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.
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.
A 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.
7 comments
[Glenn included Romans 11:25–27 here.]
Greetings again, Mike! Beyond my earlier comments (and questions for you concerning Matthew 24), I have two more questions here, arising from these verses in Romans 11:
1. When has, or will, the fullness of the Gentiles come in? (i.e., Did “the fullness of the Gentiles come in” by A.D. 70? How would you substantiate from Scripture that this happened in its full completion by that time, rather than is yet to be complete, at a time yet in the future? It appears that Paul is speaking here of the coming in of the Gentiles during the “present” New Covenant age, such as Jesus speaks of in John 10:16 when He says that He “must bring” “other sheep” into His fold, and make the Jews and Gentiles together into “one flock” (cf. Eph. 2:15 – “one new man”), with “one Shepherd” over both. Very significantly, His doing this is something which will be ongoing over the centuries up until His return for His saints — which, of course, is yet future.)
2. When will all Israel be saved, in relation to “the remnant according to the election of grace,” which is “at this present time” (v. 5)? It is clear that the coming time which Paul speaks of, of all Israel being saved, is distinct from “this present time” in which only “a remnant” is being saved, according to the election of grace. The Scripture says that Israel’s blindness will be “in part” at the present, but at some time in the future “all Israel will be saved.” The contrast set forth in the verses is between only some (“in part”) now, and “all” in the future. This teaching is in keeping then with how the Lord Jesus “will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom” (II Tim. 4:1; cf. Acts 1:6). This most certainly did not occur at A.D. 70!
Greetings to you, Brother Glenn!
My response to your earlier comments apply here, too. Your statements are only true if certain of your assumptions are true. Statements like “of course, [this] is yet future” are only true of your assumptions about that thing prove correct. We are not yet ready, in our blog posts, to test your hypotheses.
God revealed truth to us in this order: prophets —> Christ —> apostles. We should build our prophetic model(s) with this in mind. Christ builds on the prophets and the apostles build on his teachings. Regarding prophecy, this means they constructed their epistles in light of the Olivet Discourse. We should, therefore, interpret the epistles in light of the Olivet Discourse, not the other way around.
We can establish a prophetic foundation from the Olivet Discourse using the language of the prophets as our guide. Once we complete that work, we will be in a better position to interpret Romans 11. To appeal to Paul at this point is premature.
I will make one comment regarding your observation on Romans 11:5. You are correct, “the coming time which Paul speaks of, of all Israel being saved, is distinct from ‘this present time’ in which only ‘a remnant’ is being saved, according to the election of grace.” Paul wrote these words during the transition period between the old and new covenants. These were the “last days” of the Mosaic age. This was Paul’s “present time.” For him, “the coming time” (to use your words) was the Messianic age. This age would begin once the Temple fell, ending the Mosaic age.
I will delay further responses to your comments on the epistles until we have established our basic prophetic model in the Olivet Discourse. This will tell us how to interpret the prophetic statements in the epistles.
I desire your feedback about the blog posts themselves. Please let me know where my logic is faulty, or I’ve misinterpreted Scripture, etc. in what I have written to this point. That would be more valuable that asking questions about how to interpret statements in the epistles before we finish the model!
Yours in Christ,
Mike
Brother Glenn,
Giving more thought to your previous questions has made me wish I had responded in a different manner. Failing to give specific answers to them does not encourage the hoped-for dialog related to an improved prophetic model. You and other readers deserve something more than a “now is not the time” reply.
To provide something more, I plan to develop a page on the blog that shows the entire prophetic model we are building. This will be a “spoiler” page of sorts. I had planned to allow the process to lead us to the final produce one step at a time. I now believe the advantages of the providing the entire model on the front end outweigh the “spoiler” disadvantages. Readers will know where we going.
Also, once this reference page is in place, I can refer to it as I make a brief response to questions like yours from Romans 11. Lengthy responses to questions beyond the material we have covered in previous blog posts would be counterproductive. The brief answers will come, however, with a promise to provide more detail as we develop our model. In the meantime, I hope a short answer will be more acceptable than none.
I have not yet designed this overview page. It will, for sure, contain a graphic depiction of the model and list major highlights of its distinguishing features. I may also provide a brief description of the other prophetic models for comparative purposes.
So, please give me some time to develop that page. We can then revisit your questions from Romans 11.
Yours in Christ,
Mike
I have a question about the “parousia”. I understand that this word primarily means presence. But what about the multiple references where Jesus Christ uses the word “erchomai”? There are four references in Revelation 22 alone where Jesus says ‘I come quickly”. I counted briefly, and saw at least 9 other times where Jesus Christ himself says that he is coming. Six of these instances are found in the various parallels of the Olivet Discourse – “…shall see the Son of Man coming…”, “…for ye know not hour your Lord doth come…”, “When the Son of Man shall come in his glory…” I am thinking that your framework says that this coming which Jesus Christ speaks of occurred when Jesus Christ came in judgment of the nation of Israel in 70 A.D. However, that leaves some question in my mind regarding John 14:3 “…I will come and receive you unto myself…”, speaking to His disciples. I wonder if you might enlighten me as to your viewpoint regarding this, or directing me to the appropriate blog entry where this is addressed. I am honestly trying to keep up with the blog, but I may have missed it somewhere.
Thank you for the question and for your Berean spirit. I believe you understand the framework we have developed to this point in the Olivet Discourse.
When Jesus used erchomai, he often meant his “coming” in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70, but not always. John 14:1–3 may be an example of the latter.
There is an indirect connection, however, between Christ’s erchomai in John 14:3 and his erchomai in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:30, for example). To see this, we need to recognize that the OT prophets spoke many times about the “dwellings” and “places” God would establish for his people during the Messianic age (or parousia). Here are a few:
With this in mind, let me summarize the Lord’s words in John 14. These thoughts will, of necessity, make assumptions about parts of the prophetic model we have not yet established.
Jesus told his disciples about the coming destruction of the Temple just two days before John 14. They knew, therefore, that their world was about to collapse. In John 14:1–3, the Lord assures them he would prepare places—those of which the prophets spoke—for them to dwell after the Temple fell. He would soon leave them after his crucifixion and resurrection. But, he would “come again” (erchomai) to receive them into their Messianic-age habitations. (Note how the words “that where I am, there ye may be also” well describe the “presence” of Christ with his people during the Messianic age.”)
In the coming age, God would dwell with his people in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Ezekiel 37:24–28; Hebrews 8:8–13; 10:9–10). Jesus spoke to them of how they would dwell thus with the Father (John 14:4–14).
Jesus had told the disciples he would come (erchomai) to destroy the Temple—and end the Mosaic age— in that generation (Matthew 24:30, 34). In the meantime, he would come (erchomai) to dwell with them in the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15–31). We could paraphrase and say he would usher them through the transition period and into their dwelling places in the new age.
This illustrates how the Messianic age “invaded” the “last days” (Hebrews 1:2) of the Mosaic age. What God established through Christ and the Holy Spirit in that generation continued into the Messianic age. Still, that was a transitional state. God designed the Messianic age to remain after the Mosaic age ended. It would include the “many mansions” and “place” in which God’s people would dwell. That age did not arrive in its fulness until the Temple fell.
To complete the story, Jesus will forever be present with his people. He will deliver a successful kingdom up to the Father at the end of the Messianic age (1 Corinthians 15:24f). We will then enter the eternal state, still “in the presence” of our Lord.
Thank you, again, for the question. I hope my answer has at least shed light on how this passage fits in our prophetic model. Please continue to search the Scriptures to see if these things are true. I would appreciate any further feedback you might wish to give.
Good morning. Thanks for the reply to the question. I would say that other prophetic models assume that when Jesus Christ says “I go to prepare a place for you..”, they assume that he is preparing a place for them in heaven. I was thinking that this phrase “I will come again and receive you…” might in some way be connected to “And he will send out his angels…and they will gather his elect…” The difficulty I have there is when Jesus Christ says he is going to do something, it is not the same as his sending out his angels to do something for him. The basis of Hebrews 1-2 makes this distinction. The tie between John 14:1-3 and John 14:15-31 is helpful.
I understand the difficulty we encounter by equating Jesus’ receiving his people in John 14:3 with the gathering of his elect in Matthew 24:31. Jesus would do the receiving himself, but use agents in the gathering.
Could the problem be more apparent than real? Is this a classic “either/or” problem—either Jesus receives his people himself, or his angles gather the elect?
The Scriptures provide many accounts of God doing certain acts himself although he performed them through agents. We might call this “both/and” language. Perhaps his “receiving” and his “gathering” fall into this category.
Let us consider just two examples of “both/and” activity. We saw one in our “A Parting of the Ways” post. Isaiah described the future invasion of Babylon by hostile armies: “They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land” (Isaiah 13:5). John Gill said this referred to
God himself, “even the Lord,” came into Babylon, but he did so through his agents, Media-Persian armies. Both statements are true.
David’s numbering of Israel provides another example of “both/and” actions. God “moved David” to number the people (2 Samuel 24:1). How then can we read that “Satan . . . provoked David to number Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1)? Both God and Satan did the same act! God was the first cause; Satan the agent.
Perhaps the same is true in our example of “receiving” and “gathering”: Jesus “receives” his people and his angles—as his agents—gather the elect.
OT prophecies of this gathering increase the likelihood of this being the case. The Messiah himself would gather the elect: “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young” (Isaiah 40:11). John Gill says Isaiah spoke of God’s flock: “these he gathers with his arm of power, and by the ministry of the Gospel, both to himself, his person, righteousness, grace and fullness, and to his church, to partake of the word and ordinances of it, and to nearer communion with him in them” (Commentary, in loc.).
Perhaps, since both Messiah and his agents gather the elect, we can understand Jesus’ “receiving” not as an act limited to his immediate person. He can, in absolute truth, “receive” his people to himself and yet use angles to gather them to himself. This is a “both/and” situation, not “either/or.”
This would also maintain the distinction between Christ and the angles in Hebrews. He is far superior to them in every way, yet are they not “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14, NKJV)? As their Superior, Christ sends them to gather the elect and, in this way, receive them to himself.
I would welcome your further reflections on this proposed solution to the difficulty.