Understanding apocalyptic language...

[Drew]

An apocalypse (Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis; "lifting of the veil" or "revelation") is a disclosure of something hidden. To pretend that it doesn't reveal something and must be regarded as poetic language style and dismissed is silly.

Strawman. No one is suggesting what you are asserting. Both SC and I believe that the apocalyptic language deals with "something hidden" and is indeed prophetic. But one cannot simply assume that was "future" at the time it was written, still remains in the future - the prophecy could have been fulfilled in the interim.

In short, when Jesus prophecied destruction of the temple, and the end of the age, those events indeed lay in the future from the perspective of Jesus and His audience.

But, I suggest, those prophecies were fulfilled in the first century.

And, as per my posts, I do indeed believe that some prophecies, such as 1 cor 15 , still remain unfulfilled.

I have thoughts on answering SC's position on 1 Cor 15 - I will write the relevent post when I can.

 

[Drew]

Can you please provide a little more detail. What do you mean by -- "rapture" event as commonly understood? What do you mean by 'commonly understood' And what part of Matt 24 do you think is yet future?

Actually, I wish to revise my position. I believe that everything in Matthew 24 has already been fulfilled (and was fulfilled in the first century). I can explain at a more fine-grained level, but not in this post.......

 

[zeke]

Well, I am a "partial futurist". I think its clear that my position lies between that of SC and that of others like you and zinc.

Please tell me what you perceive my position to be regarding "futurist" doctrine. I think you may misunderstand what I believe.

However, I entirely embrace SC's argument re "apocolyptic language" and I suggest that a misreading of the such language - taking it too literally - is behind what I see as the error of the futurist who sees, for example, all of Matthew 24 as lying in the future.

Again I ask - who on this thread is taking "apocalyptic language" "too literally" or is this simply rhetoric? Please be specific.

I have noted before that in the “Olivet Discourse†(Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), Jesus was asked three separate questions. Stormcrow’s confusion is based on his misunderstanding of those questions. Do you agree there were three questions asked? Two related to events that took place up to and including 70 AD and one question regarding a yet future "second coming" of the Lord?

1. When will these things be? (Matt, Luke, Mark)
2. What will be the sign these things are about to take place? (Luke, Mark)
3. What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? (Matthew)​

I am a "partial futurist" in your parlance?

 

[Zinc]

1. Rapture: I believe there will be no "rapture" event as commonly understood. The texts that "futurists" have taken to refer to a physical rapture actually denote events back in the first century;

If you're talking about a pre-trib rapture, then key texts would include 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15.

 

[zeke]

Actually, I wish to revise my position. I believe that everything in Matthew 24 has already been fulfilled (and was fulfilled in the first century). I can explain at a more fine-grained level, but not in this post.......

Really? Do you really believe Matt 24:36 (the second coming, end of the world and final judgement) was fulfilled in 70 AD?

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
(Mat 24:36 NKJV)​

The idea is really involved in the words “but the Father only†(ei mē ho patēr monos). It is equally clear that in this verse Jesus has in mind the time of his second coming. He had plainly stated in Mat_24:34 that those events (destruction of Jerusalem) would take place in that generation. He now as pointedly states that no one but the Father knows the day or the hour when these things (the second coming and the end of the world) will come to pass. The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (Mat_24:44) ~ WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (Robertson)​

 

[Zinc]

LOL! OK. Whatever you say. Ignore the obvious meaning of every Old Testament prophet when they say things like, "Woe to Babylon! Woe to Edom! Woe to Egypt! Woe to Jerusalem!"

Competely fails to address the issue. You have given no real response to the fact that the material clearly linked with the Matt 24:30-31 section describes a different type of judgement to judgement on a city.

Even Jesus said this:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! "Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" Luke 13:34-35 (NASB)

He prophesied against a city full of people that was going to be destroyed!

Even futurists would accept that the New Testament does speak about judgement on Jerusalem/the temple, in certain texts.

The issue is what is being talked about in the Matt. 24:30-31 section.

 

[zeke]

The issue is what is being talked about in the Matt. 24:30-31 section.

Would you agree with Barnes - is it possible that "the sign of the Son of man" (Matthew 24:30) has a double reference to (1) Christ's coming to destroy the city of Jerusalem and (2) His coming at the yet future "day of judgment" at the 'second coming of Christ?

Matthew 24:30

The sign of the Son of man - The “evidence” that he is coming to destroy the city of Jerusalem. It is not to be denied, however, that this description is applicable also to his coming at the day of judgment. The disciples had asked him Mat_24:3 what should be the sign of his coming, and “of the end of the world.” In his answer he has reference to both events, and his language may be regarded as descriptive of both. At the destruction of Jerusalem, the sign or evidence of his coming was found in the fulfillment of these predictions. At the end of the world, the sign of his coming will be his personal approach with the glory of his Father and the holy angels, 1Th_4:16; Luk_21:27; Mat_26:64; Act_1:11. (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible)​

 

[Zinc]

The church fathers? Ever read Eusebius, for example?

Let me quote him for you:


"We see in part, indeed, now with our own eyes the fulfilment of the holy oracles as to the first Epiphany of our Saviour to man. May it be seen completely as well in His second glorious Advent, when all nations shall see His glory, and when He comes in the heavens with power and great glory."


"The prophecies about the Christ should be divided, as our investigation of the facts shews, into two classes: the first which are the more human and gloomy will be agreed to have been fulfilled at His first Coming, the second the more glorious and divine even now await His second Coming for their fulfilment."

(Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VI, Chapter 25 and Book IV, Chapter 16.)

So:

(a) Eusebius was looking for a future 2nd coming.
(b) Eusebius seems to connect Matt. 24:30 with that future 2nd coming. (Compare the language.)

That doesn't fit with either full preterism or even partial preterism.

Again I ask:

If your position were so obviously correct, why would it need hundreds and hundreds of years before anyone invented it?

 

[Zinc]

there is a wealth of evidence to support the view that such "end of the world" language is used by Bible authors to denote a significant change in the socio-political order, or some other significant "non end of the world" event.

Would you say that the language was used for "local judgements"?

 

[Sparkey]

Strawman.

I provided the definition of the word apocalypse, you quoted the definition and said, "Strawman!"

Lol, that's almost funny. When someone take the words of the bible such as, "The sun shall be darkened," or other things that reveal hidden eschatological events and say, "that's only metaphor," or "that's 'prophetic' language and it doesn't mean what it says, anybody who thinks it does is a literalist and demands too much from the word of God..." ----how is that a "strawman"? Where is the straw? Where have I constructed something that everybody in the thread isn't familiar with?

Take that lie back.

Oh, and nice trick, truncating the post with your false analysis "strawman" so that it appears that you've replied to what I've said.

Revelation 20:6 says, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

The arch adversary, (called the 'dragon' and 'the devil' and 'satan') will be bound for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:2) Revelation 20:6 speaks of a resurrection of the dead at the return of Christ. So does the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:22-26 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." Paul then quickly brings his argument to its final conclusion by saying, " Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

1st Corintihans 15 contains some very potent prophecy especially in verse 26: "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

An apocalypse (Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis; "lifting of the veil" or "revelation") is a disclosure of something hidden.

 

[Zinc]

Here are some examples of where I believe the "futurist" position is mistaken. Now, if I misrepresent the "futurist" position, please let me know:

1. Rapture: I believe there will be no "rapture" event as commonly understood. The texts that "futurists" have taken to refer to a physical rapture actually denote events back in the first century;

If you're talking about a pre-trib rapture, then key texts would include 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15.

You presumably don't say those verses were first century?

 

[Stormcrow]

Let me quote him for you:


"We see in part, indeed, now with our own eyes the fulfilment of the holy oracles as to the first Epiphany of our Saviour to man. May it be seen completely as well in His second glorious Advent, when all nations shall see His glory, and when He comes in the heavens with power and great glory."


"The prophecies about the Christ should be divided, as our investigation of the facts shews, into two classes: the first which are the more human and gloomy will be agreed to have been fulfilled at His first Coming, the second the more glorious and divine even now await His second Coming for their fulfilment."

(Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VI, Chapter 25 and Book IV, Chapter 16.)

So:

(a) Eusebius was looking for a future 2nd coming.
(b) Eusebius seems to connect Matt. 24:30 with that future 2nd coming. (Compare the language.)

That doesn't fit with either full preterism or even partial preterism.

Again I ask:

If your position were so obviously correct, why would it need hundreds and hundreds of years before anyone invented it?

Come to think of it, it doesn't really matter what the church fathers of the second, third, and fourth century thought. What matters is what Christ told the disciples and what they - in turn - believed and taught their churches, as expressed in the letters we have.

`And I confess this to thee, that, according to the way that they call a sect, so serve I the God of the fathers, believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written, having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; Acts 24:14-15 (YLT)

People need to rethink their eschatology in light of what the apostles taught, not try to squeeze the apostles' writings into a doctrinal box of their own making.

 

[Stormcrow]

I believe that Jesus will return again, and at that time the dead will be raised.

This verse was brought to my attention in another post, so I'm cross posting it here:

`And I confess this to thee, that, according to the way that they call a sect, so serve I the God of the fathers, believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written, having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; Acts 24:14-15 (YLT)

Hmmm...never saw this in any other translation except Young's Literal. Here it is from another literal translation and the Greek:

Acts 24:15:

hope Having toward God, which also themselves these admit, a resurrection being [Strong's 3195] about to be of {the} dead, of righteous {ones}, both and unrighteous {ones}.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Greek NASB Number: 3195[/FONT]
Greek Word: μέλλω
Transliterated Word: mellô
Root: a prim. vb.;

Definition: to be about to:--

New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications, 1998), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "3195".

This word Greek word “melloâ€, which means “to be about toâ€, is also used in Matthew 2:13:

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.†Matthew 2:13 (ESV)

It's also used in Matthew 17:22:

As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, Matthew 17:22 (ESV)

It's also used twice in Revelation 2:10:

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. Revelation 2:10 (ESV)

In each of these cases (and others) the Greek word “mello†connotes imminence or immediacy: things that are about to happen as in soon or events that are “at hand.â€

Since Paul clearly believed and defended himself before Felix with this idea that the resurrection of the just and the unjust was about to happen, shouldn't that cause people to rethink their own understanding of passages from 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4?

I'll only add here that nothing in the New Testament was written to us. It was preserved for us - in part - so errors like Futurism and Dispensationalism could be corrected.

 

[Stormcrow]

Following up on the Greek word "mello" ("being about to"), here are a number of verses where the word is used to mean imminence; something about to happen:

• But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They *said to Him, "We are able." Matthew 20:22 (NASB)
• And a centurion's slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. Luke 7:2 (NASB)
• And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Luke 9:30-31 (NASB)
• So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. Luke 19:4 (NASB)
• So Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death," to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die. John 18:31-32 (NASB)
• When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. Acts 3:3 (NASB)
• On the very night when Herod was about to bring him forward, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and guards in front of the door were watching over the prison. Acts 12:6 (NASB)
• But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you; Acts 18:14 (NASB)
• And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. Acts 20:3 (NASB)

There are many, many more examples of this word's usage, but here's the point I want to make about the false teaching of Futurism and why it's so difficult to overcome even with the truth. Look at the following two verses from the following translations, where this word "mello" is also used, and notice how the translators did not apply the interpretation of it consistently. Notice also how their inconsistent translation of this word changes the meaning of the verse significantly:

having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. Acts 24:15 (NASB)

And I have a hope in God, which these men themselves also accept, that there is going to be a resurrection, both of the righteous and the unrighteous. Acts 24:15 (HCSB)

And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. Acts 24:15 (KJV)

I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. Acts 24:15 (NKJV)

having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Acts 24:15 (ASV)

Now, look at the same verse again from Young's Literal Translation:

having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; Acts 24:15 (YLT)

Translators from King James to the present have purposely mistranslated this word "mello" to mean something other than what it means in every other use of the word in the New Testament!

These translators have also mistranslated "mello" here!

I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 Timothy 4:1 (ASV)

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Timothy 4:1 (NASB)

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)

I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge the living and the dead, and because of His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Timothy 4:1 (HCSB)

Now, look at this verse from Young's Literal!

I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation and his reign-- 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT)

Again, look at the way translators translated the word "mello" in the first series of verses I provided (from the gospels and Acts), then look at the way they translated this word in Acts 24:15 and 2Timothy 4:1!!! THEIR MISTRANSLATION CHANGES THE WHOLE MEANING OF THESE VERSES!!!

Only Young's Literal is consistent with his translation of the word "mello" in every case where it is used!

This is clearly a case where a mistranslation of a single word changes the entire meaning of a verse and, for that reason, allows error to persist in the understanding of what the apostles were trying to convey!

I wonder how many other verses have been so mishandled by translators? This really does make me quite angry, because it explains why it feels like I had been lied to in church all these years about Christ's second coming! This is the kind of thing that gives the Bible a bad name and - quite frankly - I can't blame non-Christians for believing it's full of lies, myths and fairy tales: I just exposed one!

Shame on those who are not intellectually honest enough to allow the Bible to speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may!

 

[Stormcrow]

Just a quick follow up on the last post explaining the difference in the way "mello" has been handled:

"I will come to dinner." (This is the way translators translated "mello" in Acts 24:15 and 2 Timothy 4:1).

"I am about to come to dinner." (This is the way they translated this same word "mello" everywhere else in the New Testament!)

The first translation conveys no sense of time, only purpose. The second conveys both purpose and time (imminence)!

When you strip timeliness out of the word, all that's left is purpose thus changing the entire meaning of the text. It's a dishonest way to interpret the Greek!

 

[Zinc]

Come to think of it, it doesn't really matter what the church fathers of the second, third, and fourth century thought.

So: If your position were so obviously correct, why would it need hundreds and hundreds of years before anyone invented it?

 

[Stormcrow]

Took hundreds of years to figure out the earth wasn't flat, too. I can't address the failure of other generations to recognize truth.

(In other words, it's is a ridiculous argument.)

 

[Zinc]

Took hundreds of years to figure out the earth wasn't flat, too. I can't address the failure of other generations to recognize truth.

(In other words, it's is a ridiculous argument.)

Completely different things mate. The shape of the earth is not the same kind of issue as how you read a text.

 

[Man-After-God]

=

This is clearly a case where a mistranslation of a single word changes the entire meaning of a verse and, for that reason, allows error to persist in the understanding of what the apostles were trying to convey!

I wonder how many other verses have been so mishandled by translators? This really does make me quite angry, because it explains why it feels like I had been lied to in church all these years about Christ's second coming! This is the kind of thing that gives the Bible a bad name and - quite frankly - I can't blame non-Christians for believing it's full of lies, myths and fairy tales: I just exposed one!

Shame on those who are not intellectually honest enough to allow the Bible to speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may!

SC, maybe I am not understanding you correctly, if I am wrong please let me know. Are you saying that we have no "correct" translation of the Scripture in English, that coveys and interprets the writings of those who originally wrote the Scriptures?
If the Bible (depending on translation) is wrong or contradicts itself, why should "you" believe it?
What translation do you suggest is the "purest" translation?

Please don't take my question the wrong way, I just want to understand what you are saying.

 

[MithrandirOlorin]

The Abomination of Desolation didn't happen then, it's yet future, Period.