On another forum I stated that I thought that the Kingdom is "near" both time-wise and spatial-wise. It is "near," time-wise, in the sense that the Kingdom is already here in a non-eschatological sense. It is also here, spatial-wise, in the same way--in the non-eschatological sense.
I was then answered by someone who believed that the idea of "nearness" is strictly in the "time" sense of "nearness," and not in the "spatial" sense. So here was my answer to him, for your consideration here on this forum:
Yes, I agree that "nearness" certainly had a *time* element, although neither can I deny that "nearness" also had a spatial element, such as we read in the Law that God's word had to be close, or nearby, in order to enable Israel to obey that word. The presence of God's word itself was the empowerment of men to fulfill that word.
But yes, the "fig tree" metaphor indicated a seasonal shift that seems, on its face, the opposite of what we would expect from the context. The context suggests an imminent, comprehensive judgment against Israel, which occurred in 70 AD. And yet the metaphor suggests a seasonal shift from Spring to Summer--something we may see as more positive than negative.
And yet, it is what it is. Jesus saw his 1st Coming as a positive for Israel, despite the negativity associated with his rejection by Israel and its developing judgment. It would provide an atonement for Israel's ultimate restoration, and the more immediate salvation of individuals in Israel who would accept him.
It was a "Summer" that would produce, instead of good fruit, a barren landscape. The 2nd Coming and its restoration of Israel would be preceded by the judgment of 70 AD and by the appearance of many antichrists and false prophets, which were indeed seen in Israel prior to 70 AD.
So these "Birth Pain" signs were said, by Jesus, to preceed not just his 2nd Coming to restore Israel but also would preceed the 70 AD judgment. It was the appearance of Christian persecution by the Jews that would present the sign of impending judgment in 70 AD, along with early signs of God's displeasure, including famines and earthquakes, and signs in the heavens, which took place at Christ's death. News of wars, or rumors of wars, portended the coming authority of Rome to put down rebellion, not just in neighboring countries, but soon in Israel, as well.
So yes, this "nearness" involved a "time" element. But it involved a definition of the Kingdom not just in the escahtological sense, but also in the spatial sense. The judgment of 70 AD would not be the coming of the Kingdom in an eschatological sense, but it would come in the spatial sense, by bringing heaven's judgments to earth in Israel.
In ancient prophecies it was said by God that in bringing historical judgments to Israel He would "reveal Himself to Israel." It was written, "then they will know that I am God."
This is also how God revealed the Kingdom near to Israel in a spatial sense in 70 AD, by revealing Christ's judgments in the 70 AD event. Then Christ would be revealed in that day, even though the Kingdom remained aloof in the eschatological sense.
It's a complex issue for me. Thanks for your patience as I try to explain how I've tackled this subject since the 1970s! ;)
I was then answered by someone who believed that the idea of "nearness" is strictly in the "time" sense of "nearness," and not in the "spatial" sense. So here was my answer to him, for your consideration here on this forum:
Yes, I agree that "nearness" certainly had a *time* element, although neither can I deny that "nearness" also had a spatial element, such as we read in the Law that God's word had to be close, or nearby, in order to enable Israel to obey that word. The presence of God's word itself was the empowerment of men to fulfill that word.
But yes, the "fig tree" metaphor indicated a seasonal shift that seems, on its face, the opposite of what we would expect from the context. The context suggests an imminent, comprehensive judgment against Israel, which occurred in 70 AD. And yet the metaphor suggests a seasonal shift from Spring to Summer--something we may see as more positive than negative.
And yet, it is what it is. Jesus saw his 1st Coming as a positive for Israel, despite the negativity associated with his rejection by Israel and its developing judgment. It would provide an atonement for Israel's ultimate restoration, and the more immediate salvation of individuals in Israel who would accept him.
It was a "Summer" that would produce, instead of good fruit, a barren landscape. The 2nd Coming and its restoration of Israel would be preceded by the judgment of 70 AD and by the appearance of many antichrists and false prophets, which were indeed seen in Israel prior to 70 AD.
So these "Birth Pain" signs were said, by Jesus, to preceed not just his 2nd Coming to restore Israel but also would preceed the 70 AD judgment. It was the appearance of Christian persecution by the Jews that would present the sign of impending judgment in 70 AD, along with early signs of God's displeasure, including famines and earthquakes, and signs in the heavens, which took place at Christ's death. News of wars, or rumors of wars, portended the coming authority of Rome to put down rebellion, not just in neighboring countries, but soon in Israel, as well.
So yes, this "nearness" involved a "time" element. But it involved a definition of the Kingdom not just in the escahtological sense, but also in the spatial sense. The judgment of 70 AD would not be the coming of the Kingdom in an eschatological sense, but it would come in the spatial sense, by bringing heaven's judgments to earth in Israel.
In ancient prophecies it was said by God that in bringing historical judgments to Israel He would "reveal Himself to Israel." It was written, "then they will know that I am God."
This is also how God revealed the Kingdom near to Israel in a spatial sense in 70 AD, by revealing Christ's judgments in the 70 AD event. Then Christ would be revealed in that day, even though the Kingdom remained aloof in the eschatological sense.
It's a complex issue for me. Thanks for your patience as I try to explain how I've tackled this subject since the 1970s! ;)