From another forum, where "X" rejects my sense of using a unit of time to convey spatial access...
X said:
I agree nearness can mean close in distance or time based on the context. However, I completely disagree that near can mean its polar opposite in a “metaphorical” way. Such is nonsensical and more akin to philosophical gymnastics to foist a certain traditions. God can, through the prophets, tell us when things are literally far away, like Daniel 8, so no need to change the meanings of words.
I said:
You can make that determination if you want. It may be debatable whether an "hour" can convey something different from a literal 60 minute segment, and as such be considered "metaphorical."
Perhaps I should've used the word "idiom." It may depend on how an author wishes to use the word "hour," to convey a unit of time other than a 60 minute segment. The "last hour," in my view, can convey the entire NT period as a single unit of time, used idiomatically.
X said:
In regards to the “last hour”, the context is the Antichrist, NOT spatial access to Christ. —> many Antichrists had come and had gone out from the church, that’s how they knew it was the last hour. So I completely disagree with your interpretation.
I said:
Yes, and I disagree with your characterization that the "last hour" is in reference to the eschatological Antichrist. The passage says, frankly, that an entire era is being covered, from the then-current time when various antichrists proliferated to the eschatological period when THE Antichrist would appear.
If John was suggesting that it would all take place in a single hour, that would be absurd--as I said, this is an idiomatic usage of the words "last hour." It did not all take place within 60 minutes.
So, we have to decide, based on the context, whether John is speaking of an extended age, or suggesting that he thinks it will all take place imminently, both the appearance of many antichrists, and the appearance of THE Antichrist. If it was the latter, than obviously, John was wrong.
X said:
The fig tree parable pointed to that when the events of the Olivet discourse were happening then they would know the coming of the son of man/ kingdom of God was near (luke 21:30-31) in time, NOT spatial distance.
I said:
As I said, the Birth Pain signs, and the Fig Tree parable, all spoke of the 70 AD event of Israel's judgment *in that generation.* That was a day in which Christ would be revealed *in the judgment,* but it was not the day of Christ's Return. The Fig Tree parable, therefore, was *not* indicating that Christ's 2nd Coming was as imminent as the 70 AD judgment.
Some of the signs that were to take place in Jesus' generation continued on throughout the age. For example, the preaching of the Gospel reached out to the Roman world in that day, but has continued throughout the NT age. The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD has led to an age-long Jewish Diaspora that was not limited to the 1st generation of the Church
They were not all indicated to be imminent events, the fall of Jerusalem and the 2nd Coming. Rather, they were merely indicated they would all be fulfilled in the "last hour," using that term idiomatically.
The NT age is a single unit, and being that it was the final step in God's redemptive program, it is indicated to be the next, last, and smaller unit of time than all previous units of time taken as one. Compared to all of history, the current Christian age is a smaller unit of time.
If world history is depicted as a single "day," then the NT era of Christian redemption is the "last hour" of that "day." It is the final period of waiting for Israel's redemption and for the redemption of the whole world.
X said:
Luke 21:31 31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.
Matthew 24:33 33So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door.
I said:
Jesus' revealed himself in judgment in 70 AD, but it was *not* his 2nd Coming. The coming of judgment is commonly referred to as the "Day of the Lord" in the prophetic Scriptures.
Unfortunately, people read "eschatological fulfillment" every time they read of the "coming of God" or of a "day of judgment" in the prophetic Scriptures. There are "days of God" and "days of great judgment" taking place in history. The final one, however, will be eschatological, and we have to differentiate between these things.
Here are a couple examples of what often are viewed as eschatological, when they are actually to be understood as historical...
Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything."
This took place in 70 AD, when the Roman Army was coming, and the Jews had to come down off of their rooftops and run for the hills. It was not the 2nd Coming, even if it sounds like it.
Rev 2.15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Jesus portrays himself as "coming" to the Nicolaitans of John's time. It was not the 2nd Coming!
Rev 3.10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.
Pretribulationists like to view this "hour of trial" as the period of Antichrist's Reign. But it actually refers to the time in which the Philadelphians lived, which was ini John's time. The Roman world at that time went through a period of trial, from which this particular church was mercifully excluded.
X said:
I agree nearness can mean close in distance or time based on the context. However, I completely disagree that near can mean its polar opposite in a “metaphorical” way. Such is nonsensical and more akin to philosophical gymnastics to foist a certain traditions. God can, through the prophets, tell us when things are literally far away, like Daniel 8, so no need to change the meanings of words.
I said:
You can make that determination if you want. It may be debatable whether an "hour" can convey something different from a literal 60 minute segment, and as such be considered "metaphorical."
Perhaps I should've used the word "idiom." It may depend on how an author wishes to use the word "hour," to convey a unit of time other than a 60 minute segment. The "last hour," in my view, can convey the entire NT period as a single unit of time, used idiomatically.
X said:
In regards to the “last hour”, the context is the Antichrist, NOT spatial access to Christ. —> many Antichrists had come and had gone out from the church, that’s how they knew it was the last hour. So I completely disagree with your interpretation.
I said:
Yes, and I disagree with your characterization that the "last hour" is in reference to the eschatological Antichrist. The passage says, frankly, that an entire era is being covered, from the then-current time when various antichrists proliferated to the eschatological period when THE Antichrist would appear.
If John was suggesting that it would all take place in a single hour, that would be absurd--as I said, this is an idiomatic usage of the words "last hour." It did not all take place within 60 minutes.
So, we have to decide, based on the context, whether John is speaking of an extended age, or suggesting that he thinks it will all take place imminently, both the appearance of many antichrists, and the appearance of THE Antichrist. If it was the latter, than obviously, John was wrong.
X said:
The fig tree parable pointed to that when the events of the Olivet discourse were happening then they would know the coming of the son of man/ kingdom of God was near (luke 21:30-31) in time, NOT spatial distance.
I said:
As I said, the Birth Pain signs, and the Fig Tree parable, all spoke of the 70 AD event of Israel's judgment *in that generation.* That was a day in which Christ would be revealed *in the judgment,* but it was not the day of Christ's Return. The Fig Tree parable, therefore, was *not* indicating that Christ's 2nd Coming was as imminent as the 70 AD judgment.
Some of the signs that were to take place in Jesus' generation continued on throughout the age. For example, the preaching of the Gospel reached out to the Roman world in that day, but has continued throughout the NT age. The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD has led to an age-long Jewish Diaspora that was not limited to the 1st generation of the Church
They were not all indicated to be imminent events, the fall of Jerusalem and the 2nd Coming. Rather, they were merely indicated they would all be fulfilled in the "last hour," using that term idiomatically.
The NT age is a single unit, and being that it was the final step in God's redemptive program, it is indicated to be the next, last, and smaller unit of time than all previous units of time taken as one. Compared to all of history, the current Christian age is a smaller unit of time.
If world history is depicted as a single "day," then the NT era of Christian redemption is the "last hour" of that "day." It is the final period of waiting for Israel's redemption and for the redemption of the whole world.
X said:
Luke 21:31 31So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.
Matthew 24:33 33So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door.
I said:
Jesus' revealed himself in judgment in 70 AD, but it was *not* his 2nd Coming. The coming of judgment is commonly referred to as the "Day of the Lord" in the prophetic Scriptures.
Unfortunately, people read "eschatological fulfillment" every time they read of the "coming of God" or of a "day of judgment" in the prophetic Scriptures. There are "days of God" and "days of great judgment" taking place in history. The final one, however, will be eschatological, and we have to differentiate between these things.
Here are a couple examples of what often are viewed as eschatological, when they are actually to be understood as historical...
Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything."
This took place in 70 AD, when the Roman Army was coming, and the Jews had to come down off of their rooftops and run for the hills. It was not the 2nd Coming, even if it sounds like it.
Rev 2.15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Jesus portrays himself as "coming" to the Nicolaitans of John's time. It was not the 2nd Coming!
Rev 3.10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.
Pretribulationists like to view this "hour of trial" as the period of Antichrist's Reign. But it actually refers to the time in which the Philadelphians lived, which was ini John's time. The Roman world at that time went through a period of trial, from which this particular church was mercifully excluded.