generation continued on throughout the age. For example, the preaching of the Gospel reached out to the Roman world in that day, but has continued throughout the NT age. The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD has led to an age-long Jewish Diaspora that was not limited to the 1st generation of the Church

They were not all indicated to be imminent events, the fall of Jerusalem and the 2nd Coming. Rather, they merely indicated they would all be fulfilled in the "last hour," using that term idiomatically.

The NT age is a single unit, and being that it was the final step in God's redemptive program, it is indicated to be the next, last, and smaller unit of time than all previous units of time taken as one. Compared to all of history, the current Christian age is a smaller unit of time.

If world history is depicted as a single "day," then the NT era of Christian redemption is the "last hour" of that "day." It is the final period of waiting for Israel's redemption and for the redemption of the whole world.

“World history depicted as one day” seems like another philosophical gymnastic maneuver in order to change the meaning of words, so I can’t agree with that understanding.

As to the olivet discourse, I hold the partial preterist position, and do not believe the olivet discourse refers to a 2nd advent. I absolutely agree the fig tree parable of “near” refers to the destruction of the temple/jerusalem and the fulfillment of Daniel 7: 13-14 - son of man coming on the clouds in and around 70ad. Though this fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 makes more sense when the “original Greek” or OG manuscript is read. Instead of the son of man coming “to” the ancient of days, the OG says the son of man came on the clouds “as” the ancient of days. Thus, just as God often descended from heaven on the clouds in judgement upon the nations in the OT, Christ descended on the clouds as the ancient of days on destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

When Jesus’ audience was to see the events of the Olivet discourse happening, they would know the coming of Christ and his kingdom was near, just as when a fig tree sprouts leaves, then summer is near

Thus the language of near, short, within a little while without delay, and the eschatological hour, refers to destruction of Jerusalem and the son of man coming on the clouds in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14, which was literally near in time to their generation. It doesn’t not refer to the 2nd advent, as the 2nd advent was not literally near in time to their generation.

You can’t call out pre trib rapturists for twisting “imminence” and then go on to perform philosophical gymnastics to twist imminence into meaning its polar opposite.