Our initial blog posts have generated some interesting and provocative questions. We take this opportunity to address a few of them.
We plan to answer future questions on an as-needed basis. Please submit your questions in the comment section at the end of each blog post.
Index:
Why focus on AD 70?
Is not Christ central to the gospel?
Why book reviews?
Too narrow definition of parousia?
Why focus on AD 70?
Q. Why do you focus so much attention on the destruction of the Temple in AD 70?
A. Our current emphasis is the natural result of the building plan for our prophetic model. We documented in an earlier post why we are beginning in the New Testament rather than the Old. Further, the Olivet Discourse presents the most desirable New Testament starting point. Jesus immediately introduces the destruction of the Temple as his subject (e.g., Matthew 24:1–2). We must follow his lead. The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 will play a prominent role in this phase of our work.
The emphasis on AD 70 will subside after we establish the outline of our prophetic model in the Olivet Discourse. Other passages, dealing with other subjects, will supply necessary details. One can see a preview of how this will work in our He Must Reign and Hooray for Big Government! posts.
However, events associated with the destruction of the Temple will remain an important part of our project. We believe the existing prophetic models under-emphasize this significant event. We wish to offer a counter-balance to this situation.
Our situation is similar to that faced by Arthur W. Pink when he published The Sovereignty of God. After readers described his treatment as “too extreme and one-sided,” Pink said, “It has been pointed out that a fundamental requirement in expounding the Word of God is the need of preserving the balance of Truth.”1 Pink believed writers of his day had exalted the responsibility of man beyond its proper place in scripture. He intended his concentration on God’s sovereignty to help his readers maintain a healthy “balance of Truth.”
The events of AD 70 are a stepping stone to our goal—a simple, intuitive, and biblically accurate model for understanding prophecy. And even that is not our ultimate aim.
We want to go further. The prophetic model will help us better understand the works and attributes of our God and of his Christ. It will provide context for His commandments and, therefore, for our obedience. Our prayer “thy kingdom come,” for example, will take on richer meaning as our knowledge that kingdom deepens. His glory is our ultimate destination.
Is not Christ central to the gospel?
Q. You say the kingdom of God should be the central element of our message to the modern world. Why do you not place Christ at the core of your message?
A. We do not face an either/or dilemma here, forcing us to either preach the kingdom or preach Christ as our central message. To preach one is to preach the other. Our proclamation of the kingdom requires preaching about the King. Preaching Christ includes declaring him to be the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15; cp. Revelation 17:14; 19:16).
The gospel’s King reigns over a kingdom; the two are inseparable. We read, therefore, how Philip preached “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). We cannot separate the kingdom of God from the name of Christ.
To further emphasize the centrality of the kingdom, we observe how John the Baptist from the first preached repentance associated with the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 3:2). Jesus immediately followed suit (Matthew 4:17) and later “went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matthew 9:35).
Paul summarized his own ministry this way. He went among the Ephesians “preaching the kingdom of God” (Acts 20:25). Near the end of his labors, “Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:30–31).
To preach the kingdom as the central element of our message requires that we focus on “things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ” as did the apostles and our Lord himself. Our task is to preach both the kingdom and the King, not one or the other.
Why book reviews?
Q. How do book reviews contribute to the mission of your blog?
A. The task before us—building an improved prophetic model—is immense. Our blog cannot provide a thorough examination of all related topics. Book (and other) reviews will supplement our efforts.
Some reviews will point to content that can, at some point, contribute to our model. The soon-to-be-expanded review of “The Gog and Magog End-Time Alliance” exemplifies this. After building the model in the New Testament, we plan to show its suitability to Old Testament prophecies. This book will help with some thorny issues as we attempt to apply our model to Ezekiel.
Other reviews will alert readers to other significant efforts to explain prophecy. Sam Storms’ book, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, makes a well-reasoned case for one prophetic model. Comparisons of Storms’ explanations to those contained in this blog will help our readers make informed decisions.
An occasional warning will make its way into our reviews. The enemies of God’s kingdom produce prophetic material that is at once attractive and dangerous. This outlet will allow us to raise our voice against prophetic error.
We want our readers to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18) through God’s prophetic word. We wish to direct our readers to materials that will help them do so.
Too narrow definition of parousia?
Q. The lexicons and dictionaries list other meanings of parousia other than “presence.” Isn’t your definition too narrow?
A. The limitations of a blog posting assert themselves with a vengeance in questions like this. A thorough investigation of this single noun would require a large volume. What can one hope to do in a limited blog post?
Yes, authorities give definitions other than “presence.” These include “coming,” “arrival,” “advent,” “appearing,” “visit,” “manifestation,” etc. Our statements about this word in The Parousia of Christ and the Destruction of the Temple explained how it functions in the Olivet Discourse. Some of the meanings assigned to parousia fit the context, others do not.
The English word “presence” incorporates several of the assigned meanings into a single term. A “presence” requires an “arrival.” A person’s “presence” implies a “visit.” Parousia is a broad Greek word and the English word “presence” matches it well.
That most authorities list “presence” as the first meaning of parousia supports our position. These authorities include the following abbreviated list: G. Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament; William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed.; Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament; Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology; Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament; and many, many more.
Some of the modern translations of the Scriptures recognize this definition and prefer “presence” as the proper way to translate parousia. The McReynolds English Interlinear, for example, takes a literal approach to translation. It supplies “presence” for every occurrence of parousia in the New Testament.
The authorities also make certain observations that enhance our position regarding parousia‘s meaning. For example, one writes “the RV marginal note (Gr. ‘Presence’) would suggest that the idea of ‘motion towards’ is to be excluded.”2 If this marginal note is accurate, it rules out the common idea that parousia means “coming” and nothing more.
Along this line, Cremer observes that we can only “apply the name of [parousia] to the second advent” at the end of the Messianic age by not applying its full force (i.e., “presence”). He adds, “It is not easy to explain how the term came to be used in this sense.”3
Our purpose in this blog is to construct a prophetic framework directly from Scripture. We have started this project in the Olivet Discourse. Nothing in that context forces us to understand parousia in other than its primary and well-attested sense of “presence.”
This definition also allows us to incorporate other information found throughout Scriptures into our prophetic model. The “presence” of Christ with his church will continue throughout the Messianic age. At the end of Christ’s kingdom “presence” (i.e., his parousia), God will raise the dead in the resurrection, judge all men, completely remove sin from his creation, and establish the eternal state (Cp. 1 Corinthians 15).
Footnotes
- Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 9.
- Wilbert Francis Howard and James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) V2, 320.
- Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, trans. William Urwick (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 238.