"Now and Then" view of Prophetic passages

[Don Maurer]

There is a large number of writers that agree with the near and far view of fulfilled prophecy. I do not think it is a consensus, but it is a common view.

I am wondering how others view this issue.

I think this passage would relate.... (Acts 2)
16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:
18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.
21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

This is in Peters sermon saying that Acts 2 people observed the prophecy of Joel in action.. (Peter says "this is that which was spoken")

I notice at the end of the passage from Joel 2 that he quoted, Peter includes the part about the "Day of the Lord."

Then in 2nd Thes 2 we read....
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him;
2 to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand;

Paul denies that the day of the Lord is at hand. The idea is that it is yet future. Yet Peter has previously quoted a passage on the Day of the Lord and said it is present in Acts 2 at least in some way.

There is an awful lot of material in the OT on the "Day of the Lord."

Any comments?

 

[kathleen ann]

Hello Don.

I am new to this site. Peter asked the Lord if it was now that He would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). The Lord reminds him of His provision of the HS and that they are going to be witnesses to Him. Peter does not know that there would be any interruption to the fulfillment of all the prophecy. (the Lord told him 1:7 it was not for them to know the times-)

A similar example of this is Acts 15:16,17. when James quotes Amos 9:11,12 acknowledging that what was happening with the gentile conversion was in agreement (not necessarily fulfillment). How has the tabernacle of David been restored at that time, though?

Paul is giving further detail in Thessalonians as a reminder of what needed to occur during the Lord returns (they didnt miss Him). All the epistles written before the end of Acts were written with anticipation of His imminent return. But there were things that would occur first before His actual return. What Paul says in Thessalonians 2:2, Jesus said in Matt 24:3ff.

Here is a list (not exaustive) of the texts in both Paul's early epistles as well as the others that indicate they do expect His return soon: Rev.1:1-3,1Jn 2:18,Jude 1:18,1Peter 4:7,2Peter 3:3,James 5:3,Heb 12:22,13:13,14. Pauls early epistles, in 1Cor 1:7,8 1Cor.11:26, 1Cor 15:52, Romans addresses what is happening with the Jews future (still affirms the covenant the Lord made with them as a nation will come to fruition)Ro.11:25-29
numerous references in Thess. where Paul brings out details that are also given in OT and gospel accounts of the sequence of events.

But, the prophetic fulfillments began to happen during the Acts period, but then stopped. eg: miraculous gifts, major persecution of the Jews (but they didnt repent as a nation yet). Even the Jewish festal calendar-Passover, Unleavened Bread, Penticost (fulfilled) they awaited the next: Trumphets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles.

Hope this is a help to you.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Hey, I just found this thread!

You brought up this idea recently on a different thread; and yes, I agree; "the Day of the Lord" is an interesting conceptualization as we look at how 2000 years of history has passed since the resurrection.

There are a lot of passages in the OT about "the Day of the Lord"; as well as some interesting language I've found considering the darkening of the sun, moon and stars. (I'm going to try and not get too far into the weeds here.)

Isaiah 13:10 - the stars will not give their light, and the sun and moon are darkened.
Joel 3:15 - same thing; the sun and moon darkened, stars don't shine.
Amos 8:9 - will cause the sun "to go down" at noon and will darken the earth in a clear day. (compare Matthew 27:45 - noting the crucifixion could not have happened on a solar eclipse because it was a full moon. Chinese astronomers actually recorded this event as an "unusual eclipse".)

There are more references in the gospels too; which I'll get to in a minute.

Now Revelation 8:12 and Revelation 9:2 explain why the sun was darkened.

Revelation 8:12 is "the 4th angel" sounds and 1/3 of the "day and night" is darkened because 1/3 of the sun is smitten and 1/3 of the moon and 1/3 of the stars. Just prior to this the 3rd angel sounding sends and angel called "Wormwood" to the earth. Wormwood, I believe is a reference to Satan being cast out of heaven. And I think I've found in the gospels where this happened!

Luke 10:18 - Jesus makes a reference to seeing Satan cast out of heaven. This happened just before the 70 were sent out by Jesus. (Luke 10:1) The 70 are sent out after the death of John the Baptist. (Luke 9:7-9) The 70 were sent out after the 12 had come back and sandwiched between the return of the 12 and the sending of the 70 is the (first?) feeding of the 5000.

Jesus baptism and Day of Atonement:

I'd come to a conclusion prior to this that the death of John the Baptist commences the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. The end of the 70 weeks concludes on Pentecost. Pentecost is called "the consummation in Daniel 9 - think Holy Spirit poured out now "cleaves to" and indwells believers. (70 weeks is a little less than 1.5 years.) John was the prophet who came "in the Spirit of Elijah" The forerunner of the announcement of the Messiah. That announcement commenced with the baptism of Christ. Which was 3.5 years between baptism and crucifixion.

I've come to the conclusion, that it appears Jesus was baptized on the Day of Atonement in 29 AD. That would have been fall of the year. I believe it was the Day of Atonement because on the commencement of the Feast of Trumpets; which "kicked off" this season of feast days; was that the people were to be called together to hear the voice of God. The proclamation of the voice of God happened at Christ's baptism. "This is my son whom I'm well pleased. Hear (listen to) him."

Now back up to John's appearing in the wilderness. (Here's were it gets interesting!) Luke 3:1 identifies John's appearance on the commencement of the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. That would have been roughly the beginning of August of 29 AD. Which was just about precisely the beginning of the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar.

Now some very interesting astronomic and geological phenomena happened at exactly that same time.

1. There was an earthquake in Turkey that affected Jerusalem. It damaged the temple and the Court of the Sanhedrin. One of the consequences of that quake, was that one of the doors to the temple got stuck open. So, facing the temple from the Mt. of Olives, one would have been able to actually see into the temple. And seeing through the stuck open door, one would be able to see the veil that covered the holy of holies.
(Hang onto that thought, because it's an important detail when we get to the crucifixion!)

2. There was a "solar eclipse" that happened the same time this quake did. Both of these events were recorded by the Romans. They are in the Roman historical record. In commemoration of these events related to Tiberius's 15th year; the Romans minted a coin in 30 AD. On the face of this coin was a profile of Tiberius "in eclipse" with the sun in the back. Now interestingly, on the other side of this coin was the temple in Jerusalem!

In correlation with these two events, comes John preaching in the wilderness "Prepare the way of the Lord".

Now jump over to Hebrews 5:5. Here is the pronouncement (from God) of the "high priest" "This is my son...." (A high priest after the order of Melchisedec.)

After scratching my head enough.... and doing comparisons of OT feast days; I have another hypothesis. This is that the 40 days in the wilderness was part of the entire trial that concluded with Jesus's baptism. The Father announces He's well pleased with the Son/son who's "past the temptation". Which seems to me would make the most sense that the Father would make the proclamation of being pleased with the Son/son upon conclusion of the 40 day trial.

I know this isn't the sequence that's generally believed to have happened; because different passages make mention of "after" the baptism Jesus is driven into the wilderness. But comparing Matthew and Luke, which use the word "led" and Mark which says "driven". They are actually 3 different Greek words with different tenses that have ambiguous meanings in regards to the sequence of the events within that 40 day periodd. (One's "passive", one's "present", the other is "imperfect". Of which I don't know enough about verb tenses to know if we can parse out event sequences from verb tense information? But it makes the most sense to me that the Father would make the proclamation (the Son/son had passed the test) after the 40 day trial was complete.

Practically speaking though, we know John is arrested shortly after Jesus's baptism. (One of the reasons I assume the Spirit "drives" Jesus into the wilderness = because they are coming for John.) Which also, after 40 days of not eating; and Scripture describing Jesus as "hungered"; Jesus wasn't in real good shape physically at that moment. "Hungered" means he'd nearly starved to death.

Which also in the over all context talks about "angels" taking care of Jesus. Now were these "non-carbon based entities" Scripture refers to as "angels"; or were these human "messengers". The word "angel" in Hebrew (which the Greek is transliterated from the Hebrew) is an ambiguous term too. Sometimes "angel" is referring to what we traditionally think of as "angels" but other times the word "angolos" is translated "messenger" and is clearly referring to a human messenger. "David sent a messenger to....." In language like that, clearly "angolos" is a human messenger.

Other possibilities I've heard too is that Jesus was born on the feast of trumpets. Which is possible too. Could there be some "now and then" fulfillments in the context of "the incarnation" to "the death"? I suppose that's possible? I don't know. Does prophecy lend itself to "multiple fulfillments? (I don't know the answer to that either.)

So is "Wormwood" kicked out of heaven the commencement of John's preaching / Jesus's 40 day trial? Revelation records a "darkening" and historically we do have an "eclipse".

Yet that passage where Jesus mentions the casting out of Satan is in the sequence of the death of John, not the commencement of John's preaching. So, hypothesizing that the "casting out" was one of those two events. And though I'm leaning more toward the death of John, we don't have an "eclipse" recorded associated with that.

Also though we know we have astronomical phenomena associated with Jesus's birth. Thus the Herods know that when the cosmos starts doing "weird" things; something's up. Which would make sense to ... let's go arrest John in correlation with this earthquake / "eclipse".

The next passage (Revelation 9:2) we can firmly track to the day of the crucifixion. Revelation 9:11 names the angel with the chain that tosses Satan into the bottomless pit as "Abaddon". The name means "angel of destruction". I'm contemplating (although not sure) this appears to have correlation to the "angel of the Lord" in Exodus connected to passover. Although the "angel of death" at Passover is clearly stated as being God himself.

So "Abaddon" (angel of destruction) casts Satan into the bottomless pit and puts a seal on him. Revelation 9:2 states that opening the pit causes the sun and moon to be darkened. Interesting; compare specifically Amos 8:9. Now is Isaiah 13:10 and Joel 3:15 the "darkening at the crucifixion event" or is one "Wormwood" and the other the bottomless pit; or are they both the bottomless pit event? Compare Luke 23:45. That's clearly the crucifixion.

Now compare Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24. Here's where it gets interesting again:

Matthew 24 and Mark 13 have very similar language; but look really carefully because it's not exactly the same.

Much of Matthew 24 I think can be linked to the crucifixion. I've come to the conclusion that what dispensationalists call "the great tribulation" was actually part of the atonement. "Unless those days are cut short; no flesh will be saved." When was salvation secured? It was secured by the point Jesus died that Friday afternoon. And like I'd said on another thread; I think the commencement of the "Day of the Lord" started with the atonement and will culminate with Judgement Day at the end of time.

That "now / then" seems to be reflected between Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Matthew 24 is addressing the atonement aspect of "the Day of the Lord" when Mark 13 is addressing the Judgement Day aspect of "the Day of the Lord". For example look really closely at Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after...... " And Mark 13:24 just says "...In those days, after that tribulation....." Mark 13:24 doesn't say "immediately". Now is Mark 13:24 making a "backwards glance" reference back to Matthew 24:29; (that darkening of the sun and moon) Or will there be a precursor darkening of the sun and moon before.... enter Revelation 6:12!

Revelation 6:12 the sun isn't just "darkened" it's "black as sackcloth of hair". And the moon is "as blood". Now astronomically speaking; how is the moon "as blood" meaning color....?? when the sun is "black as sackcloth of hair"? I'm interpreting "sun black as sackcloth of hair" meaning, as a star it has been extinguished. How the moon would be "as blood" I don't know. Unless the moon is literally on fire or melting? I suppose both are possible? "As blood" may not be a reference to the color but the state of its dematerialization. This "event" (or outcome) I think is the very last thing that happens before the coming of Christ in glory appears in the heavens. The "heavens rollup like a scroll" the cosmos is destroyed by "the brightness of his coming" and it is Judgement Day.

I think the destruction of the cosmos is initiated by the entrance of the presence of God (Christ) in His glory because a corrupt cosmos can not stand in the presence of God's glory without that glory destroying it on account of it being corrupt. But is there a "time gap" (may only be a literal hour) before the "darkened sun" is extinguished becoming "black as sackcloth of hair". I have no idea how "close together' these events will run. Other passages in both the OT and NT talk about men trying to hide in the earth; pleading for the rocks to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the lamb.

Now in among all these are also earthquakes. There was an earthquake in relation to John the Baptist's appearance in the wilderness. (If the Scripture records that as a fulfillment of prophecy somewhere; Besides Revelation 8:12 - I don't know where it is.) There were multiple earthquakes associated with both the death and resurrection of Christ.

Which, back to the veil of the temple: The crucifixion most likely took place on the Mt. of Olives; somewhere in the vicinity of the red heifer alter. I conclude this because Luke 23:47 talks about the centurion witnessing these things. And the only way the centurion would have seen the veil being torn is if he was facing the temple. Assuming the men crucified were facing east and not west; seeing how it says the centurion stood "against" Jesus. Assuming Jesus's back was to the temple and the centurion was facing Jesus. In the vicinity of the red heifer alter, he would have been able to see into the temple and watch the veil be torn. Now I'm sure that the soldiers were a bit distracted by the earthquake and the fact that the mount they were standing on was sliding into the valley! But it does say they witnessed these events.

So there's my ..... trying not to get too far out into the weeds; of the results of my digging through the Bible.

I think we are both "over the target" though. There certainly appears to me to be a "then / now" application to prophecy.

Now what that translates into concerning events going on around us today? That's a good question? I don't know if we've been given enough detail to figure out those puzzle pieces?

 

[Don Maurer]

.......

I think we are both "over the target" though. There certainly appears to me to be a "then / now" application to prophecy.

Now what that translates into concerning events going on around us today? That's a good question? I don't know if we've been given enough detail to figure out those puzzle pieces?

Rghterzpen, that certainly took you some time to type all that and think through it. Thanks for the response. I will try to match your effort.
The question relates to bringing two passages together which have a seeming contradiction. I certainly believe in sola scriptura, biblical innerrancy, etc. So then, it is a "seeming" contradiction. I think I might have a possible solution to this seeming delema, but wish to hold my opinion and see what others have to say. The "seeming" contradiction is to coordinate the phrase "day of the Lord" in two different passages. The passages are 2 Thessalonians 2 and Acts 2. Acts uses in in a positive sense to relate it to Pentecost. In 2 Thes 2, Paul affirms that it relates to the 2nd coming, but denies that the day of the Lord has taken place.

In 2 Thesalonians 2:1-2 Paul says... "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letters as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come."
* OBSERVATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR 2nd THESSALONIANS 2 AND THE PHRASE "DAY OF THE LORD."
-First, by the writing of this letter, a full preteristic interpretation of anything in the scriptures before this letter would be ruled out. It seems to me that Paul clearly teaches that anything related to the 2nd coming is future of this letter. Of course full preterism could be a natural interpretation of this passage as a unified whole. Pick one of the Roman Emperors and interpret him as the "lawless one" (verse 8) and relate him to a completed 2nd coming in 70AD. That interpretation might be wrong, but I see a consistency in it because it views the context as a unified whole. The anti-Christ, the lawless one, is then related to the 2nd coming.
-Second, to make a partial preteristic interpretation of this passage would be possible only if you date 2 Thessalonians before 70 AD. So then, at the earliest, you could attempt to date the "lawless one" (vs 8) just before 70AD. In this view, of course you must not view the context as unified and the interpreter must make a difference between the lawless one (vs 8) and the 2nd coming (vs 1). I struggle with breaking up the passage as would be required in a partial preteristic understanding of the passage.
-Third, there is also the issue of the "day of the Lord" (vs 2). I thank you, righterzpen for observing in the OP, that this is my issue. If the day of the Lord is unrelated to the 2nd coming, how would we read verses 1-2? The parousia (2nd coming) is later again mentioned in verse 8 in the phrase "by the appearance of His coming." Are we to thematically split off the concepts of the "day of the Lord" and the 2nd coming mentioned twice in the context?

CONCLUSION--- To many interpretations of end time events seem to break up this passage into little itty bitty bits and does not seek a holistic, unified reading of the chapter. I would see the entire chapter as related to 2nd coming events.


* No matter your view of 2 Thesalonians 2, one thing easily observed is that the "day of the Lord" (vs 2) is still yet future from the time Paul is writing 2nd Thessalonians. Now we can go to Acts 2:20. Peters sermon is dated at Pentacost (Acts 2:1). Peter quotes Joel 2 and says "this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel." Peter quotes a passage related to "Before the Great and Glorious Day of the Lord shall come" (Acts 2:20). How does this relate to the strong statement of Paul when he negates that "the day of the Lord has come" (2nd Thes 2:2).

OBSERVATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR ACTS 2 AND PETERS USE OF THE TERM "DAY OF THE LORD"
-First, I have read different concepts were wiggleroom is created. I mentioned one of them in the title of the OP. The near and far view. As I understand the idea, it would mean some sort of partial fulfillment at Pentacost, and then a complete fulfillment at the 2nd coming.
-Second, I have noted some using terms like "inagurated." This means that again, the fulfillment would be at the 2nd coming.
-Third, I once considered the view that stresses Peters concept that "this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel." Is Peter merely making an anology between two events without claiming a prophecy. The stress would be upon the words "This is that" as opposed to this is the fulfillment of a prophecy in Joel. The anology would then relate the earlier portion of the quote from Joel to the Pentecost event. Pentecost was "your sons and your daugters shall prophecy, your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my bondslaves, both men and women, I will pour forth of My Spirit and they shall prophecy." Peter was then saying that the Pentecost event was the beginning of a new revelation, a New Covenant revelation.
-Forth, I could throw into this whole mix the phrase Peter quotes from Joel in Acts 2:17 "in the last days." I think I will forgo thoughts on how this relates at this time, but it is a related discussion.

CONCLUSION--- Now back to the question at the top of this reply. Peter quotes a "day of the Lord" passage in some affirmative sence as taking place at Pentecost. Then many years later in time, Paul is writing 2nd Thessalonians 2 and speaks of the "day of the Lord" in a way that certainly denies that the Day has come. Paul relates it within his context to the 2nd coming but how can Paul deny that it happened at a later time than Peter relates it to Pentecost in the affirmative.

A FEW RAMBLING COMMENTS TO RIGHTERZEPEN
Righterzpen, I read your post, but felt unsatisfied. Your my brother in Christ, and I honor your for that, but to relate the Joel prophecy and "the day of the Lord" with events scattered all over the place seems unsatisfying. It seems to break things up into little itty bitty pieces, and has no relationship to either Pentecost or the 2nd coming. I recognize that the phrase "in that day" is not always used in an identical way. An example would be Isaiah 7:18 and 7:20 where Isaiah is speaking of an Assyrian invasion of Judah. Maybe much of Isaiah 7 is related to the future somehow too. Isaiah 7:14 is of course quoted in the NT. Even in 7:14 it is Matthew quoting it in a way that raises hermeneutical questions.

Also, Righterzepen, I am not sure any total satisfaction is possible because of the format we are using. Probably a masters or even doctoral thesis would be appropriate to answer some of these questions. I am guessing whole books have been written relating to some of these subject matters. We will not settle all questions in a few posts. But at least it makes me think about and look into the Word of God.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Rghterzpen, that certainly took you some time to type all that and think through it. Thanks for the response. I will try to match your effort.
The question relates to bringing two passages together which have a seeming contradiction. I certainly believe in sola scriptura, biblical innerrancy, etc. So then, it is a "seeming" contradiction. I think I might have a possible solution to this seeming delema, but wish to hold my opinion and see what others have to say. The "seeming" contradiction is to coordinate the phrase "day of the Lord" in two different passages. The passages are 2 Thessalonians 2 and Acts 2. Acts uses in in a positive sense to relate it to Pentecost. In 2 Thes 2, Paul affirms that it relates to the 2nd coming, but denies that the day of the Lord has taken place.

In 2 Thesalonians 2:1-2 Paul says... "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letters as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come."
* OBSERVATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR 2nd THESSALONIANS 2 AND THE PHRASE "DAY OF THE LORD."
-First, by the writing of this letter, a full preteristic interpretation of anything in the scriptures before this letter would be ruled out. It seems to me that Paul clearly teaches that anything related to the 2nd coming is future of this letter. Of course full preterism could be a natural interpretation of this passage as a unified whole. Pick one of the Roman Emperors and interpret him as the "lawless one" (verse 8) and relate him to a completed 2nd coming in 70AD. That interpretation might be wrong, but I see a consistency in it because it views the context as a unified whole. The anti-Christ, the lawless one, is then related to the 2nd coming.
-Second, to make a partial preteristic interpretation of this passage would be possible only if you date 2 Thessalonians before 70 AD. So then, at the earliest, you could attempt to date the "lawless one" (vs 8) just before 70AD. In this view, of course you must not view the context as unified and the interpreter must make a difference between the lawless one (vs 8) and the 2nd coming (vs 1). I struggle with breaking up the passage as would be required in a partial preteristic understanding of the passage.
-Third, there is also the issue of the "day of the Lord" (vs 2). I thank you, righterzpen for observing in the OP, that this is my issue. If the day of the Lord is unrelated to the 2nd coming, how would we read verses 1-2? The parousia (2nd coming) is later again mentioned in verse 8 in the phrase "by the appearance of His coming." Are we to thematically split off the concepts of the "day of the Lord" and the 2nd coming mentioned twice in the context?

CONCLUSION--- To many interpretations of end time events seem to break up this passage into little itty bitty bits and does not seek a holistic, unified reading of the chapter. I would see the entire chapter as related to 2nd coming events.


* No matter your view of 2 Thesalonians 2, one thing easily observed is that the "day of the Lord" (vs 2) is still yet future from the time Paul is writing 2nd Thessalonians. Now we can go to Acts 2:20. Peters sermon is dated at Pentacost (Acts 2:1). Peter quotes Joel 2 and says "this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel." Peter quotes a passage related to "Before the Great and Glorious Day of the Lord shall come" (Acts 2:20). How does this relate to the strong statement of Paul when he negates that "the day of the Lord has come" (2nd Thes 2:2).

OBSERVATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR ACTS 2 AND PETERS USE OF THE TERM "DAY OF THE LORD"
-First, I have read different concepts were wiggleroom is created. I mentioned one of them in the title of the OP. The near and far view. As I understand the idea, it would mean some sort of partial fulfillment at Pentacost, and then a complete fulfillment at the 2nd coming.
-Second, I have noted some using terms like "inagurated." This means that again, the fulfillment would be at the 2nd coming.
-Third, I once considered the view that stresses Peters concept that "this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel." Is Peter merely making an anology between two events without claiming a prophecy. The stress would be upon the words "This is that" as opposed to this is the fulfillment of a prophecy in Joel. The anology would then relate the earlier portion of the quote from Joel to the Pentecost event. Pentecost was "your sons and your daugters shall prophecy, your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my bondslaves, both men and women, I will pour forth of My Spirit and they shall prophecy." Peter was then saying that the Pentecost event was the beginning of a new revelation, a New Covenant revelation.
-Forth, I could throw into this whole mix the phrase Peter quotes from Joel in Acts 2:17 "in the last days." I think I will forgo thoughts on how this relates at this time, but it is a related discussion.

CONCLUSION--- Now back to the question at the top of this reply. Peter quotes a "day of the Lord" passage in some affirmative sence as taking place at Pentecost. Then many years later in time, Paul is writing 2nd Thessalonians 2 and speaks of the "day of the Lord" in a way that certainly denies that the Day has come. Paul relates it within his context to the 2nd coming but how can Paul deny that it happened at a later time than Peter relates it to Pentecost in the affirmative.

A FEW RAMBLING COMMENTS TO RIGHTERZEPEN
Righterzpen, I read your post, but felt unsatisfied. Your my brother in Christ, and I honor your for that, but to relate the Joel prophecy and "the day of the Lord" with events scattered all over the place seems unsatisfying. It seems to break things up into little itty bitty pieces, and has no relationship to either Pentecost or the 2nd coming. I recognize that the phrase "in that day" is not always used in an identical way. An example would be Isaiah 7:18 and 7:20 where Isaiah is speaking of an Assyrian invasion of Judah. Maybe much of Isaiah 7 is related to the future somehow too. Isaiah 7:14 is of course quoted in the NT. Even in 7:14 it is Matthew quoting it in a way that raises hermeneutical questions.

Also, Righterzepen, I am not sure any total satisfaction is possible because of the format we are using. Probably a masters or even doctoral thesis would be appropriate to answer some of these questions. I am guessing whole books have been written relating to some of these subject matters. We will not settle all questions in a few posts. But at least it makes me think about and look into the Word of God.

I think I may have just found the answer to this question:

I just looked up 2 Thessalonians 2:2 in the Greek and the King James translation says: “….. day of the Lord is at hand” The verb tense is “perfect tense”. It doesn’t specifically say “future tense”.

“Perfect” and “future” are two different things, though sometimes in the translation “perfect” is rendered as “future”, because the “end” of the perfect tense event hasn’t occurred yet.

The “perfect tense” is an event that commences at one point in linear history and concludes at another point in linear history.

Now “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”. If all the elect are complete of the atonement upon Christ’s death. (He says to the one thief “This day you will be with me in paradise.”)

And all the elect ascend to heaven upon death; (because judgement for that group has been rendered on account of the atonement); then have the unregenerate also been judged upon death?

Whom just like the redeemed await the resurrected body; the unredeemed also await the resurrected body! Technically that would also make sense because judicially there’d be no need to postpone judgement.

The verdict has been passed upon death. The bodily resurrection is the “sentencing phase” of the trial. Hades is “the holding cell” and The Lake of Fire is the “prison”.

And the “perfect tense” representing “the day of the Lord” continues to be “at hand” because linear time is still in effect.

Thus we aren’t “chopping up” the action of “the day of the Lord” into little bitty pieces. Seeing how it’s a continually occurring event.

This would also give context to Jesus’s statement about hell being filled with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

As well as answering the question often raised about hell being a place “where (they) are not heard”. They weren’t heard up until that point because all were awaiting their verdict.

And the verdict for the elect was to be released from Sheol to ascend to paradise when Christ died.

That makes sense and it reconciles all the passages!

 

[The Righterzpen]

As far as your statement about "the lawless one", (the son of perdition) and Preterism. John 17:12 states that Judas was the "son of perdition". Thus I'd interpret that the tearing down of the OT system; very much was "the beginning of the end" (end days that is).

Which in the context of that reality. It would make senes to me that the apostles would initially assume the destruction of the OT system; would be the event that preceded Christ's return. Which, they were correct in the sequence of linear time; but.... obviously 2000 years later; we're still here.

Now I do recall encountering a passage; which I've since looked for but am yet to find again which one it was. (I'm pretty sure it was in 1st or 2nd Peter.) Pete makes a veiled reference to understanding now that the return of Christ was going to be a long time into history. It's some what of a veiled reference in the phrasing; but I can't remember exactly what it said in the English, and I can't seem to find it since.

Also, Revelation 3:11. "Behold I come quickly." "Quickly" is "singular form" for "swift" (Which I don't really know what that means.) But looking at the idea of "day of the Lord" being upon the death of each unregenerate individual. The "singular come quickly" makes sense there too. Other places it's apparently "plural" which is only in about 3 or 4 other passages. The "plural" coming as opposed to "singular coming" per individual? But in that sense we could say technically it's not Jesus coming to them; it's them coming to His judgement upon them.

If that makes sense? Granted, I haven't gone through all the forms of that word "quickly" either.

 

[Don Maurer]

I think I may have just found the answer to this question:

I just looked up 2 Thessalonians 2:2 in the Greek and the King James translation says: “….. day of the Lord is at hand” The verb tense is “perfect tense”. It doesn’t specifically say “future tense”.

“Perfect” and “future” are two different things, though sometimes in the translation “perfect” is rendered as “future”, because the “end” of the perfect tense event hasn’t occurred yet.

The “perfect tense” is an event that commences at one point in linear history and concludes at another point in linear history.

Now “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”. If all the elect are complete of the atonement upon Christ’s death. (He says to the one thief “This day you will be with me in paradise.”)

And all the elect ascend to heaven upon death; (because judgement for that group has been rendered on account of the atonement); then have the unregenerate also been judged upon death?

Whom just like the redeemed await the resurrected body; the unredeemed also await the resurrected body! Technically that would also make sense because judicially there’d be no need to postpone judgement.

The verdict has been passed upon death. The bodily resurrection is the “sentencing phase” of the trial. Hades is “the holding cell” and The Lake of Fire is the “prison”.

And the “perfect tense” representing “the day of the Lord” continues to be “at hand” because linear time is still in effect.

Thus we aren’t “chopping up” the action of “the day of the Lord” into little bitty pieces. Seeing how it’s a continually occurring event.

This would also give context to Jesus’s statement about hell being filled with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

As well as answering the question often raised about hell being a place “where (they) are not heard”. They weren’t heard up until that point because all were awaiting their verdict.

And the verdict for the elect was to be released from Sheol to ascend to paradise when Christ died.

That makes sense and it reconciles all the passages!

Righterzpen, it is a good observation that the verb (enesteken---enistemis) is in the perfect tense. However, I am not sure if I can agree with they way you are reading it.

In verse 3, Paul writes "let no one deceive you..." The idea being that the day of the Lord has not come. So then, concerning the present tense, the past completed action has not yet happened, and the present tense consequences have not happened.

What you are doing is looking at one individual word in the context in isolation from the words around that particular word and placing massive stress upon the perfect tense of that individual word.

 

[Don Maurer]

As far as your statement about "the lawless one", (the son of perdition) and Preterism. John 17:12 states that Judas was the "son of perdition". Thus I'd interpret that the tearing down of the OT system; very much was "the beginning of the end" (end days that is).

You lost me here. If I understand you, are you saying that Judas was the "lawless one" and marks the beginning of the end?

If that is the case, again, your not reading the passage as a unit, or whole. In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the lawless one is revealed by the 2nd coming, right? Are you saying that the 2nd coming has been inaugerated already by the appearence of Judas?

Which in the context of that reality. It would make senes to me that the apostles would initially assume the destruction of the OT system; would be the event that preceded Christ's return. Which, they were correct in the sequence of linear time; but.... obviously 2000 years later; we're still here.

Again, your loosing me here. The destruction of the OT system is talking about as a past event by the 1st coming in the book of Hebrews. Possibly you are referring to the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24 in some way?

Now I do recall encountering a passage; which I've since looked for but am yet to find again which one it was. (I'm pretty sure it was in 1st or 2nd Peter.) Pete makes a veiled reference to understanding now that the return of Christ was going to be a long time into history. It's some what of a veiled reference in the phrasing; but I can't remember exactly what it said in the English, and I can't seem to find it since.

One day is as a 1000 years? Again, I am not sure what your communicating.

Also, Revelation 3:11. "Behold I come quickly." "Quickly" is "singular form" for "swift" (Which I don't really know what that means.) But looking at the idea of "day of the Lord" being upon the death of each unregenerate individual.

Maybe the death of each unregenerate individual has something to do with the day of the Lord, I am not sure. However, there is massive material in the OT concerning the day of the Lord that makes the day of the Lord far more of a discussion than the thought of judgment upon the unregenerate.

The "singular come quickly" makes sense there too. Other places it's apparently "plural" which is only in about 3 or 4 other passages. The "plural" coming as opposed to "singular coming" per individual? But in that sense we could say technically it's not Jesus coming to them; it's them coming to His judgement upon them.

If that makes sense? Granted, I haven't gone through all the forms of that word "quickly" either.

Righterzpen, are you in college taking greek classes? You seem to focus upon individual words here and there and not the context of each passage. Why would the maga biblical theme of the day of the Lord hang upon a plural or singular ending?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Righterzpen, it is a good observation that the verb (enesteken---enistemis) is in the perfect tense. However, I am not sure if I can agree with they way you are reading it.

In verse 3, Paul writes "let no one deceive you..." The idea being that the day of the Lord has not come. So then, concerning the present tense, the past completed action has not yet happened, and the present tense consequences have not happened.

What you are doing is looking at one individual word in the context in isolation from the words around that particular word and placing massive stress upon the perfect tense of that individual word.

I understand what you are saying; and am I accurate or not?

We also have Revelation 13:8 - Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Which was still accurate despite the atonement had a specific place in linear time.

Which raises the question of whether or not the “day of the Lord” has a similar application?

I think there is some…(not sure what I’d call this) seeing how those delivered to heaven, though they were atoned for in the same manner as those after Christ’s death; they weren’t “present with the Lord” until he appeared in heaven as the lamb slain to open the seals.

We apparently have the same events that bear the capacity to take place outside of time before (as well as after) they take place within time.

Which of course understanding that God transcends time. That does make sense.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You lost me here. If I understand you, are you saying that Judas was the "lawless one" and marks the beginning of the end?

If the "lawless one" and "son of perdition" are the same person; Then yes, John 17:12 states Judas is the "son of perdition". Now is "the lawless one" and the "son of perdition" really the same person? King James translates "lawless one" as "Wicked"; omitting "one". In other translations "one" is in italics; as it's unclear if the Greek is actually designating a singular person, despite the word "Wicked" is in the singular. Thus generally why translators supply the word "one" in the passage as a reference to "Wicked".

Clearly though "the son of perdition" is a singular entity. Now how does Judas fit that definition in the context of the end of the OT system is its own question. Judas was the "lynch pin" in the "beast system" of that day. And I believe Luke 22:3 is the only place that states Satan actually entering a person.

Then we have John 6:70 which states Judas "is a devil". (Now what exactly that means; I don't know.) Is that a reference to the "nephilim incident" line of "men of renown" which goes back to Genesis? That may be the case; as we have Numbers 16:2 defines "men of renown" as unrighteous "clerics". (250 princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation). These were the "ruling class" of the nation. Which makes sense too because Judas was a "cleric".

John 6:71 and John 12:4 identify "Simon" as Judas's father. Now is Simon the same "Simon the pharisee" in Luke 7:36-50? (I don't know.) If that Simon is Judas's father? That would be interesting, because that would mean Martha, Mary and Lazarus would have been related to Judas. (They would have been cousins.) Simon the Pharisee in that story; was likely their uncle. (The context of why / how I draw that conclusion (Martha, Mary and Lazarus being related to Simon the Pharisee) can be found in taking a real close look at the Greek. As the perfume Mary has, can be seen to have been "given back" to her by Simon. Which most likely had been part of her dowery; having come into the possession of Simon the Pharisee likely because Mary and Lazarus would have still minors when their parents died. Thus Simon basically stole her dowery and by context of what we see going on in this story, Mary was likely what we'd call today; a victim of human trafficking. The whole event is a "set up". (Ever wonder how Simon the Pharisee knew Mary "had a reputation"?) We know this is Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus because of John 11:2 identifies her as the one who "anointed (Jesus) with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair" She does this more than once; but the record of the 2nd time (John 12:3) comes after the first mention in John 11:2. And the only other place this happens is here in Luke 7.

So..... also, we know Judas had an education. Which is why he is "the accountant" of "the purse". Was Judas "a plant" by the rulership / "beast system" of his day? (Probably.)

Now how does Judas's betrayal play into "the abomination of desolation standing in the temple"? Obviously there is some connection there between the leadership and the corruption of the system. The Herodian dynasty plays into this too. If you go digging through the history of 1st century Judaism, you will see the connections. If you go back into Daniel; the actions of the Herods are described. Herod the Great is the 1s king "broken without hand" (Daniel 8:25) who's replaced by 4 after he dies. (Daniel 7). I believe "the little horn" in Daniel 7:8 is Herod Agrippa 1. He shows up in Acts 12:23 as being struck down by God. (That detail is recorded in Scripture for a reason.)

Herod the Great and Agrippa 1 are the only two Herods who ruled Judea as single kings. Their reigns were "book ended" from each other and Agrippa reigned a total of 7 years; half of that 7 years reigning as the sole king over all Judea. According to Roman records; Herod Agrippa 1 died in 44 AD.

Now ten years before that (34 AD); is that the death of Stephen the first martyr? Is this what Revelation 2:10 means in the message to the church of Smyrna when it talks about "10 days" of tribulation? (I don't know; but historically it fits!) There's a lot of things you can find in the history of the 1st century if you go digging through it. Which Christians in the 1st century would have been far more familiar with than we are 2000 years later!

Next we have Revelation 17:11, which defines "the beast" as "the eighth king". But "the beast" (of Revelation 13) isn't a "person"; it's a "system".

Then we have 1 John 4 which defines "spirit of antichrist" as anyone who fits the definition of "antichrist". Which again, isn't being defined in that passage as a singular entity either. And is this because the "beast system" has many "kings" within the context of its operation. And is this why the "system" is stated to be "the eighth king"?

Now does Judas mark the beginning of the end of time or the beginning of the end of the OT system? Does the beginning of the end of the OT system mark the beginning of the "end of time"? I.E. Peter's reference to "the last days" in Acts 2?
We do know via Revelation 20:2 that the binding of Satan commences the 1000 year reign. The end of Ephesians 1 tells us Christ's dominion over all things commenced with the resurrection. Or at least the resurrection was the earthy evidence of that dominion. Although I think technically, Christ's "reign" commenced at his death. As his death marks the event that delivered the redeemed from Sheol into heaven. That's the "great tribulation" in Revelation 7.

BUT, because death was the "last enemy" to overcome. The "official start" of Christ's reign, commences with the resurrection.

Which brings me to another interesting anomaly we have in Revelation concerning the "thousand year reign". That number "1000 years" is actually a "duel plural" of "thousand". Now does that mean "2000". Is the "millennial reign" a literal "2000 earth years"? (I don't know the answer to that.) If it is? 2000 years post the resurrection would bring us to 2033 AD. Does that mean anything in prophetic linear history? (I have no clue if it does or not. But that's what the Greek indicates: (that "1000 years" is a "duel plural"). You can find that in a concordance too. You can use Blue Letter Bible (blueletterbible.org) if you want to look it up. That's the most "user friendly" on line Bible / concordance I've found. BibleGateway (biblegateway.com) also has an interlinear Bible / concordance coded to Strong's numbers. Although the Greek in BibleGateway is "critical text" and the Greek in BlueLetter is "majority" (Received text). They are both very similar.

If that is the case, again, your not reading the passage as a unit, or whole. In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the lawless one is revealed by the 2nd coming, right? Are you saying that the 2nd coming has been inaugerated already by the appearence of Judas?

Is the 2nd coming inaugurated by the appearance of Judas? That's possible; seeing how he would mark the commencement of the destruction of the OT system.

But if that isn't what all this means; than how would you reconcile all these passages? The language, how it's written and what it says; has to be there for a reason.

Righterzpen, are you in college taking greek classes? You seem to focus upon individual words here and there and not the context of each passage.

Though admittedly getting "verb tense" "voice" etc. "correct" is somewhat ambiguous based on how it's translated and what emphasis the translator puts on who's performing the action. The same verse translated "active voice" or "passive voice" could be correct both ways. For example: if Peter is the subject of the sentence and God is the "acting agent" of the verse; than it may be translated "passive voice" upon Pete's action. But if the action of God is emphasized; than the verb might be translated as "active voice". Thus the tense and voice will vary depending on under what "power" the translator decides to put the action of the verb. This is why "tense" and "voice" can get fuzzy.

Why would the maga biblical theme of the day of the Lord hang upon a plural or singular ending?

The example of words being singular or plural has to be written that way for a reason. Now hypothesis as to what those reasons are; we may be correct or incorrect on. The hypothesis as to why "quickly" is "singular" in Revelation 3:11? Is it singular because it's related to individual deaths, or is it singular because it's talking about the final resurrection at the end of time?

Now if "quickly" In Revelation 3:11 is talking about the final resurrection; how is that "quickly" 2000 years later? Unless it's rather a specific reference to a span of time "book ended" on the other side of the incarnation? Abraham to the incarnation is also 2000 years. Does that mean anything contextually in relation to us now about 2000 years post resurrection? (I don't know the answer to that either.) These are just questions thrown out there for contemplation; which make very interesting questions in the context of the entirety of written Scripture.

Which here is another interesting example related to history. Humanity has had written Scripture for 3500 years. (From Moses to now.) 3.5 days are the "two witnesses" "dead" in the street. (Revelation 11:11) If a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years as a day; Is that a metaphoric reference to the time of revealed canon? (Again, I don't know if it is or not. If not, it's certainly an interesting coincidence in relation to actual history. For it's true we have had Scripture for 3500 years now.

One day is as a 1000 years? Again, I am not sure what your communicating.

No, the verse I'd come across in (I think it was in one of the Peter epistles) wasn't talking about "day and 1000 years". That wasn't even mentioned in the verse I remember; because the idea was hedged in the context of the verb; not a specific phrase. There are some verb functions that talk of events "close" to the immediate audience and other functions that refer to events "far away" from the immediate audience.

I'll have to come back to this later and look up the definitions of specific word particle forms (mood, voice, tense etc.) because I don't remember the name of the particle form that indicates audience addressed. "far" or "immediate". ("You" in front of me whom I'm speaking to; as opposed to "you" reading this at a later time.) There is a specific particle form that indicates this in some verbs; but I don't remember what the name of those specific particle forms is at the moment. I'd have to look it up. But I have to get ready for an appointment now; so I'll have to get back to you on this.

So.... hold that thought....

 

[Don Maurer]

I understand what you are saying; and am I accurate or not?

We also have Revelation 13:8 - Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Which was still accurate despite the atonement had a specific place in linear time.

Which raises the question of whether or not the “day of the Lord” has a similar application?

I think there is some…(not sure what I’d call this) seeing how those delivered to heaven, though they were atoned for in the same manner as those after Christ’s death; they weren’t “present with the Lord” until he appeared in heaven as the lamb slain to open the seals.

We apparently have the same events that bear the capacity to take place outside of time before (as well as after) they take place within time.

Which of course understanding that God transcends time. That does make sense.

I am going to have to reject all this. I do not see how Paul could remotely possibly be speaking of Judas in 2 Thes 2:8. In that verse (vs 8) Paul says that the "lawless one will be revealed." The term "apokalupthetai" is future passive. This revelation of the lawless one takes place after the time that 2nd Thessalonians is written.

If Judas is the "Lawless one," then Judas would also need to be what verse 9 says "the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders." Also, in verse 8, Judas is slain by the parousia. To name Judas as the "lawless one" is impossible, unless you take a full preteristic view of the 2nd coming. The context of the passage is the parousia, the 2nd coming. If Judas is the lawless one, and is predicted as future, it would require you to date the writing of 2nd Thessalonians before Christs atonement on the cross!

The bottom line is that you are not observing context at all. You are taking one phrase (lawless one) and jumping context to --> Judas. I suspect that you do this to not allow any futuristic interpretation of who the lawless one is. Historical interpretation of the "lawless one" generally goes with Titus, or Nero, or some Roman emperor, not back before the atonement and calling Judas the "lawless one." At least Nero and Titus were after the atonement of our savior and then 2nd Thessalonians merely needs to be before 70AD or 64AD.

Righterzpan, I think I will bow out of the conversation here. You have been respectful and courteous and as a brother in Christ, I thank you for that. I do not see profit in continuing to respond. After this, feel free to make one more comment, but I think I will move on.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The bottom line is that you are not observing context at all. You are taking one phrase (lawless one) and jumping context to --> Judas. I suspect that you do this to not allow any futuristic interpretation of who the lawless one is. Historical interpretation of the "lawless one" generally goes with Titus, or Nero, or some Roman emperor, not back before the atonement and calling Judas the "lawless one." At least Nero and Titus were after the atonement of our savior and then 2nd Thessalonians merely needs to be before 70AD or 64AD.

Righterzpan, I think I will bow out of the conversation here. You have been respectful and courteous and as a brother in Christ, I thank you for that. I do not see profit in continuing to respond. After this, feel free to make one more comment, but I think I will move on.

Not sure you are actually reading what I'm writing; as I'm not assuming "lawless one" can not have some form of future application. What I'm saying and what you seem to think I'm saying are two different things.

So.... How does John 17:12 fit in than? That verse clearly calls Judas the "son of perdition". And I'm presenting this question to you. Is the "lawless one" and "the son of perdition" the same person. (I'm not saying they are. They may not be. But clearly, John 17:12 states that Judas is the "son of perdition". If you are going to "reject all of this" Then what do you do with John 17:12? That's got to fit into the fulfillment of prophecy somewhere, because it wouldn't be stated as it is if it didn't.