This generation will not pass away until ... what happens?

[look2jesus]

Greetings Mellontes,

Thanks for the post. I'll try to answer point by point.

L2J...Do you also consider the "day of the Lord" usage in the OT as being just a 24-hour day? Did any of these events involve a visible, physical return of the Lord at those times? It is well worth the study, my friend.

I haven't studied the phrase extensively but the simple answer would be no. It seems to me that the OT usage usually involved God bringing judgment on a nation by means of another nation. No visible return of the Lord (Jesus). I'm sure it will be a worthwhile study.

How did the Lord "come down" in the following verses?:

Exodus 3:8 - And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Exodus 19:11 - And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.

Numbers 11:17 - And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

In Exodus 3:8, I would say that the language is figurative, representing all the actual literal events (miracles and plagues) and persons involved (Moses, pharaoh, the Egyptions, the Angel of Death, etc.) in bringing about the Israelites release from bondage.

In Exodus 19:11, I would say that the language is literal.

Exodus 19:16 Then it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there were thunderings and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud, so that all the people who [were] in the camp trembled. 17 And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18 Now Mount Sinai [was] completely in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. 19 And when the blast of the trumpet sounded long and became louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by voice. 20 Then the LORD came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mountain. And the LORD called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. (NKJV)

I would say the same about Numbers 11:17. It's describing a literal event.

Numbers 11:24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD, and he gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tabernacle. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that [was] upon him, and placed [the same] upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did [so] again. (NKJV)

This is where many precedents can be established in the realm of hermeneutics. What right do we have to change the obvious "metaphorical" hermeneutic in these and countless other passages to that of a "literal, physical" one in the NT? The Bible was written by Jews to a primarily Jewish audience. It might be worthwhile to start thinking like they did. It is our Western Gentile culture that has stood in the way for far too long...

I've learned to be careful in my use of the word "obvious" ( that was for Paidion !) but what is obvious, to me at least, is that two of the three examples you listed were literal statements, not "metaphorical". The precedent that I see is that sometimes statements in the OT are literal and sometimes they are figurative. The same is true for the NT. I suppose a careful study of the context is called for in any case where a correct interpretation of events is being sought.

I think I agree with you that it is important to understand things the way the original readers would have understood what was being communicated.

May I ask you a question?
Do you think Acts 1:9-11 is a literal or metaphorical (to use your term) account?

Acts 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This [same] Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." (NKJV)

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I've only read your posts in this article.

Blessings to you,
l2j

[anochria]

It seems to me that Paidion's case actually ultimately would support a partial-preterist understanding of the Olivet discourse better than a futurist understanding- especially for those who see the final events of the discourse as referring to the Second Coming.

[Mellontes]

Matthew 11:14 - And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Do you believe Jesus?

Do you believe in reincarnation? I see no other possibility if you think Jesus was saying that John the Baptizer was in fact the historic Elijah of the Old Testament. You also have a further problem. Since Elijah was translated and never died, how did he get to be reincarnated as John the Baptizer? What happened to the Elijah who never died? What happened to his body which never decayed?

It's not a matter of my believing Jesus. Of course, I believe Jesus.

Some prophecies have a double fulfillment. John the Baptizer fulfilled the prophecies that Elijah was to come before the Messiah came, and so he did. The historic Elijah himself may be the one who comes before the second coming of the Messiah, as one of the witnesses mentioned in Revelation.

Great twisting of words I never uttered...You seem to be possessed by reincarnation...

Considering THE FACT that Elijah is not even mentioned in Revelation, it makes for pure speculation and unfounded speculation at that.

Blessings,

[Mellontes]

Greetings Mellontes,

Thanks for the post. I'll try to answer point by point.

L2J...Do you also consider the "day of the Lord" usage in the OT as being just a 24-hour day? Did any of these events involve a visible, physical return of the Lord at those times? It is well worth the study, my friend.

I haven't studied the phrase extensively but the simple answer would be no. It seems to me that the OT usage usually involved God bringing judgment on a nation by means of another nation. No visible return of the Lord (Jesus). I'm sure it will be a worthwhile study.

How did the Lord "come down" in the following verses?:

Exodus 3:8 - And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Exodus 19:11 - And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.

Numbers 11:17 - And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

In Exodus 3:8, I would say that the language is figurative, representing all the actual literal events (miracles and plagues) and persons involved (Moses, pharaoh, the Egyptions, the Angel of Death, etc.) in bringing about the Israelites release from bondage.

In Exodus 19:11, I would say that the language is literal.

Exodus 19:16 Then it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there were thunderings and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud, so that all the people who [were] in the camp trembled. 17 And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18 Now Mount Sinai [was] completely in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. 19 And when the blast of the trumpet sounded long and became louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by voice. 20 Then the LORD came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mountain. And the LORD called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. (NKJV)

I would say the same about Numbers 11:17. It's describing a literal event.

Numbers 11:24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD, and he gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tabernacle. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that [was] upon him, and placed [the same] upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did [so] again. (NKJV)

This is where many precedents can be established in the realm of hermeneutics. What right do we have to change the obvious "metaphorical" hermeneutic in these and countless other passages to that of a "literal, physical" one in the NT? The Bible was written by Jews to a primarily Jewish audience. It might be worthwhile to start thinking like they did. It is our Western Gentile culture that has stood in the way for far too long...

I've learned to be careful in my use of the word "obvious" ( that was for Paidion !) but what is obvious, to me at least, is that two of the three examples you listed were literal statements, not "metaphorical". The precedent that I see is that sometimes statements in the OT are literal and sometimes they are figurative. The same is true for the NT. I suppose a careful study of the context is called for in any case where a correct interpretation of events is being sought.

I think I agree with you that it is important to understand things the way the original readers would have understood what was being communicated.

May I ask you a question?
Do you think Acts 1:9-11 is a literal or metaphorical (to use your term) account?

Acts 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This [same] Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." (NKJV)

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I've only read your posts in this article.

Blessings to you,
l2j

Hi,

First of all, the word literal can be used differently. Literal is just a literary term. It really has nothing to do with corporeal, material existence of events, objects, or things. It is often confused with these things. I believe in a literal interpretation - which means that I take into consideration the constructs of the language, its culture, its metaphorical usage (when required), and other important considerations. Most times "literal" is translated a visible, physical, material type of thing. This is an error.

My only point in those 3 "come down" passages is to express the fact that there was not a visible, physical, material presence of the Lord other than physical "representations" of Him - trumpet noise, cloud, smoke etc. To believe that the Lord Jesus is composed of these physical things would be to go way off into another hermeneutic realm. My God is a Spirit.

You are definitely right. I should avoid the usage of "obvious." I try, but I forget. Perhaps it is because it should be obvious.

And for the misinterpreted Acts 1:9-11 passage, let me ask these questions. If you invited me to your place for a BBQ, and when it was over, I jumped into my bright red convertible, stomped on the gas, squealed away, causing smoke to come from the tires. I also ran over your child's tricycle in the process. Now if I said I would come again in the same manner, would you instantly think that it was my material form (body) that would come under consideration? No, of course not. But that is exactly how the Acts passage is exegeted, isn't it? A person goes in thinking physical body because he has been taught to go in that way.

First of all, the issue is not with what "body" Jesus comes, but in the MANNER in which He left. Manner is ALWAYS associated with verbs - not with nouns. It has to do with behaviour, outward actions. etc. There is not one single precedent (that I know of) where manner is attributed grammatically to human form. This is the problem. The two verbs of discussion concerning the MANNER are "GO" and "COME." No mention of body, let alone physical body is ever mentioned.

Second of all, how did He go into HEAVEN? The angels did not say how He left the Earth's surface. They said how He went (action) into HEAVEN. Well, He was hidden from sight when He went into heaven, wasn't He? NOT VISIBLE. He was engulfed by a cloud was he not?

Thirdly, the cloud mentioned is a reference to Matthew 26:64 and is figurative of God's glory and judgment. We are not speaking of weather patterns dealing with fluffy cumulus or wispy cirrus clouds. I personally believe it may refer to the Shekinah glory cloud...

We are so taken up with looking for physical fulfillments. So were the Pharisees. This is exactly why they missed their Messiah in the first place. They wanted a physical kingdom, a physical king, a physical throne, and a release from their physical bondage. The OT said it was "seemingly" going to be this way. They ignored Jesus (and the apostles) when He (they) spoke concerning many OT passages and the"PROPER, ILLUMINATED BY THE SPIRIT" exegesis of them. God's kingdom was spiritual, His throne spiritual, The king of the heavenly realm, and the bondage spiritual. The Pharisees killed Jesus for being a false prophet because what He said did not match up with what they believed the Scriptures to teach. Much of evangelical Christianity has missed the second coming on the same, identical basis - looking for physical, material fulfillments. Because they have a false "NATURE" of His "appearing again the second time," they must explain away or ignore EVERY SINGLE TIME STATEMENT that states very clearly the obvious imminence of the second "coming" to that first century generation.

Nobody that I know of denies the second coming theme in the following 2 Thessalonians passage. What I want to know is how that first century Thessalonian church could be released from their suffering and trials (the persecuting Pharisees and unbelieving Jews - 1 Thess 2:14-16) as a promise by the INSPIRED PAUL (cannot lie):

2 Thessalonians 1:5-9 - Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ[/color]:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Them = unbelieving Jews
You = 1st century Thessalonian church (believers)
Us = Paul, Timothy, Silvanus and the Thessalonians believers. All believers would experience this event, but Paul is writing specifically to the Thessalonian church.

[Conquest]

Hi,

First of all, the word literal can be used differently. Literal is just a literary term. It really has nothing to do with corporeal, material existence of events, objects, or things. It is often confused with these things. I believe in a literal interpretation - which means that I take into consideration the constructs of the language, its culture, its metaphorical usage (when required), and other important considerations. Most times "literal" is translated a visible, physical, material type of thing. This is an error.

My only point in those 3 "come down" passages is to express the fact that there was not a visible, physical, material presence of the Lord other than physical "representations" of Him - trumpet noise, cloud, smoke etc. To believe that the Lord Jesus is composed of these physical things would be to go way off into another hermeneutic realm. My God is a Spirit.

Your last 2 sentences stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. One of the key beliefs of Christianity is that the God/man Jesus Christ came back to life and ascended to heaven, the man Jesus Christ having been redeemed from the grave. Clearly if one is to discuss Biblical views yet has a fundamentally different view of the who and what of the God of Christianity “hermeneutics” are the least of the issues. Is it your view that Jesus Christ is no longer a man?

Conquest

[Paidion]

Great twisting of words I never uttered...You seem to be possessed by reincarnation...

No, you didn't utter the word "reincarnation". But, if I understood you correctly, you believe that John the Baptist was Elijah himself. Tell me how he could have been Elijah, if Elijah was not reincarnated as John the Baptist?

One time when I got up and spoke at church, a visitor asked me after the meeting, "Which one of the apostles are you?" I thought she was crazy, but I replied, "I am not one of the apostles; my name is Don."

"Oh, I know you are Don. But I mean, back in the apostolic age, about 2000 years ago, long before you came into your present body, who were you?

So my question remains. How could John the Baptist have been Elijah, if John was not a reincarnation of Elijah? I think I asked you this question before. Are you avoiding it?

[Mellontes]

Hi,

First of all, the word literal can be used differently. Literal is just a literary term. It really has nothing to do with corporeal, material existence of events, objects, or things. It is often confused with these things. I believe in a literal interpretation - which means that I take into consideration the constructs of the language, its culture, its metaphorical usage (when required), and other important considerations. Most times "literal" is translated a visible, physical, material type of thing. This is an error.

My only point in those 3 "come down" passages is to express the fact that there was not a visible, physical, material presence of the Lord other than physical "representations" of Him - trumpet noise, cloud, smoke etc. To believe that the Lord Jesus is composed of these physical things would be to go way off into another hermeneutic realm. My God is a Spirit.

Your last 2 sentences stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. One of the key beliefs of Christianity is that the God/man Jesus Christ came back to life and ascended to heaven, the man Jesus Christ having been redeemed from the grave. Clearly if one is to discuss Biblical views yet has a fundamentally different view of the who and what of the God of Christianity “hermeneutics” are the least of the issues. Is it your view that Jesus Christ is no longer a man?

Conquest

I believe He is now as He was before the temporary reincarnation..
Was He a man before the incarnation?
Do you have any Scripture showing us He is a man in heaven?
Although I likely have a different understanding of "flesh and blood" than you do, I believe you hold to that being human body parts. And since "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, then explain to me how He could remain flesh and blood, if a man.

Its really too bad you didn't address the main thrust of my last post - especially the Thessalonians passage. I must admit though, it surely is easier to ignore it than to deal with it. I ask you to deal with it...

[Mellontes]

Great twisting of words I never uttered...You seem to be possessed by reincarnation...

No, you didn't utter the word "reincarnation". But, if I understood you correctly, you believe that John the Baptist was Elijah himself. Tell me how he could have been Elijah, if Elijah was not reincarnated as John the Baptist?

One time when I got up and spoke at church, a visitor asked me after the meeting, "Which one of the apostles are you?" I thought she was crazy, but I replied, "I am not one of the apostles; my name is Don."

"Oh, I know you are Don. But I mean, back in the apostolic age, about 2000 years ago, long before you came into your present body, who were you?

So my question remains. How could John the Baptist have been Elijah, if John was not a reincarnation of Elijah? I think I asked you this question before. Are you avoiding it?

Quite honestly I can't be bothered to go in this direction. Jesus said that John the Baptist came in fulfillment of Elijah "who was to come" and that's good enough for me. No more cherry picking please...

[Conquest]

I believe He is now as He was before the temporary reincarnation..
Was He a man before the incarnation?
Do you have any Scripture showing us He is a man in heaven?
Although I likely have a different understanding of "flesh and blood" than you do, I believe you hold to that being human body parts. And since "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, then explain to me how He could remain flesh and blood, if a man.

Its really too bad you didn't address the main thrust of my last post - especially the Thessalonians passage. I must admit though, it surely is easier to ignore it than to deal with it. I ask you to deal with it...

Clearly you follow a different god than what the Apostle preached of,

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

I did address the main trust of your post, if you deny who Jesus Christ is, the balance of your view is spurious. Your theology says it all.

Conquest

[look2jesus]

Mellontes,

Thank you for your courteous reply. I'll have to do some real pondering over that 2Thes. 1 passage! I try to consider myself an objective person who surrenders himself to the word of God, and I appreciate you taking your time to address the things that you did. I'm going to need to think about some of these things and get a better grasp on what I truly believe (I think people should be able to give a reasonable defense of their views if they're going to espouse on a subject) before I feel prepared to discuss these things further with you--I feel like you got a head start on me! So, thanks again brother!

l2j