The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve:

A couple questions I've been sitting on to ask you related to your exegesis of a couple eschatological passages.

1. You use the language of John in Revelation about the beast's number to indicate that John expected his direct audience would be able to identify the beast. Thus, the beast of John applied to his immediate audience.

However, how do you not apply the same principle to Paul's words in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 when the language indicates "we who are alive" - an immediate group of believers in Paul's contemporary audience? As well as 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10 where Paul seems to direct the implications of this coming of Christ at his immediate audience - going so far as telling his audience that they do not know the exact time, but the language of verse 4 indicates "this Day" will happen while some of Paul's direct readers live?

It seems if you are going to take the language of "you" to indicate the immediate audience in Revelation, you would have to all the more in regards to the "we" and "you" of an epistle and take it to mean the direct audience.

Unless you believe John accurately used "you" while Paul was mistaken to believe that the parousia would happen during the lifetime of his contemporary audience...

2. You believe that John's Revelation imagery is symbolic - not a literal pit, not literal locust, not a literal reign of Christ on earth, etc. - yet you seem to take the new heaven and earth as literal. Again, how do you rectify the seeming exegetical contradiction this creates?

In both these instances, I am unsure how you see consistency in your approaches.

Great questions, Jaydam. I will try to give a suitable answer. You might expect that I would not allow a glaring inconsistency to remain in my system—and I wouldn't. I cannot guarantee that those who reason differently from me will see the consistency in my reasoning, but it works for me.

1. In many conversations, the use of words like "we" and "us" refers to the speaker and those in his/her immediate audience. But no one objects to the times when "we", in certain contexts, means "we" who belong to a certain class, extending beyond our immediate audience.

For example, if a black activist today says, "We were kidnapped by white men and brought against our will to this country!" No one believes that the speaker is thinking specifically of himself and his listeners. They are members of a larger race with which they are expressing solidarity.

If a living American were heard to say, "We fought and won two world wars, and we can get through these troubled times," or "Mark my words, we will someday have a settlement on Mars," we might realize that the speaker is speaking what he/she believes to be true, without assuming that the speaker or the hearers personally fought in two world wars, or personally expects ever to live to see a human settlement on Mars.

That is not what the speaker means.

When Paul writes about "we," he occasionally is speaking about himself, personally, and his companions. More often, though, in his epistles, "we" means the Body of Christ—a trans-generational solidarity of which he and his readers form a representation.

"We who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," obviously, means, "Those living in that generation of the Church who will be alive at that time..." For eighteen centuries, no one found this difficult to understand. Nor do most readers today.

Paul may have hoped that these things would occur during his lifetime, and that of his audience, but he could not be affirming that to be the case (good thing, too, since he himself—one of the "we"—did not live to see it.

Technically, in 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul did not necessarily include his readers in the group that would see the "day of the Lord." He did say that, because they were in the light, they could be quite sure that that day could not overtake them as a thief, but he did not say it would happen in their lifetimes. If it came in their lifetimes, they were safe. If it did not, ditto.

By contrast there is no "we" in Revelation 13:18—just a clue which his readers were expected to decipher. We know who his readers were. They were his contemporaries in the Asian churches, so the clue was for them.


2. I do not take Revelation 21-22 literally. The description seems to me entirely symbolic. However, I do take it as describing a phenomenon (albeit in symbols) that is spoken of elsewhere in less-symbolic ways (Romans 8:21; 2 Peter 3:10-13; Matt.5:5). I believe the imagery of the bride and of the heavenly Jerusalem are symbols for the Christian community—but not in its present form. In Revelation 21, the community is seen glorified ("having the glory of God"—v.11). This glorification takes place for us, as it did for Christ, in the bodily resurrection of the last Day (John 7:39; 1 Cor.15:43).

Hi Steve,

As you know, 1 Thess chapter 4 isn't an islolated context. The entire letter is an emphatic knowledge of Paul correctly placing his audience in Christ's parousia. For example, note the following:

Chapter 1:10 and to wait for His Son from the heavens, whom He did raise out of the dead -- Jesus, who is rescuing us from the anger that is coming.

Chapter 2:19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of boasting in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? Is it not you?

Now notice in 4:13-14 We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who have no hope. Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, in the same way God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.

Obviously, these believers are being informed some of them will be alive to witness this reunion with loved ones and Christ! In the preceding chapters Paul is either correct in his timing or not. Chapter 4 simply reinforces his timing of events. The slippery slope is to define Pauls remarks as "misplaced hope". I see no room for this conclusion, as the entirety of the context in the N.T. places the timing in their lifetime.

God bless.

Hi Robby,

Obviously, these believers are being informed some of them will be alive to witness this reunion with loved ones and Christ!

This is not at all obvious to me from the verses you cite.

In the preceding chapters Paul is either correct in his timing or not.

True, and this is the case with everything anybody believes. They are either right or they are not. Paul was not incapable of being wrong in his expectations about the timing of future events. Early in his ministry (when writing to the Thessalonians), he might have believed that the Pariousia would occur in his lifetime (though he never affirmed that this would be the case). Many Christians have thought as much in their own day, and been equally wrong on their timing. In fact, later in his life, he clearly expected to die before the resurrection at the Parousia (2 Cor.4:14; Phil.3:11).

Since Jesus said it was not for the disciples to know the times and the seasons which the Father has set in His own authority (Acts 1:7), it would have been foolish for Paul to commit himself to any timeframe—which is why he did not do so. You, and other full preterists, mistakenly think he did so, but only by your reading "we" and "us" in a manner counterintuitive to those who, through the centuries, have given adequate consideration to the apostle's regular use of first-person plural pronouns.

If you do not understand (or do not agree with) what I wrote in my post, above, you may wish to say that "we" (in 1 Thess.4) refers only to Paul and his contemporary readers, specifically, and that he was saying that he and they were going to be living at the time of the Parousia. If this is so, we must admit that he was mistaken, whether it was AD 70 or the end of the world that he had in mind (since he died before AD 70). Therefore, we must conclude either that Paul did not commit himself on the timing (as I have argued), or else that he misspoke. Which do you prefer?

The slippery slope is to define Pauls remarks as "misplaced hope".

Paul never claims to be infallible—and he wasn't, any more than Peter was (whom Paul had to correct on one occasion). Paul even suffered a lapse of memory while writing 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, and gave what he called his "judgment" (1 Cor.7:23, 40), or "opinion" (as rendered in the NASB).

I will here head-off the anticipated objection that I am being "inconsistent" in allowing the possibility that Paul could be mistaken about timing, while insisting that the time indicators in the Book of Revelation are reliable, but, clearly, we can make claims for an inspired prophecy (Revelation 1:3) that are not made by an apostle about his personal letters.

Paul was expecting, when he wrote Romans 15:28, that he was coming quickly to Rome, en route to Spain, after a brief visit to Jerusalem. He was right about coming to Rome, but he was two years off on his timing. We have no idea if he was right about going to Spain. His plans to go there were unpredictably interrupted by at least four years of imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome, and may eventually have been abandoned entirely. For a man to be personally mistaken in his expectations about the timing of unforeseeable future developments has no negative bearing on the reliability of his teaching, in general. No one, except when prophesying (which Paul was not doing) can know certainly any future thing (see James 4:14-15).

Paul's hope was not misplaced. His hope was in Christ and the resurrection (2 Cor.4:14). Since that has not yet occurred, it is too early to say that Paul was wrong in his hope. Unlike many end-times enthusiasts, Paul's hope was in Christ, not in some specific development in his lifetime. He did not know whether he would live or die, from day to day (1 Cor.15:30-32).

I stand by my statements in my previous post. It is the only way that I can see good exegesis being done.

Hi Steve, I'll be as brief as possible.

steve wrote:

Obviously, these believers are being informed some of them will be alive to witness this reunion with loved ones and Christ!

This is not at all obvious to me from the verses you cite.

Okay? So then what are these verses implying? Paul is talking about the timing of Christ's return and being rescued from the coming wrath when speaking to the Thessalonians. Even if he's wrong, as you suggest, what is it that doesn't make HIS context obvious to you when chapter 4 comes into view? Your opinion that he was wrong doesn't make the context unclear. If so, then help me understand what these verses are implying to the people the letter was addressed to.

steve wrote:

In the preceding chapters Paul is either correct in his timing or not.

True, and this is the case with everything anybody believes. They are either right or they are not. Paul was not incapable of being wrong in his expectations about the timing of future events. Early in his ministry (when writing to the Thessalonians), he might have believed that the Pariousia would occur in his lifetime (though he never affirmed that this would be the case). Many Christians have thought as much in their own day, and been equally wrong on their timing. In fact, later in his life, he clearly expected to die before the resurrection at the Parousia (2 Cor.4:14; Phil.3:11).

I don't know how you can say Paul never affirmed the Parousia would be in his lifetime. Let's read 2 Thess 2:1-4 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessnessfn is revealed, the son of destruction,...

Is Paul speaking/teaching under inspiration here or not? He can't be anymore emphatic than to say, "either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us". But you say he's wrong, and now by default he becomes a deceiver/false prophet himself! Paul is reminding the Thessalonians about his words concerning Christ's Parousia and their being gathered together, loved ones raised and those remaining alive being united together. Under this same inspiration he said the day of Lord didn't come, was he wrong here to? No, Paul got the context of the timing right.

Additionally, the Apostles held an unique office, receiving direct knowledge from God to teach and preach the truth. Unlike the average Joe, they had inspiration that set them apart from the false teachers/prophets of their day. You should know Jesus gave them the knowledge to warn the people against false prophets/teaching, especially those falsely declaring Jesus' Parousia. So when THEY said his coming was near, soon, or at the door, it in-fact was. They weren't mistaken or included along with the false prophets???

steve wrote:Since Jesus said it was not for the disciples to know the times and the seasons which the Father has set in His own authority (Acts 1:7), it would have been foolish for Paul to commit himself to any timeframe—which is why he did not do so. You, and other full preterists, mistakenly think he did so, but only by your reading "we" and "us" in a manner counterintuitive to those who, through the centuries, have given adequate consideration to the apostle's regular use of first-person plural pronouns.

Come on Steve, really? Acts 1:7 is specifically talking about knowing the appointed time, NOT knowing the signs and clear teachings leading towards it. Jesus Himself mentioned He didn't even know this appointed time. However, The Father in The Revelation clearly released information concerning the nearness of "The Appointed Time" without the specific dates involved. Context denotes who the personal pronouns identify, and those who attempt to divorce the original audience from the letters addressed TO THEM, are the ones who should be held to the highest scrutiny, not the other way around. The original audience was facing an end of the age event, scriptural gymnastics will not change the common sense personal pronoun usage to be attributed to the original audience. Their is no justification to suggest otherwise.

steve wrote:If you do not understand (or do not agree with) what I wrote in my post, above, you may wish to say that "we" (in 1 Thess.4) refers only to Paul and his contemporary readers, specifically, and that he was saying that he and they were going to be living at the time of the Parousia. If this is so, we must admit that he was mistaken, whether it was AD 70 or the end of the world that he had in mind (since he died before AD 70). Therefore, we must conclude either that Paul did not commit himself on the timing (as I have argued), or else that he misspoke. Which do you prefer?

This is a good point, but not at all difficult to answer. Paul and every N.T. Writer committed themselves to the timing. Paul didn't misspeak either, concerning his personal expectation. However, Paul did receive additional information regarding his fate. This turn of events may have been his own doing by not heeding the Holy Spirit's advice when he was told not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4). He went anyway and this resulted in his, probably, untimely death. If he would have obeyed the advice of The Spirit, things would have probably been different. I will admit this is pure speculation, but not without merit.

Your remaining comments continue to place Paul's timing context in isolation. Paul timing context is unified with every other N.T. Writer's expectation. Are they ALL wrong Steve? They placed the timing in their lifetime because Yeshua placed it there. It's not their imagination speaking, it's the clear teaching Yeshua taught, in which He promised them they would be reminded of when He left them (John 14:26).

It is true, we will most likely never agree on these issues, but that's not so bad. No two people ever agree on everything. Another millennium will pass and these arguments will probably persist at nauseam. Living the realized kingdom life is what's important.

God Bless.

Hey Steve, thanks for the reply.

I'm not looking to debate your conclusions, but just understand your thought process. Any renewed debate is likely futile as I'm pretty sure on this issue most people here have expressed their points fairly exhaustively and nobody is going to be shifting positions.

Thank God choosing the "right" side on this issue is not mandatory to salvation!

I'll sit in my own thoughts and weigh yours.

Looking forward to seeing you in a couple of days. Safe travels!

Hi Robby,

Okay? So then what are these verses implying? Paul is talking about the timing of Christ's return and being rescued from the coming wrath when speaking to the Thessalonians.

I disagree. I don’t think Paul, in 1 Thessalonians, is concerned at all about the timing, nor is he saying anything in 2 Thessalonians about the timing, other than that it had not occurred yet, and would not occur prior to certain other necessary things happening. This is not making any affirmations about any specific timeframe from the reader’s standpoint.

Even if he's wrong, as you suggest, what is it that doesn't make HIS context obvious to you when chapter 4 comes into view? Your opinion that he was wrong doesn't make the context unclear. If so, then help me understand what these verses are implying to the people the letter was addressed to.

If you are going to answer my posts, you might choose to read them first. I said that I do not believe that Paul was wrong about the timing. In fact, he made no predictions concerning timing that were specific enough for him to be wrong about.

I did say that Paul’s expectations of an immediate trip to Rome and to Spain were mistaken. That can hardly be disputed. Nor can it be disputed that he had a memory lapse, in 1 Corinthians 1, since he says so himself!

I don't know how you can say Paul never affirmed the Parousia would be in his lifetime. Let's read 2 Thess 2:1-4 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessnessfn is revealed, the son of destruction,...

I don’t know how you can say this speaks of a first century coming of the Parousia. Since “our gathering” to Christ involves all Christians, on what Jesus called “the last day,” Paul has made no comment about how far off that last day may be. In retrospect, we can see that the last day did not occur in Paul’s lifetime, nor in that of his readers. In fact, even in our lifetimes, thus far, we have not yet seen the last day (unless today proves to be it).

Is Paul speaking/teaching under inspiration here or not? He can't be anymore emphatic than to say, "either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us". But you say he's wrong, and now by default he becomes a deceiver/false prophet himself!

Was Paul speaking/teaching under inspiration or not? Who knows? If he was, he did not say so. If he didn’t claim it, what right have you or I to make the claim for him? Again you tell me that I “say he was wrong.” Please show me where you think I made such a statement.

Paul is reminding the Thessalonians about his words concerning Christ's Parousia and their being gathered together, loved ones raised and those remaining alive being united together. Under this same inspiration he said the day of Lord didn't come, was he wrong here to?

You read more into Paul’s words than he put in them. You say that Paul was saying the Parousia would come in his reader’s lives. Which of them? You are basing your assumption on his use of “we” and “us.” Taken in the way you take it, this would mean Paul and all of his readers (what else could “we” mean, if not the whole trans-general church worldwide?). Yet, on your assumptions, Paul was wrong to include himself (implied in “we”), since he did not live to see Jerusalem fall. Instead of misrepresenting my statements, why don’t you talk about Paul’s error (on your principles) here?

I don’t know why a man would have to be writing “under inspiration” to correctly point out that the day of the Lord has not yet come. Wouldn’t his doctrinal knowledge be sufficient to recognize this? All but a very few Christians, over the past 2000 years, have had no problem recognizing that Christ has not yet come and raised the dead. The modern little group of full-preterists are the only ones in history who apparently can’t see the obvious, and might possibly need divine inspiration to see it. Paul was not in your camp.

Additionally, the Apostles held an unique office, receiving direct knowledge from God to teach and preach the truth. Unlike the average Joe, they had inspiration that set them apart from the false teachers/prophets of their day.

Agreed.

You should know Jesus gave them the knowledge to warn the people against false prophets/teaching, especially those falsely declaring Jesus' Parousia. So when THEY said his coming was near, soon, or at the door, it in-fact was. They weren't mistaken or included along with the false prophets???

If they affirmed what was not correct, they were mistaken. As I pointed out, Paul was capable of making mistakes—even while writing his epistles. However, he is no false prophet unless he was prophesying. Please show me a passage where Paul said, “Thus says the Lord, the end is very near!”

Context denotes who the personal pronouns identify, and those who attempt to divorce the original audience from the letters addressed TO THEM, are the ones who should be held to the highest scrutiny, not the other way around. The original audience was facing an end of the age event, scriptural gymnastics will not change the common sense personal pronoun usage to be attributed to the original audience. Their is no justification to suggest otherwise.

I am not sure in what sense you think the Thessalonians, in Greece, were facing an end of the age event. The Jews certainly were, but the Thessalonian Christians had come into the New Covenant Age at their conversion (it was not about to happen), and the end of the Jewish age, with the destruction of the temple, would hardly have a direct impact on the Greeks. What crisis was looming in their lives?

Paul and every N.T. Writer committed themselves to the timing. Paul didn't misspeak either, concerning his personal expectation. However, Paul did receive additional information regarding his fate. This turn of events may have been his own doing by not heeding the Holy Spirit's advice when he was told not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4). He went anyway and this resulted in his, probably, untimely death. If he would have obey the advice of The Spirit, things would have probably been different. I will admit this is pure speculation, but not without merit.

So you are now admitting that Paul’s expectation expressed in Romans 15 turned out to be false—due to his not heeding the Holy Spirit’s guidance (!). Why were you insisting so vehemently that Paul could not be mistaken, nor speak without inspiration?

Your remaining comments continue to place Paul's timing context in isolation. Paul timing context is unified with every other N.T. Writer's expectation. Are they ALL wrong Steve? They placed the timing in their lifetime because Yeshua placed it there. It's not their imagination speaking, it's the clear teaching Yeshua taught, in which He promised them they would be reminded of when He left them (John 14:26).

I am not saying that any of them were wrong. When they spoke of, or alluded to, the nearness of the destruction of Jerusalem, they were absolutely correct. I am not sure that any of them placed the second coming and the resurrection within their lifetimes in any place, but if they did, they were speculating on a subject that Jesus said they could not know. When people do that, they never seem to get it right.

It is true, we will most likely never agree on these issues, but that's not so bad. No two people ever agree on everything. Another millennium will pass and these arguments will probably persist at nauseam. Living the realized kingdom life is what's important.

We probably will not reach agreement. It is a shame, though, because I find this unnecessary.

Hi Steve,

Of course I will take issue with much of what you said, however, to address them all would mostly likely belabor the point. Unfortunately, my schedule keeps me very busy, I'm sure you are saddled with your own time restraints as well, so in the near future, I'll probably address a couple of things just for clarity and the benefit of those interested in the thread.

As always, God bless my brother!