"...and never shall be."

End Times
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re:

Post by Paidion » Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:51 am

Yes. Do you?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Re:

Post by dwilkins » Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:09 am

Paidion wrote:Yes. Do you?
Sure. I'd start with the idea that any phrase with absolutes such as "and never shall be", or "ever has been", should be examined for idiomatic exaggeration. It would make sense theologically that when we say that the God of the Bible is the "most high God" that this is an absolute statement without exaggeration. But, Matt's point is rather simple. There are all sorts of descriptions of historical events that are described in absolute, exaggerated ways so it is not unambiguously clear on its face that the phrase we're talking about should be taken that way. Your hermeneutic is completely subjective and as far as I can tell provides no useful guidance on how to determine which statements are to be taken literally.

Doug

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: ... and never shall be

Post by Singalphile » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:32 am

Given the Matthew 24 context and Jewish audience and the apparently somewhat common Jewish formula ("such as never was and never will be"), it seems at least possible that Jesus was using a figure of speech. There might be hyperbole in verse 22 ("except those days be shortened, nobody would be saved"), but I'm not sure that it is hyperbolic to say that what happened around AD 70 to His audience was "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be". More people (possibly more Jews) have died in other wars or disasters, I suppose, and certainly in the flood of Genesis, but that's not necessarily what He meant.

As for genea, yes, it can apparently mean "race", "famliy", or "breed", (as in 1 Peter 2:9 that Paidion mentioned (though not his other references, imo) and according to this), but "generation" seems more like the intended meaning, just based on a review of its use in the NT, and, arguably, the general narrative and theme of the gospels, in which He condemns that wicked generation (not their - and His - race) often and warned them of the coming consequences. Their wickedness is recorded in at least one other source (Josephus), too. I'm not sure why He would be referring to an unknown group of future people.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re:

Post by steve7150 » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:52 pm

I'm not sure why He would be referring to an unknown group of future people.

Singalphile






But you can say that about any prophecy like Gen 3.15 or Isaiah 53? What understanding would the "original audience" have about these or most prophecies?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re:

Post by Paidion » Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:01 pm

Steve7150 wrote:But you can say that about any prophecy like Gen 3.15 or Isaiah 53? What understanding would the "original audience" have about these or most prophecies?
A good point, Steve. And an adequate response to the usual preterist argument against futurism, namely, "Why would Jesus prophesy to the people of his day, about some future people, about whom his listeners knew nothing? How would such prophecy be applicable to his listeners?"

Also, it seems to me that some people latch on to a theology that they have heard expounded in such a way as seemingly to explain particular scriptures. Then if anyone refers to scriptures that conflict with that theology, the affirmations of these scriptures are dismissed as idioms or hyperbole.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re:

Post by Paidion » Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:45 pm

Doug wrote:There are all sorts of descriptions of historical events that are described in absolute, exaggerated ways so it is not unambiguously clear on its face that the phrase we're talking about should be taken that way. Your hermeneutic is completely subjective and as far as I can tell provides no useful guidance on how to determine which statements are to be taken literally.
Your criterion is to decide that "historical events that are described in absolute, exaggerated ways" are likely to be hyperbole.

The old Mennonite's criterion:
"If the literal sense makes sense, then it makes no sense to take it in any other sense."

Please explain the basis upon which you judge his criterion to be "completely subjective" whereas yours is not.

To apply your criterion, you must decide subjectively whether the statement is exaggerated. You must decide whether the authors "meant it to be hyperbole." The old Mennonite had to decide whether or not the statement made sense. In both criteria, the reader must make a decision about the scriptural statement. I cannot see that either is more subjective than the other.
(Also, I see no circularity in the old Mennonite's criterion.)

Now let's see how the old Mennonite's criterion can be applied:

You are just a vapor... (James 4:24 NASB)

Does it make sense to say that a human being, consisting of flesh and bones is literally a vapor? No it doesn't. This must be a figurative statement, probably to indicate the brevity of life.

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. (Matt 24:30 NASB)

Jesus announces some conditions of his return. Does it make sense that some sign of Jesus will literally appear in the sky? Yes.
Does it make sense that all tribes of the earth will mourn? Yes. Does it make sense that they will see Christ coming on clouds in the sky? Yes. With power and great glory? Yes. Thus there is no reason to think this is figurative—unless, of course you already believe that He returned in 70 A.D. If that is the case, then "all nations of the earth will mourn" must be figurative, since that didn't happen in 70 A.D.

It is also written
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.(Revelation 1:7 ESV)

"Every eye will see him." Clearly there is no record of anyone having seen Him in 70 A.D. So the preterist must affirm that this is figurative language. "Even those who pierced him." Is there any record that Christ's killers saw Him in 70 A.D.? No. So this must be figurative. Again, "All tribes of the earth will wail on account of him." That didn't happen in 70 A.D. either. So the preterist must asseverate that this is figurative.

However, every one of these statements about Christ's coming makes literal sense. Thus, according to the old Mennonite's criterion,they will be literally true when Christ returns.

Disclaimer: Before someone brings it up, I acknowledge that "all tribes of the earth" could be rendered "all tribes of the land" and refer to all 12 tribes of Israel. One could maintain that people from every tribe of Israel wailed in 70 A.D. on account of Christ coming to destroy Jerusalem and the temple through the Roman troops. But no one in 70 A.D. acknowledged that destruction as the work of Christ, but only the accomplishment of the Roman armies. However, John's statement, "Every eye shall see Him" cannot apply to 70 A.D., as there is no historical record that anyone was aware of his coming, so the only sensible conclusion is that He didn't return at that time.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re:

Post by Singalphile » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:26 pm

steve7150 wrote:But you can say that about any prophecy like Gen 3.15 or Isaiah 53?
Maybe, if you think the genres, contexts, and audiences are similar. I think it's better to take them case by case. I do not think that the verse quoted in the original post is hyperbole even though it appears to be a Jewish figure of speech of some sort. (But the verse after it could be.)
steve7150 wrote:What understanding would the "original audience" have about these or most prophecies?
That's a good question. I don't know what OT or inter-testamental writings or traditions would have made Jesus' audience hear "this genea" as the Jewish people as a whole. Would be interesting to look into, if I had any time for such things.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re:

Post by dwilkins » Wed May 04, 2016 1:33 am

As much fun as it might be to debate the rabbit trails leading from it, I'd like to focus back on your original claim:

"If the literal sense makes sense, then it makes no sense to take it in any other sense."

What objective standard is used to determine what makes "literal sense"?

Doug

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re:

Post by Paidion » Wed May 04, 2016 1:06 pm

What objective standard is used to determine what makes "literal sense"?
You'd have to ask the old Mennonite that question. All I was doing was quoting him. I also gave you examples of how his criterion could be applied. I gave you one example of where the literal sense did not make sense, and one where it did. And I think that makes sense. The criterion itself is the objective standard. Certainly we need to assess whether or not the literal reading makes sense. But if you deem that subjective, then any criterion would be subjective. For you must make some type of subjective assessment in applying it. I asked you how yours was any more objective than his, and I haven't seen a reply from you yet.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”