Shalom! My name is Adam Pastor

Welcome to ADONI MESSIAH which means
"My Lord Messiah" -
a fitting epithet to who Jesus (or Yeshua) is!

Here, I attempt to present the Apostolic Truths according to the Scriptures, that there is
One GOD, the Father, namely, YAHWEH,
and One Lord, GOD's only begotten Son,
Yeshua the Messiah.

And that one day YAHWEH will send His Son back to Earth to inaugurate the Everlasting Kingdom of GOD



Enjoy!


Thursday, December 30, 2010

A 5-MINUTE ERRONEOUS VIDEO TITLED "Did Jesus Really Claim To Be GOD?"

A 5-MINUTE ERRONEOUS VIDEO TITLED
"Did Jesus Really Claim To Be GOD?"

The answer to the above question is obviously "NO"!
However, there is currently a 5-minute video being circulated on the Net; which presents four (actually five) questions, whereby the answer to these questions ends with the erroneous conclusion that:
"Jesus claimed to be ALMIGHTY GOD!!"

Let's take another look at these questions :-


1) Does the Bible claim that Jesus is God?

The video gives 4 sets of verses in answer to this question:
Matthew 1.23, Colossians 1.15-17, John 1.1, 1 Corinthians 12.3

  • Matthew 1.23: Because Jesus is given the name "Emmanuel"
    which means 
    "God with us".

    However, this name is simply expressing the fact that the ONE GOD is with Judah via this child. This was the original context of the meaning of the name when given to 
    the boy in Isaiah chapters 7 & 8.
    Therefore, did 
    that make that child, Almighty GOD? No!

    Likewise, when the Messiah was born, GOD's purpose for the salvation of Israel was being initiated. GOD indeed was with Israel (cp. Luke 1.68-69) via the Messiah.

  • Colossians 1:15 begins with the very opposite of the premise of the video! It doesn't say that "Jesus is GOD" but rather that Jesus is "the image of the invisible GOD!"
    And an image, of course, is a visual representation; an image/representation is 
    not the original itself!
    Nevertheless, the context of Colossians 1.15ff is about the new creation i.e. the (future) kingdom - the kingdom of his dear Son (v. 13).
    The all things created are "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" i.e.
    nothing to do with the Genesis creation.
    And in actuality, verses 16-17 is states that:

    'for in him [Jesus] all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-- all things have been created through him and for him.
    And he is before all things 
    [in the sense of pre-eminence.]'
    Not 'by' him, but rather 'in/through' him - this obviously changes the context of the verse; and ought to be translated that way.

    For example, NRSV: for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--
    all things have been created through him and for him.
    For more details please see:
    COLOSSIANS 1:15-20 - PREEXISTENCE OR PREEMINENCE?

  • 1 Corinthians 12.3: Yes Indeed - Jesus Christ is Lord!

    But he is not the Lord God rather he is the Lord 
    Messiah.
    [Luke 2.11, Col 3.24].
    He is the LORD (GOD)'s Christ. [Luke 2.26]
    The LORD GOD has made Jesus, 'Lord', in fulfilment of Psalm 110.1.

  • The video quotes John 1.1 as follows:
    In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), ...
    In other words, the video's author performs the classic error of reading Jesus into John 1.1. As Colin Brown so succinctly states:
    "It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John's Gospel to read it as if it said:
    'In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God' (John 1:1).
    What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning."

    The video performs this patent misreading!
    John 1.1-3 doesn't mention Jesus at all!
    Rather these verses are about GOD's word. All things came into existence by GOD's word. The ONE GOD spoke all things into existence (cp. Psalm 33.6,9).
    It is not until John 1.14, that GOD's word is made flesh resulting in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

  • Then the video states that the word "Lord" is KURIOS ... it is a special word ... it means "GOD"

    This is simply not true!
     Yes indeed, KURIOS, is used in ref. to GOD; but the word itselfdoes not mean GOD! It simply means 'lord, master, owner, Sir'
    Not only is this word used in ref. to Jesus; it is also used in ref. to
    Pilate (Matt 27.63); Philip (John 12.21); Abraham (1 Peter 3.6); are these men therefore GOD!!
    [Likewise, this Greek word is used in ref. to Abraham, Moses, David, etc. throughout the Greek OT i.e. the Septuagint LXX; seeing that it is the Greek word for 'lord/master']

  • The video then quotes Roman 9.5.
    It is a known fact that this verse ought to be punctuated differently. Paul habituallypraises Almighty GOD as being "blessed forever" e.g. 2 Cor. 11.31, Rom 1.25. Thus a period (.) ought to follow the word 'flesh' so that the rest of the verse becomes (rightly), a doxology to the Father;
    as in the NAB, TEV, NEB, RSV, etc.
    For example:
    RSV Romans 9.5: to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is 
    the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
    NEB: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.

2) Did Jesus claim to be God?

To suggest this, the video quotes

  • John 14.8-9.
    But funnily enough, does not quote:
    John 14:10-11 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

    Now I ask you, does John 14.8-11 read together, suggest that Jesus is the Father i.e. that Jesus is GOD? No! Rather, Jesus is in the Father & the Father is in him.
    Seeing then that Jesus is the image of the invisible GOD [Col 1.15, 2 Cor. 4.4]; to see Jesus in action is to see the ONE GOD the Father in action through His Son; because GOD was working through him -
    Jesus being GOD's image, GOD's ultimate representative.

  • The video then quotes John 10.30.
    Now does being 'one' with the Father; make someone, Almighty GOD?
    Not according to Jesus! Because he prayed in John 17.11,21-22; that his disciples 
    be one even as we [the Father & the Son] are one!
    So does that then, make the disciples, Almighty GOD? NO!
    The same goes for Jesus. Jesus is one with the Father, in will and purpose.
    That is the meaning of John 10.30.

  • Then the video quotes both Psalm 23:1 & John 10.11. Seeing that both GOD and the Messiah are called 'shepherd' in these verses; the video thereby suggests that they are both equally GOD!?!
    Well Peter was commanded by Christ to feed the sheep, thus making Peter a shepherd, does that therefore mean he is also GOD??
    No! Just because someone shares a title that GOD has, being GOD's representative; doesn't make that person, GOD!
    But rather, authorizes that person to be GOD's agent; and Jesus the Messiah is indeed GOD's ultimate agent/representative.
    See also The Attribute Association Farce


The video then asks ...

3) Does anyone in the Bible claim that Jesus is God or that Jesus claimed to be God?


The video then quotes John 10.33, which are the words of Jesus' accusers!
Jesus did not claim to be GOD at all in John 10.30ff but rather claimed:

John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Then the video quotes John 20.28. In answer to this point,
please see: Jesus is God.


The video then asks ...

4) Did Jesus receive worship and allow himself to be worshiped as God?

It then quotes Matthew 28.9, 28.16-17, Luke 24.51-52, John 9.37.

Let's look at John 9.37. Why was Jesus worshiped?
Answer: John 9:35-36 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

Did you get that? The man who was blind, now realizes & believes
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God?

And what does that mean?
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him,
Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Do you get it?
Son of GOD = King of Israel (cp. Luke 1.32-33, 2 Sam. 7.13-14)

So yes Jesus was indeed worshiped. But he was not worshiped as GOD; rather throughout the NT he was worshiped as a man of God, as a prophet, (in this case) as king, as Messiah. This applies to all the aforementioned verses.

That was the custom in biblical times.
Such worship (Hebrew shachah, Greek proskuneo) was used of both GOD & (the majority of the case), man.
Thus Men are scripturally worshiped - civil worship -
e.g. Abraham, Moses, king David, etc.
They were worshiped i.e. obeisance was made to them as dignitaries, prophets, kings, etc.
Jesus the Messiah is therefore, the ultimate Dignitary, Prophet & King; therefore he received worship/obeisance in like manner.
Bible translators obscure this fact by translating the corresponding words as 'worship' when used of Jesus; and 'did/made obeisance' when used of other men.
For more details please see:

The Worship of Christ &




The video then asks ONE MORE QUESTION

5) What does the OT say about Jesus being God?

The video then quotes Isaiah 9.6.
Yes, Jesus is called el in this verse. Does that make him, Almighty GOD? Because Nebuchadnezzar was also called el in Ezekiel 31.11!
Also the title el gibbor used in Isaiah 9.6 is used in plural in Ezek 32.21 depicting mighty warriors.
Thus this title is indeed fits the Messiah, whom GOD Almighty has appointed to be a mighty warrior/one and to rule the Kingdom, upon the throne of David. [Isaiah 9.7]
The Messiah is also given the title: 'father of the age to come.'
For more details please see: Concerning Isaiah 9:6.

The video closes with this statement:
"Jesus died on a cross for our sins and rose from the grave to prove that he is God ... the Lord of Life. ..."

Well firstly, GOD CANNOT DIE! He alone has immortality.
[1 Timothy 6.16]
So the very fact that Jesus died for our sins is enough proof that he is not Almighty GOD! Andhe alone, Jesus alone, has been raised from the dead by the ONE Almighty GOD, the Father; glorified and immortalized:

Acts 17:29-31 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31Because he [GOD] hath appointed a day, in the which he [GOD] will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he [GOD] hath ordained; whereof he [GOD] hath given assurance unto all men , in that he [GOD] hath raised him from the dead.

Almighty GOD alone has raised Jesus alone from the dead and made him alone, 'Lord' to his [GOD's] glory.
[Acts 2.36, Phil 2.11]

Jesus has life because GOD Almighty has given him life!
[John 5.26, 1 John 5.11]

No one else has this honor except the Lord Jesus Christ, whom has been given this honor and glory by GOD Almighty, the ONE GOD, his Father. Therefore:


1 Timothy 2:5

For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;


In closing, I will leave you with a link to a video which in contrast, asks
5 most pertinent questions to those who believe 'Jesus is Almighty God'.
(Taken from 
www.christianmonotheism.com)

Enjoy!

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Hebrews 1:10 and the Age to Come

Hebrews 1:10 and the Age to Come

By Anthony Buzzard

On the recent radio discussions with Drs. James White and Michael Brown we learned how Trinitarians hope to persuade us.
They turn to Hebrews 1:10. Here in a catena (chain) of proof texts, the Hebrews writer seeks to prove that Jesus, the Son of God, is superior to angels. This approach ought really to show immediately that the writer did not think Jesus was [Yahweh]! You don't need 7 verses to prove that Jesus is better than all angels or better than Moses, if you believe that Jesus is God Himself. All you have to say is "Jesus is God."
That would be the end of the argument. And one really ought not to imagine that Jesus was ever an angel, after reading Hebrews 1!
The whole point of the argument is that Jesus is not and never was or will be an angel! The whole point is missed if we do not grasp that Jesus is the begotten Son of God as predicted by the overarchingly important Ps. 2:7.

Hebrews 1:10 says of the Son of God that he "laid the foundation of the heaven and the earth."


There are three "proof texts" addressed to the Son in Hebrews 1:8-13. These three make the same important point about how the Son began. There is no hint in the text that they refer to someone other than the Son. Verse 8 begins,
"But of the Son He [God] says ... "(Heb. 1:8) Then follow three different corroborating quotes. The series ends in verse 13 with a final proof that Jesus was not an angel:

"But to which of the angels did He [God] ever say ... "

Psalm 110:1 is then quoted as referring to the Son, Jesus. That Son is the adoni of Psalm 110:1 who is not Yahweh. Psalm 110: 1 frames the whole discussion and shows that Jesus cannot be Yahweh
(though Jesus is of course His agent - see Anthony Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, and James McGrath, Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism and James Dunn, Did The First Christians Worship Jesus? (2010) )

Much of chapter 1 of Hebrews compares the Son of God with angels, showing that the Son was never an angel and is superior to them. This proves that the Son cannot be God! It is not necessary to prove God superior to the angels. It is obvious. Equally clear is the fact that the Son cannot be an angel or archangel as maintained by Jehovah's Witnesses. Both angels and archangels (chief angels) are angels!  (Heb. 5:1). And holy angels are immortal (Luke 20:36), which would make the death of Jesus the Son of God impossible. The Son of God came into existence in Mary (Luke 1:35), his origin(genesis) is described in Matt. 1:18, 20. He was begotten, not just conceived, as stated in the Greek of Matt. 1:20. No angels were begotten in that way!


What then of Hebrews 1:10? In what sense is the Son the founder of the heavens and earth? How can this be since Jesus nowhere claimed to be the Creator and it was not Jesus,
but God who rested on the seventh day (
Heb. 4:4)? Did Jesus do all the work and yet not rest on the seventh day?

"God [not Jesus] made them male and female"(Mark 10:6) and "The Lord God [not Jesus] formed man of dust from the ground"(Gen. 2:7). Fifty texts say that God, the Father, created the heavens and the earth.
Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18, 20 and 1 John 5:18 (not KJV) say that the Son did not exist until he was created/begotten in Mary. Heb. 1:1-2 tell us that God did not speak in a Son during OT times. This is because the Son did not yet exist.

Was Jesus both six months younger than John the Baptist and billions of years older? Was Jesus 30 years old when he began his public ministry and yet really billions plus 30 years old? What part of Jesus was 30 and what part was billions of years old?

Jesus cannot be so divided up, split in two. Mary bore a human being. She did not bear an angel. She did not bear GOD. She did not bear "impersonal human nature," as Trinitarian theory says. She did not take in a person from the outside. She conceived and bore a baby. Mary bore a lineal, biological son of David. Otherwise Jesus does not qualify to be the Messiah. Romans 1:1-4 says that God's Son was a descendant of David, and he was later installed as
Son of God with power at the resurrection, but he was not Son of God for the first time when resurrected. He was begotten as predicted by Ps. 2:7, in time, today, not in eternity.

God cannot be begotten, and the Son of God was begotten. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls speak of an expected time when God will beget (bring into existence) the Son of God. They too used 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7 to indicate the beginning of the expected Messiah. The immortal God (1 Tim. 6:16) cannot die. The Son of God died (Rom. 5:10).God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), yet the Son of God was tempted. Not to observe these category differences is to throw away precious biblical instruction.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God did not speak through a Son in the Old Testament times. Verse 2 also says that God made the ages through Jesus. This could refer to the ages of the new creation which Jesus introduced or it may refer to Jesus, as Wisdom, being the reason for God's creation of everything. Hebrews 1:5, quoting the prophecy of Psalm 2:7, speaks of the coming into existence of Jesus, the Son:

"Today I have begotten you"
(so also the LXX of Ps. 110:3 and many Hebrew manuscripts).

The same first chapter of Hebrews speaks of 2 Samuel 7:14's marvelous promise, given a thousand years before Jesus' birth, that God "will be a father to him and he will be a son." That promise was given to David and it referred to the Messiah who was to come. The beginning of Messiah's existence is the moment when God becomes the Father of the Messiah. Acts 13:33 refers also to the beginning of Jesus' existence, his "raising up" (not "raising up again" as wrongly translated in the KJV), and verse 34, by contrast, to his resurrection. The same beginning of the Son is exactly what we find in Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20 ("that which is begotten in her is from the holy spirit").

Isaiah 44:24 says that God, unaccompanied, unaided, created the Genesis heavens and earth. He was entirely alone. "Who was with me?" At the time of the Genesis creation there was no Son with Him (cf. Heb. 1:1-2).

God spoke first in a Son in the New Testament. So then who said, "Let there be light"? It would be a flat contradiction of Hebrews 1:1-2 to say it was the Son. The God of the Old Testament is quite distinct from His unique Son.
The latter had his genesis in Matthew 1:18 ("The origin of Jesus the Messiah was like this", TNIV).

The Bible becomes a book of incomprehensible riddles if God can have a Son literally before He brings him into existence! Luke 1:35 describes how the Son of God came to exist. He was begotten. To beget in the Bible and in English is a word which of all words denotes a before and after. Therefore the Son had a beginning. There was a time before he was begotten, before he was. If he already existed, these testimonies in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 are nonsense. Mary bore a human being, not God or an angel. Human mothers bear humans. Mary certainly did not just bear "human nature," and "human nature" as Mary's son would not be the descendant of David and thus not the Messiah. (The creeds try to frighten us away from this beginning of the Son, telling us that if we say "there was a time when the Son did not exist" we are heretics and anathematized - see the anathemas at Nicea, 325 AD. No one wants to be cursed by the Church).

The notion that the Son of God was in fact God would strongly reduce the meaning of his whole struggle in obedience to God and on our behalf as Savior and model. The whole point of a High Priest is that he must be "selected from among men" (Heb. 5:1). He is the "man Messiah Jesus" in contrast to his Father (1 Tim. 2:5). The Father in John 17:3 is "the only one who is God," as distinct from His Son who is excluded from that category.
If God is the only one who is God; no one else is God except the Father, which is exactly what Paul declared when rehearsing the creed in 1 Corinthians 8:

"There is no God except the one God the Father"
(combining vv. 4 and 6).

He added, not "splitting the Shema" or expanding it as Tom Wright and others say; that Jesus is the one Lord Messiah!
All that had been well said by Luke, who agreed with Paul when he spoke of the Lord Messiah (Luke 2:11) who is "the Lord's Messiah"(Luke 2:26).

If the Son were God, there would be two Gods. To call Jesus God and the Father God is not strict monotheism, however much the label may be applied. The Bible nowhere uses "God" to mean a triune or biune God.


In Hebrews 1:10, there is a complication (requiring detailed study) due to the fact that the writer quotes Psalm 102 from the Greek version (LXX) and not the Hebrew version.
The LXX (Septuagint) has a different sense entirely in Psalm 102:23-25. The LXX reads differently from the Hebrew text. LXX gives us God's reply to the suppliant. The LXX, quoted in Hebrews 1:10, says:

"He [God] answered him [the suppliant] ... Tell me [God speaking to the suppliant] ... Thou, lord [God addressing someone else called 'lord'].

But the Hebrew text has:

"He [God] weakened me ... I [the suppliant] say, 'O my God ... '"

Thus the LXX speaks of a second "lord" who is addressed by God:

"At the beginning you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (v. 25).

The writer to the Hebrews had open before him the LXX and not the Hebrew (rather as today someone might quote the NIV instead of the KJV).
The New Testament often cites the LXX Greek. F.F. Bruce in the New International Commentary on Hebrews explains:

"In the Septuagint text the person to whom these words ["of old you laid the foundation of the earth"] are spoken is addressed explicitly as "Lord,"and it is God who addresses him thus. Whereas in the Hebrew text the suppliant is the speaker from the beginning to the end of the psalm, in the Greek text his prayer comes to an end with v. 22, and the next words read as follows:

"He [God] answered him [the suppliant] in the way of his strength:

'Declare to Me the shortness of My days: Bring Me not up in the midst of My days. Thy [the suppliant's] years are throughout all generations. Thou, lord [the suppliant, viewed here as the Messiah by Hebrews], in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.' "

This is God's answer to the suppliant; He bids him acknowledge the shortness of God's set time (for the restoration of Jerusalem, as in v. 13) and not summon Him [God] to act when that set time has only half expired, while He [God] assures him [the suppliant, called lord by God] that he and his servants' children will be preserved forever.


(Bacon suggested that the Hebrew, as well as the Greek, text of this psalm formed a basis for messianic [i.e. future Kingdom] eschatology, especially its reference to the "shortness" of God's days, i.e., of the period destined to elapse before the consummation of His purpose [the arrival of the yet future Messianic Kingdom on earth]; he found here the OT background of Matt. 24:22, Mark 13:20 and
Ep. Barn. 4.3 ("as Enoch says, 'For to this end the Master [God] has cut short the times and the days, that his Beloved [Jesus] should make haste and come to his inheritance' ").


But to whom (a Christian reader of the Septuagint might well ask) could God speak in words like these? And whom would God himself address as "Lord,"as the maker [or founder] of earth and heaven?

Reading the LXX the Hebrews writer sees an obvious reference to the new heavens and earth of the future Kingdom and he sees God addressing the Messianic Lord in connection with the prophecies of the rest of Psalm 102 which speak of "the generation to come" (v. 18) and of the set time for Yahweh to build up Zion and appear in His glory [the Parousia].
The fact that the One YHVH addresses another "lord"proves that the second lord cannot be YHVH.


The important article by B.W. Bacon (alluded to by Bruce above) stresses the fact that "The word 'lord' is wholly absent from the Hebrew [and English] text of Psalm 102:25." But it appears in the LXX cited by Hebrews.
Yahweh addresses another, who is not Yahweh, but another lord, in this case the Messiah. "He [Yahweh] answered him, ... at the start you, lord, laid the foundation ... "(LXX Ps. 101:24; Heb. Ps. 102):

[With the translation in the LXX "he answered him"] the whole passage down to the end of the psalm becomes the answer of Yahweh to the suppliant who accordingly appears to be addressed as kurie [lord] and creator of heaven and earth...Instead of understanding the verse as a complaint of the psalmist at the shortness of his days which are cut off in the midst, LXX and the Vulgate understand the utterance to be Yahweh's answer to the psalmist's plea that he will intervene to save Zion, because "it is time to have pity on her, yea, the set time is come"(v.13). He is bidden acknowledge (or prescribe?) the shortness of Yahweh's set time, and not to summon Him when it is but half expired. On the other hand he [the Messianic lord] is promised that his own endurance shall be perpetual with the children of his servants.

This is exactly the point, and it can only be made clear when we see that ...

1) the Hebrews writer is reading the LXX, not the Hebrew text, and finding in the second half of the psalm a wonderful prophecy of the age to come
(Kingdom, restoration of Israel, new creation) which fits his context in Hebrews 1 exactly, and that...

2) there is a Messianic Lord addressed by Yahweh and invited to initiate a founding of the heaven and earth, the new political order in Palestine, exactly as said in Isaiah 51:16. This is precisely the message the Hebrews writer wants to convey about the superiority of Jesus over angels. Jesus is the founder of that coming new Kingdom order. The Hebrews writer in 2:5 tells us expressly that it is about "the inhabited earth of the future that we are speaking." (See also Isa. 65:17ff., 66:22, new world-order. Restored Israel, with the church by then immortalized will enjoy the new system, cp. Isa. 65:9, Ps. 69:35, 36: "For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah, that they may dwell there and possess it. The descendants of His servants will inherit it [cp. Matt. 5:5], and those who love His name will dwell in it"(so also Ps. 37:9, 11, 18, 22, 29, 34).


The important points are these:

1) Psalm 102 is about the new creation and the "generation to come." It is a Kingdom psalm and points to the great Messianic future. The psalm speaks of the time coming to build up Zion, when the nations will fear God's name, and when God's glory will appear, what we know as the Parousia of Jesus, God's agent. Verse 19 of the LXX ofPs.102 speaks of a new generation, and a people who are going to be created. This is all about the new creation in Christ, of which we are now already a part. That new creation began with the ministry of the historical Jesus, who announced it and died to inaugurate the new covenant, to do with the new creation.


All this is really not so difficult when this difference in the LXX is explained. Both Psalm 102 and Hebrews 2:5 and indeed the whole of Hebrews 1 refer to the new order of things initiated by Jesus and it would not matter whether we think of the new order as initiated at the ascension ("All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me," Matt. 28:18), or at the second coming.


The best option is that new creation began when Jesus ministered the Gospel of the Kingdom. Thus the new creation was initiated by Jesus even in this present age and it will of course be brought to a new stage of perfection in the coming age of the millennium, which is the first stage of the manifested, worldwide Kingdom of God.


Psalm 102 is all about the coming age of the Kingdom and the restoration of Jerusalem in the millennium (see vv. 13-22). The writer looks forward to the restoration of the city when God appears in His glory (v. 16). The Psalm is written for the "generation to come"(v. 18) and a newly created people of the future Kingdom on earth. Hebrews 1-2 is speaking not of the Genesis creation but the "economy to come"(2:5).

Hebrews 2:5: "The Economy, World to Come about Which We Are Speaking."

The Oxford Bible Commentary (2000) is helpful when it notes that right up to Hebrews 2:5 the topic is the new creation in Christ. Hebrews 1:10 is included in that main subject: The writer should be allowed to tell us what he is talking about. It is not the Genesis creation but the new creation and covenant in Christ. Ps. 102 is also about the new creation.

"The text at the center of Heb. 2:5ff. is Ps. 8:4-6 and it exhibits thematic connections to the scriptural catena [chain] of the first chapter [i.e. Heb. 1:10 is all part of the same reference to the new creation] ...
Heb. 2:5 ["the inhabited earth to come of which we speak"] is an introductory comment continuing the contrast between the Son and angels.
Its reference to the "world to come"reinforces the notions of imminent judgment and cosmic transformation intimated by Ps. 102, cited at 1:10-12."

Isaiah 51:16 confirms this explanation. It speaks of an agent of God in whom God puts His words and whom He uses "to plant the heavens and earth." The Word Biblical Commentary says:

"Yahweh introduces Himself again, but this time in terms of His control of the raging sea. Headdresses the one He is using to put His words into his mouth and protecting him very carefully. The purpose of this care is to allow him to plant heavens and earth. That makes no sense if it refers to the original [Genesis] creation. It uses the word NaTaH [Jer. 10:12 + 10 times], stretch out, while the verb here is NaTA, plant [establish people]. In the other instances God acts alone, using no agent [Isa. 44:24]. Here the one he has hidden in the shadow of his hand is his agent. Heavens and land here must refer metaphorically to the totality of order in Palestine, heavens meaning the broader overarching structure of the Empire, while land is the political order in Palestine itself. The assignment is then focused more precisely: to say to Zion, you are my people."

Thus both in Psalm 102 (LXX) and in Isaiah 51 the Messiah is the agent whom God will use to establish the new political order of the age to come. Hebrews 1:10 is a prophecy, written in the past tense (as customarily prophecies are), but referring to the "inhabited earth of the future about which we are speaking"(Heb. 2:5). That is the concern in Hebrews 1:10. Jesus is the "father of the age to come" (Isa. 9.6) Finally, in Hebrews 9:11 the writer speaks of "the good things to come"as the things "not of this creation."By this he means that the things to come are of the new, future creation (see Heb. 2:5, the new creation). That creation is under way since Jesus appeared as the minister of the new covenant. Jesus as exalted (Ps 110:1 is now co-creator, under the Father, of the new creation, and has "all authority in heaven and earth"(Matt. 28:18). Even the millennial age of the future will be replaced by a further renewed heaven and earth (Rev. 20:11; 21:1). The present system will be "changed"(Heb. 1:10) but the Messiah will continue forever. Revelation 21:1 speaks of the heavens and earth as undergoing a further and presumably final change.

It is interesting that the writer of Hebrews, when mentioning "the age to come"(2:5 and 9:11) connects it with the new creation, i.e not this present Genesis creation. Heb. 1:10 is placed within that context. 9:11 reads:

"When Christ appeared as the High Priest of the good things to come (or the good things which have come), he entered in through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is not of this creation" - but of the new creation.

The book of Hebrews is all about the exalted Christ as head of the new creation and the writers speaks constantly of the "covenant of the coming age" (aionios) ...

"...salvation of the coming age, judgment of the coming age, High Priest for the age, redemption of the coming age, spirit of the coming age, inheritance of the coming age."

The Son is heir of this new creation (Heb 1:2-3).

Once again, eschatology is the great factor in revealing the truth. The Gospel of salvation is based on eschatology, what God has done and is doing and is yet going to do in Christ and in the saints of all the ages, the new community of the New Covenant, addressed as those who go by the canon of love, "the Israel of God" of Galatians 6:16. In this community there are no differences in nationality but all are "one in Christ."God has a new creation in Jesus and we are to be new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). We are to join the one "new man"of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12-13). The presently unconverted Israel will itself be renewed, at least a remnant (Mic. 2:12; Rom. 11), through the great tribulation and Jesus' deliverance at his post-tribulation Parousia (Matt. 24:29-31).

The saints of all the ages will be immortalized at the resurrection after the end of the Great Tribulation which is still ahead.

There is of course no pre-tribulation gathering. Nor has the Great Tribulation been going on continuously since AD 70. The Great Tribulation is a future short period of agony just before the return of the Messiah to the earth.
This event is not a drive-by episode. Jesus is coming back to the earth where as son of David he belongs installed on the throne of David.

...

The world is going to be reborn and it will come under the supervision of Jesus and his followers (Matt. 19:28, Rev. 5:10; I Cor. 6:2, Dan. 7:14, 18, 22, 27, etc.)

We must resist the temptation to be looking backwards to Genesis when the whole book of Hebrews bids us look forward to the "inhabited earth of the future"(Heb. 2:5).

We have noted that in several places Hebrews speaks of the eternal redemption, inheritance, covenant, judgment, salvation and spirit "of the age [to come]" (aionios). Aionios refers to the Kingdom age to come and not just to eternity. Christians receive now the "holy spirit of the promise"(Eph. 1:13, NJB). We are to experience something of the future Kingdom age even now in the midst of trials and in a hostile world. ...
The church will inherit the land (Matt. 5:5; Rom. 4:13) and those who bless "the seed of Abraham"(Gen. 12) are those who bless the believers.

"If you belong to Christ [and only then] you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"(Gal. 3:19).

What a heritage is in store for those who endure to the end.

Meanwhile should we not have a heart for the billions of human beings who have not been exposed to the great truths about God and the Messiah and the Kingdom in process of restoration?

Matthew 24:14 is most relevant.

 

 


 

The above article was taken from:
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/11/hebrews-110-and-age-to-come-reload.html
Slightly edited.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Future as Jesus Saw It in Matthew 24, Mark 13

The Future as Jesus Saw It in Matthew 24, Mark 13  

 

Many people are rightly concerned with the future, theirs and that of society. The internet is teeming with attempts to tell us what Jesus foretells for the future of our world. Matthew 24, the long Olivet Discourse, is properly the center of attention, since in that marvelous, if alarming, chapter the Lord Messiah answered the crucial question posed by his devoted students. Supposing you, the reader, to be one such dedicated student of Jesus, you will want to present at that momentous teaching session. We can all chime in with their initial inquiry:

 

"When will these things be and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" The disciples were not fools! They had been well instructed, and they asked the right question. Jesus had just spoken of desolation in the temple building. Because the disciples and Jesus knew the book of Daniel well, they assume that trouble in the temple will be connected directly with the "coming" (Parousia) of the Messiah and "the end of the age" (misleadingly mistranslated in the KJV as "end of the world"). 

 

The disciples' assumption was not wrong. Jesus did not correct it. That assumption is based on
Daniel 7, 8, 9
and 11, 12 and, if one is looking for a precise verbal parallel,  
Daniel 12:11 --"the abomination of desolation."
 

 

Let's get oriented to Jesus' discourse. The wise Bible student looks first at the other occurrences of the definite phrase "end of the age." It cannot possibly mean AD 70! Look at the four other occurrences in Matthew and burn these into your understanding. We find Jesus speaking of the end of the age (same expression) firstly in Matthew 13. Here Jesus gives us an exact definition: "The harvest is the end of the age." This is the time when the righteous will shine forth like the sun in their Father's Kingdom (taken from Daniel 12:3). It could not possibly refer to AD 70! 

 

Jesus goes on: "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth his angels and they will gather out of his Kingdom everything that offends and those who practice lawlessness. And they will cast them into a furnace of fire and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father." Jesus concludes these stupendous words with a characteristic cry: "Whoever has ears to hear [and understand] let him hear.' In Matthew 13 v. 49 he repeats: "So shall it be at the end of the age: the angels will go forth and separate the wicked from among the righteous." 

 

Are we listening and learning? Jesus is not describing AD 70.

 

It is remarkable that in Jesus' mind Christian destiny is firmly attached, not to "going to heaven" when we die but to the future end of this era of world society and to the return of Jesus to the earth to bring in his Kingdom. The first correction necessary in our thinking is therefore to adjust our thinking with rabbi Jesus to his future arrival in glory at the end of the age. There is no ultimate Christian future until then. This means naturally that the faithful dead are not yet in the Kingdom, and no one has yet been thrown into a lake of fire. All systems which promote a continuing life now for the dead, faithful or otherwise (i.e. "so and so has gone home to heaven and is looking down on me," or "I am praying to a departed saint to help me") are out of harmony with the mind of Jesus. It is only at the future
 
"end of the age" that decisions are made as between the good and the bad. Until then dead, good and bad, are without consciousness in the "sleep of the dead." They are awaiting resurrection at the return of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:23; Dan. 12:2; Ecc. 9:5, 10). Those presently unsaved await resurrection and judgment at the end of the future millennium (see Rev 20:5).

 

Is it really so hard for readers to grasp: "The dead know nothing at all... There is no activity in Sheol, the place of all the dead, good and bad. " (Ecc. 9:5, 10 and read it often to your family). Yes, of course the life energy, the spirit, goes back to God when we die (Ecc. 12:9). We "expire," breathe out our last,  but WE go to the grave. "Lazarus is dead and sleeping," Jesus said (John 14:11, 14). It is tragic to rewrite the text to read "Lazarus' body is asleep, but he himself is alive and well in heaven." That idea simply writes pagan philosophical ideas about an "immortal soul" into the Bible. 

 

Back to our key phrase "end of the age." Jesus used it in the Great Commission. Here he promised to be "with you" until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). This of course means that Jesus anticipated that there would be faithful believers right up to his Second Coming at the end of the age. 

 

In Matthew 24 the question of the disciples, as recorded directly by Matthew 24:3, and implied equally in Mark's and Luke's parallel account of the same discourse, was about the "your Coming and
the
end of the age." These are one event, as shown by the closest connection of the two subjects, coming and end of the age, in the original Greek. The Word Biblical Commentary is right:
"
Jesus' teaching about the end of the age is closely related to the fate of Jerusalem and her temple" (Mark, p. 305). Of course! And exactly the same fact is found in Mark and Luke's account, although a bit hidden in the English translations. In Mark we read: "What will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?"   The word for "fulfilled" here is a verbal form of the word for "end" i.e. of the age, in Matthew's account (24:3). Luke likewise reports the same question about the sign of the promised events.

 

Read on in these marvelous words of Jesus and you will find no possible way of separating trouble in the temple from the second coming. The attempts of commentators to split up Jesus' answer to cover events separated by millennia must be pronounced a failure. There is total disagreement as to where to insert a break. There is no break.  

 

How did Jesus reply to the question? We note first that Jesus had just spoken of desolation and destruction in the temple buildings lying there in full view. Jesus proceeds to take up the assumption of the disciples, and his, that temple buildings would be involved in the ruin predicted also for his future coming, which as we know did not happen in AD 70.


(Some have gone far from the words of Jesus by thinking that Jesus must have actually returned and raised the dead in AD 70! This theory is known as preterism = "past-ism." Anyone who believes that Jesus returned to raise the dead in AD 70 has been severely misled. We invite a complete rethinking. Jesus did not return in AD 70 any more than he did in 1914.  But millions have been persuaded to believe falsehoods of this type. If the resurrection has happened then the Kingdom of God has arrived. You can go to Jerusalem and see that the Messiah is not sitting on the throne of Israel and the world. Paul warned in no uncertain terms that believing that the resurrection is in the past is a dangerous cancer.)

 

Jesus began very appropriately by warning against deception and the deceptive claims of those claiming either to be the Messiah or his agents. The majority would be victims of deception. Wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes (Luke reports "great earthquakes," 21:11) would be the beginning of the birth pangs which would eventually lead to the birth of the New Age of the coming Kingdom (see what happens then in Matt. 29:28; Acts 1:6; 3:21). The same period of birth pangs would be marked by severe persecution of true believers, and further false preachers and deception (24:11).

 

But these events are "not yet the end." (Matt. 24:5) That is: the end of the age will not follow immediately. Other more definite events are in store. It would be a major failure of commonsense to try to alter the word "end" in Matt. 24:5 and give it a different meaning than in the question in v. 3!

 

 

 

Jesus is going to tell us more about the one end, starting in verse 14. The "end" which is not yet, is of course the "end of the present world order." Daniel 12:13 has the same expression, marking the end as the time when Daniel was to expect to rise from the dead.
(see note in Schonfield
Authentic New Testament, p. 76)

 

In Matthew 24 verse 14 Jesus becomes much more specific. He states that the Christian Gospel --
"this Gospel about the Kingdom of God" would be made known as a witness internationally -- and Jesus adds, "and
then the end will come." The word "therefore" rivets, with logic, verses 14 and 15 together. The end is now in view. "When you therefore [i.e. as the real marker of the end] see the Abomination of Desolation standing in a holy place..." We might say "Accordingly, when you see..."


...

 

"The exact words of Jesus, 'abomination of desolation' derive from the LXX of Daniel 12:11"
(
Word Biblical Commentary, p. 317). Few observations could be more important. They provide Jesus' comment on those important words of Daniel in 12:11 showing that he did not think they were fulfilled in the events of Antiochus in the second century BC! Jesus is reading Daniel 12:11 as a prophecy of the (then) far future, as the final events of the final vision granted to Daniel. That very vision ended with the future resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:2. We know that the resurrection of the dead has not happened.  We know that Jesus has not come back.

 

This fact about the Abomination in Daniel 12:11, among others, shows that the Abomination of Desolation which triggers the final time of great tribulation is not yet history. It lies in the future as the climax of the birth pangs leading to the birth of the New Age, which will be the Kingdom of God in a renewed earth.

 

Again, the state of the art in evangelical scholarship, the Word Biblical Commentary  translates properly: "When you see the Abomination of Desolation standing where HE must not" (Mark 13:14). The commentary notes that none of the various suggestions of fulfillment in the first century fits the facts. Pontius Pilate has been suggested. So has Caligula who in AD 40 attempted to place his image in the temple, but failed. Another candidate was Phanni, a high priest appointed by Jewish zealots.
Finally Titus ... in AD 70 ...

"None of these events fits well the context of Jesus' warning in Mark 13:14, Pilate's attempted sacrilege did not take place. Caligula's order to erect his statue was never carried out. Phanni was not regarded as an "abomination." Finally, Titus' stroll through the sanctuary occurred after the temple had already been seriously damaged and was in fact in flames, and after Jewish sacrifices had ceased. Moreover the "abomination of desolation" of which Daniel speaks and to which Jesus alludes envisioned the cessation of sacrifice in the Jerusalem temple, not its destruction...

 

The crisis of long ago [under Antiochus] threatened to bring Judaism and Israel's national life to an end and will once again threaten Israel and Jesus' followers." Jesus warns us by saying that the abomination will be standing where HE ought not. Word Biblical Commentary again: "the masculine gender of the participle estekota, in contrast to the neuter 'abomination' may suggest that the abomination is a statue of image of a pagan deity or deified man. Probably related to this tradition is the Pauline prediction in
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4:  
"That day will not come unless the man of lawlessness is revealed, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God proclaiming to be God." Neither Caligula nor Titus fulfilled the prophecy.

 

For Paul the appearance of this evil figure was a necessary sign of the Parousia. Paul warned his people in 2 Thessalonians 2 against any teaching which said that the Parousia could come without a final appearing of the Man of Sin. The appearance of a false church leader in the 3rd century did not provide such a sign! Nor did such a leader place an abomination in "a holy place." Again the Word Biblical Commentary helps us: "The parenthetic comment 'let the one who is reading understand'... may be intended to alert readers to Daniel 12:5-13, a passage in which Daniel asks the angel 'how long will it be to the end of these wonders?' just as the disciples had asked Jesus 'when will these things be?'
(Mark 13:4, which in Matthew's explanatory parallel is a question about the Parousia, Second Coming and the end of the age). To understand what is happening, the evangelist Mark advises his readers, one must read Daniel." How marvelously true this is!

 

"The answer provided in Daniel entails, among other things, the appearance of the Abomination that will leave the temple desolate (Dan. 12:11. cp. 12:10), where it is promised that 'those with insight will understand.' Thus the parallel with Mark is structurally and thematically quite close."

 

The important question is this: Was all this fulfilled in AD 70? The answer is no, because the facts of history do not fit either Daniel or Jesus' discourse which is based on it. Again, the Word Biblical Commentary is insightful: "'Let him who is on the house top not come down, nor enter to take anything out of his house.' Again, this detail does not square well with the events of the 60s and 70s. Jesus' point is that one must flee immediately and in great haste. The Jewish war [of the first century] had been waged for three years before Jerusalem was besieged. The approach of the Roman army was slow, the opportunity to escape prolonged. No, Jesus' warning means that when the abomination of desolation is set up where HE must not stand, 'the end is now at hand [exactly as stated by Matt. 24:14, 15], the danger is great; the city must be abandoned without a moment's delay."

 

Jesus goes on to describe the greatest of all tribulations: "Woe to those women who are pregnant or are nursing in those days." "An expectant women or a woman nursing an infant cannot drop her burden and run, as implied in the instructions in verses 15-16. She will face an awful dilemma and therefore a greater danger" (p. 321).

 

Further description of this time of trouble follows: Mark 13:19: "For those days will be such a tribulation as has never happened from the beginning of creation, which God created, until now, nor ever will be." In other words it will eclipse all crises of biblical history, which as Word Biblical Commentary says "is quite a claim when we remember the flood, the Babylonian captivity and the war with Antiochus." The language of course echoes Daniel 12:1 (Jesus had just told us to read Daniel!). There is an interesting reference also in extra-biblical Jewish literature: "And there will come upon them punishment and wrath such as has never happened to them from the creation till that time when He stirs up against them a king of the kings of the earth" (Testament of Moses, 8:1).

 

In summarizing this amazing prediction, the Word Bible Commentary has this to say: "The warning that the great tribulation will be so severe that unless shortened it will extinguish all human life argues that the prophecy portends more than the Jewish war. To be sure this war threatened all Jewish lives in Jerusalem (though as it turned out many thousands survived) but the fate of the whole of humanity did not hang in the balance" (p. 322).

 

The point I want to make quite clear is that this Great Tribulation, days in which it is perilous to be pregnant (see "those days," in Mark 13:17,19, 20), could not by any stretch of language refer to a period of 2000 years ongoing since AD 70! As we turn again to Matthew 24 we are going to find that the Great Tribulation is to be followed, immediately (24:29) --without interval -- by the signs which introduce the Return of Jesus, the greatest of all events.

 

Matthew 24 and the Great Tribulation

 

Matthew 24 is a long and logical discourse in answer to the important question.
"What will be the sign of your Coming and the end of the age?"

 

That end of the age is connected to trouble in the temple. That is why the disciples ask the question uniting the two subjects and that is why in Jesus' answer, there is absolutely no disconnect between the elements of the question. Jesus did not correct the disciples. Both he and they had an assumed basis in the end-time data provided by Daniel. Daniel had asked the interpreting angel about how long it would be to the end of the wonders of the final vision. The question concerned the length of time from the appearing of the Abomination of Desolation to the end.

 

The answer was given as 1290 days, with a further 45 days added. This is the datum which many throw away. It is impossible to imagine the angel as giving data about an event in BC times at this point! That would be a colossal anticlimax. The end of the wonders of the vision Daniel had just had was the resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:2). No one should imagine that some other end was in mind! Jesus and the disciples work out of this fixed point: There will be 1290 days left after the appearing of the Abomination.

 

Jesus expounds on this in Matthew 24. Having been asked about "the end of the age" he replies accordingly. "The end [of the age] is not yet," verse 6 and in verse 14, after the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached to all nations, "then the end [of the age] will come."

 

Jesus continues, "when you therefore see..." The "therefore" connects this sentence to the preceding one about the end --"then the end will come." The visible sign that the end is really close is this:
"When you see the Abomination of Desolation standing in a holy place" as predicted by Daniel. This has not happened yet.

 

This of course means that the task of all believers now is to get busy with the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Only when this is complete can the final events unfold. The appearance of the Abomination is a certain and definite signal. Then, Jesus says, if you are in Israel, run away immediately. This of course proves that there is no pre-tribulation rapture in the mind of Jesus (or Paul!).
You do not instruct people to escape the oncoming Great Tribulation by running for the mountains, if in fact they are to be lifted off the earth at that time! This is just plain common-sense.

 

Following the appearance of the Danielic Abomination standing where HE (Mark 13:14) ought not to,
"in a holy place" (Matt 24:15) there will be a time of unprecedented tribulation, the greatest ever period of time, and if that time had not been cut short, no one would be left alive. This suggests effects beyond the immediate land of Israel. Then in Matthew 24:29 the verse which has (unnecessarily, if people had believed the discourse) caused problems. Jesus stated that "immediately following," "Immediately after [POST] the tribulation of those days," cosmic signs would produce his Arrival. And the elect will be gathered from the four points of the compass. It is important to see that Jesus spoke of his coming as "immediately"
post (after) the time of extreme trouble.

 

Luke refers to the same period (his account runs directly parallel to Matthew and Mark) as
"great tribulation" that is, "great distress" (Luke 21:23). The meaning is the same. In Luke we must supply the chronological marker given by Matthew 24:29 "immediately after."
It is "immediately after" the great tribulation or time of great distress, that the cosmic signs of Jesus impending arrival will be visible.

 

It should be clear that this event has never happened. Certainly not in the 1800's as Jehovah's Witnesses once predicted, and absolutely certainly not in AD 70 nor in 1914 (again a failed guess by Jehovah's Witnesses). These bungled attempts to assign dates are testimony to the mishandling of Jesus' precious words.

 

The Word Biblical Commentary, alas, understands what Matthew meant and then tries to say that Matthew made a mistake with his "immediately after" (v. 29)! The author says: "Matthew means immediately (not simply very soon) after the destruction and desolation of the temple, the Parousia [Second Coming] is to be expected" (p. 712). The commentary adds very fairly: "the inserted 'immediately' necessitate seeing the tribulation as a yet future one." He then says that Matthew wrongly edited in the word "immediately."

 

I do not believe Matthew got it wrong. Taking the text as Scripture we are committed to the great tribulation as lying in the future just before the Second Coming. All attempts to avoid this may point to a desire to put the future in the past! This could be a form of wishful thinking.

 

Other commentators who do not like the idea of a future Great Tribulation try a different evasion. They say that verses 23-28 speak of a time future to us, but verses 15-22 speak of AD 70 only. When they get to verse 29 ("immediately") they return to the future. The Word Biblical Commentary rightly shows how unnatural such a skipping method is. "It is very difficult to believe [this is 'scholarese' for 'it is nonsense'] that the words 'immediately after the tribulation of those days' refers only to something [i.e. tribulation] general in the indeterminate future. Rather than something vague, the words ['immediately after the tribulation of those days'] seem to require a specific antecedent. This is shown by the definite article "the" and the demonstrative pronoun in "those days." The only specific item in the preceding verses that could correspond to the suffering of those days is the desecration of the temple referred to in v. 15"

 

This of course is absolutely true. Jesus knows of one desecration of the temple, one final and great tribulation and one Second Coming which will follow on the heels of the Abomination of Desolation which desecrates the temple.

 

The history book shows us that the temple was desecrated in AD 70, immediately after which Jesus did not come back! This forced some readers to say Jesus was wrong, or equally unfortunately, that he did come back with his Kingdom in AD 70 (This, as we said, is called Preterism, and it destroys the Gospel of the Kingdom, making the Kingdom an event beginning in AD 70!).

 

The right way to understand and believe Jesus is to take him at his word. He was asked about the end of the age in connection with trouble in the temple. He answered by unpacking that scheme of the future. He warned that the appearance of the Abomination of Desolation would signal the beginning of the final events.

 

"Immediately after" that one specific Great Tribulation, cosmic signs would introduce his great Arrival to resurrect the dead saints, catch up the living ones to meet him and escort him to the earth, destroy the antichrist and set up the Kingdom of God on earth.

 

The answer of Jesus is not so hard. The story is as follows: "What will be the sign of the end of the age? "The end is not yet." "Then the end will come -- when therefore you see the Abomination of desolation standing where HE ought not to, in a holy place (Mark 13:14; Matt. 24:15) flee to the hills. Then there will a great tribulation or time of great distress (Luke 21:23). "Immediately after" (Matt. 24:29) those days of that great tribulation, "cosmic signs will appear in the sky and Jesus will return."

 

Jesus added that this evil society, "generation," will not come to an end before all these things happen. "He who is ashamed of me and my words in this evil generation (society, until the Parousia),
the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes." Note how this "generation," evil brood, present evil society is contrasted with the time when Jesus will come, which will introduce the new age and new society of the coming Kingdom. Jesus said also: The children of this age are wiser in their financial dealings with others of the same type ("generation") than the children of light [i.e. of the Kingdom].

 

Do not be misled by the very Hebrew way of thinking which we may explain as follows: The Hebrew mind is able to take in "a totality." We are not used to this. Did you know that in Matt 10:23 Jesus addressed the 12 disciples standing in his presence and predicted that "YOU" will not have successfully completed and evangelistic mission in Israel before I come back?"

 

How can that be? The answer is that the disciples of the future will fulfill the prophecy. They are "one" with the 12 and addressed as "you." Did you know that Jesus spoke to unbelieving religious leaders in his time and said that "they" would not see him again until they welcomed him as Messiah in the future at his Return. But those men are long dead! Did you know that Jesus accused the wicked rulers of his time of having murdered Abel and the prophets and Zechariah (found in 2 Chronicles)? In other words they had murdered the spiritual heroes of the Bible from Genesis to Malachi.
(In the case of Jesus' Bible, the last book was 2 Chronicles, though all the same books as you have were there, only in a different order, Luke 24:44.).

 

Did you know that Jesus said that the disciples who asked the question about the Second Coming would see "all these things" described in the discourse? But they did not. They died, of course. The point is that a non-existing person or thing can be included in these forecasts as "you." They are seen as incorporated in the one pronoun "you." So then Jesus looks out on the temple buildings and as it turns out describes the desolation not of that building (though we know it was destroyed in AD 70) but of a building involved in a final great tribulation (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21, 19).

 

The future is bright with hope for the truth-seeking Christians who submit to baptism following the model of Acts 8:12 and persist in the faith. However Jesus' astonishing account of the future needs to be food for our serious mediation, very often. Perhaps you can use this article as tool, with others, for thinking about the precious words of Jesus and also, very importantly, sharing them with others. The words of Jesus will never pass away and they are spirit and life to those who grasp their meaning (John 6:63).

 

Finally, a contrast between Christ and Antichrist. Jesus comes from above, meaning that his origin is in God (Luke 1:35), comes in his Father's name as agent, humbled himself and became obedient, was despised and rejected, came to do his Father's will, which was to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. He glorified God on earth, as the Good Shepherd (Pastor) who gives his life for the sheep. God exalts him and gives him a name (office) above every name so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow. He will appear in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory. He will reign with the saints on earth forever. He is the heir of all things.

 

Now his opposite the Antichrist: comes from below, comes in his own name, exalts himself above all. All the world stands in admiration of him, acts according to his own will. He blasphemes the name of God. An evil shepherd who tears the flesh. He exalts himself above the heights of the clouds, yet is brought down to Sheol ("gravedom"). Of him they will say "is this the man who made the earth tremble and made kingdoms shake?" They will take away his kingdom and destroy to the uttermost. He is the Son of Perdition whom Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth at his Coming.

 

Probably about a quarter of the Bible is devoted to prophecy and God's detailed program for the future. This is part of the "whole counsel of God" which must be gradually absorbed by believers for their growth in grace and knowledge. To learn is to equip oneself to teach others, in what capacity. Knowledge and talents are not to be hoarded, but used to bless others. Jesus set the pattern for this as the great rabbi who taught for hours every day in the temple and outside. "Those who have insight are to instruct the many in the last days." If they do, they will shine like the stars in their Father's Kingdom. Jesus loved that text (Matthew 13:43, quoting Daniel 12:3).

 

The Great Tribulation or time of Jacob's trouble is not history yet, but lies in the future. God will shorten those days of extreme affliction for the sake of the saints.

 

...

 

The awful events of AD 70 were precursors of a final brief tribulation to be followed immediately by the cosmic signs and the return of Jesus (Matt. 24:29). What a day that will be!

 

 

This article was taken from:
Powered By Blogger