Man of Sin, Sitting in the Temple of God

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preach

Puritan Board Sophomore
Andreas,
Hey brother. I don't want you to feel like we're all ganging up on you. I have been observing the thread for some time. About six months ago, I began a serious study of eschatology, to include the millennial positions and also the book of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ".

I think I know somewhat how you feel regarding your questions about Matthew 24. I am a partial preterist. But I can honestly say that I was absolutely clueless (not on the millennial differences) regarding the book of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ". I used to ask the same questions.

I would highly encourage you to get the 22 audio tape series by Ken Gentry on the book of Revelation. But at least go to American Vision and get the Gary Demar 4 audio cassettes volume entitled: "Smoking out the Dispensationalists". Trust me, there is a lot of great info packed in those 8 hours.

For example, read Matthew 21-23 to get the context. Jesus is building up to Matthew 24. He cleanses the Temple because He saw no fruit. He curses the fig tree because He can find no fruit. He gives the parable of the landowner. He says that the kingdom will be taken from the nation of Israel and given to a new nation.

He gives the parable of the marriage feast which ends with the city set on fire (it happened in AD70). He speaks of the 7 woes. He is consistently speaking to them (the second person plural). For example "This generation" in Matt. 23:36, Matt. 11:16, Matt 12:41. In Matt. 23:37-39 the "house" that is referred to is the Temple that was then standing. This background flows nicely into Matt. 24.

Up until now Jesus has not referenced the second coming. The point of reference for the disciples was the Old Testament. And the type of comings of God in the Old Testament were judement comings (ex. Isa. 19:1; 26:21; Micah 1:3). Read Rev. 2:3, 16. These are judgment comings of Christ. Did you know that there are at least five, if not six different types of "comings of Christ" spoken about in the Bible?

Perhaps we could interact point by point regarding Matt. 24. For example, you raised the issue of v. 29 regarding the sun, moon and stars. If I'm not mistaken, that is an allusion to an Old Testament passage. Do you know what passage or verse is being quoted?

What if you were to find out that this is typical language that is used by prophets in the Old Testament? Imagine that prophets had a tool bag. Each time they wanted to say something, they would reach into the tool bag and employ the exact tool for the job.

Our Lord reaches into His tool bag (reaches back into the Old Testament) and uses precise Old Testament language.

Have you ever heard of "deescalation language"? It's when the prophets describe the doom and judgment (the fall of a nation). This is not to be taken literally. Why? Because it was used by the prophets in the Old Testament. These things happened then (when governments and nations were judged or overthrown).

Think about the symbols on the flags of different nations. A sun or a moon is on many nations' flags. And stars represent ascendancy. For example, we often say "her star is rising", if a person is on the ascendancy. We call them "movie stars". Think about Joseph's dream. What symbol represented his father Jacob? I think it was a sun. What about his mother? I think it was the moon. What symbol represented his brothers? I think it was stars. There is specific Old Testament referneces (I have to find the passages) that Christ is alluding to. He uses the exact symbols.

So, we have to interpret Scripture with Scripture. If the Lord Jesus wants to reach back into the Old Testament prophets and use deescalation language to describe a soon coming event, we dare not take it to mean something else.

I hope this gives some light upon some of the background context to Matt. 24 and espec. v. 29.

Perhaps we could take the entire chapter verse by verse.

Brother, for whatever its worth. I know that my understanding on the covenantal aspect of the Scriptures truly broadened when I saw the book of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" open up before my eyes. It is to be seen in a covenantal framework. Christ did "come" in ADA 70 to bring covenantal judgment against His adulterous wife Israel. The Old Covenant system had to be dealt with (animal sacrifices, priests still sacrificing and standing, the Temple etc).

I look forward to interacting. Thanks brother.

"In Christ",
Bobby
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
Bobby all i can is :amen: could not have said it better myself
andreas, look at micah 1:3-4, "Look! the LORD is coming from his dwelling place; he comes down and treads the high places of the earth. the moutains melt beneath him and the valleys split apart"
micah describing the judge that will befall Samaria and Jerusalem for thier sin (see 1:1) did the Lord physically come down to judge them?
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
Matthew 24 is not a prophecy cocerning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD,but a prophecy concerning the end of the world when Christ returns.
andreas.:candle:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
andreas- if you believe that exegetically prove that from the text. i believe that i have given a good case fpr a 70ad fullfillment from the text and also the theme of judgment found in the synoptics.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by andreas
HAS THE SUN BEEN DARKENED?HAS THE MOON STOPPED GIVING HER LIGHT?HAVE THE STARS FALLEN FROM HEAVEN?HAS ANYONE SEEN THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH GREAT POWER AND GLORY?HAVE THE ELECT BEEN GATHERED BY THE ANGELS FROM THE FOUR WINDS?
Andreas,
I agree with you that this hasn't literally (physically) happened yet. A lot of people I know hold your position on this particular part of Matthew 24. They look at the scriptures dispensationally, which I'm fairly certain you don't.

If I'm not mistaken, many of them don't necessarily take the stars as being literal stars, but rather increased meteor activity or something. To me, this doesn't seem to be consistent. Stars to me means stars. If literal stars start falling from heaven, the effects on earth would be catastrophic, especially the closer they get to the earth. What are your thoughts about the stars falling from heaven? Do you correlate the stars falling with what's described in 2 Peter?

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
 

turmeric

Megerator
Originally posted by blhowes
Do you correlate the stars falling with what's described in 2 Peter?

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I do.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by cornelius vantil
why does it have to happen literally (physically) that is not how this imagery was used in the o.t.
I don't think it has to happen literally (physically). I'm just trying to understand Andreas' position.

I've mentioned it before (maybe on this board) that I believe much of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD. I can't answer all the objections, but that's the direction I'm leaning.

I've heard some say that when Jesus was talking with his disciples about the beautiful stones of the temple being thrown down, that he was speaking of something much more spiritually significant than the destruction of the literal temple. It seems, in my mind anyway, to downplay the significance of the destruction of the temple, especially as we transition from the OT to the NT, from the sacrificial system to Jesus' fulfillment of the sacrificial system. In some ways, the temple destruction seems like a pivotal point in history.

:2cents:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
you are right. the destruction of the temple is a key event redemptive-history right along with pentacost. it marked then end of Jewish dispensation. it was the vindication of gospel message rejected by isreal. unfortunatly the eschatalogical implications of this event has been missed by many
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
"it marked then end of Jewish dispensation"

Herminio- could you please clarify what you mean by that?
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by turmeric
Originally posted by blhowes
Do you correlate the stars falling with what's described in 2 Peter?

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I do.
Stars falling towards the earth would certainly cause the elements to melt with fervent heat.

Have you given much thought to what's been said about Jesus using the terms sun, moon, and stars to refer to something that's not literal, from an OT passage? If so, which passage do you (or anybody) think would have the most relevance to what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24? The Genesis 37 passage kind of seems to fit. I wonder if the language used in Rev 12 and Matthew 24 refer to the same OT passage (assuming they do)

Here are the verses I found when I did a search in the OT and the NT:

(Gen 37:9 KJV) And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

(Deu 4:19 KJV) And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

(Psa 148:3 KJV) Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

(Ecc 12:2 KJV) While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:

(Isa 13:10 KJV) For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

(Jer 31:35 KJV) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

(Eze 32:7 KJV) And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

(Joe 2:10 KJV) The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:

(Joe 3:15 KJV) The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.

(Mat 24:29 KJV) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

(Luk 21:25 KJV) And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

(1Co 15:41 KJV) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(Rev 8:12 KJV) And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

(Rev 12:1 KJV) And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by sastark
"it marked then end of Jewish dispensation"

Herminio- could you please clarify what you mean by that?

the "jewish dispensation" is the adminstration of the old covenant with types and shadow (cerimonial rituals)
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Herminio- I'm not trying to jump to conclusions or falsely accuse you, so please realize that I am only trying to clarify what you are saying...

Are you saying that the old covenant was still in place until the desctruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD?
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by sastark
Herminio- I'm not trying to jump to conclusions or falsely accuse you, so please realize that I am only trying to clarify what you are saying...

Are you saying that the old covenant was still in place until the desctruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD?

sastark, the writer of hebrews says the following,

"13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
heb. 8:13

notice that he said that old covenant "will soon disappear". from the writer's perspective he is looking forward to final removing of the old covenant order. this was done in 70ad when the last remnants of that order...the temple with its priesthood and offerings were done away with.
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Here's what Calvin said about that verse:

13. In that he saith, A new, etc. From the fact of one covenant being established, he infers the subversion of the other; and by calling it the old covenant, he assumes that it was to be abrogated; for what is old tends to a decay. Besides, as the new is substituted, it must be that the former has come to an end; for the second, as it has been said, is of another character. But if the whole dispensation of Moses, as far as it was opposed to the dispensation of Christ, has passed away, then the ceremonies also must have ceased.

So, then, in order for the New Covenant to be "new" the old covenant had to be "old".

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is: Do you believe that sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem were an acceptable way to worship God, even after the death and resurrection of Christ?

Again, not trying to jump to conclusions, only trying to clarify.
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by sastark
Here's what Calvin said about that verse:

13. In that he saith, A new, etc. From the fact of one covenant being established, he infers the subversion of the other; and by calling it the old covenant, he assumes that it was to be abrogated; for what is old tends to a decay. Besides, as the new is substituted, it must be that the former has come to an end; for the second, as it has been said, is of another character. But if the whole dispensation of Moses, as far as it was opposed to the dispensation of Christ, has passed away, then the ceremonies also must have ceased.

So, then, in order for the New Covenant to be "new" the old covenant had to be "old".

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is: Do you believe that sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem were an acceptable way to worship God, even after the death and resurrection of Christ?

Again, not trying to jump to conclusions, only trying to clarify.

no no no!!!!! what i am saying is that coming of Christ made those sacrifices "obsolete" (ie they are no longer good or acceptable) but the old covenant did not finally disappear till 70ad. useing the writer of hebrews language. hope that clarifies that
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
So, then, what was going on in the temple between Christ's death and resurrection and 70 AD? If it wasn't acceptable worship of God (which we both agree it was not), then what was it?
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by sastark
So, then, what was going on in the temple between Christ's death and resurrection and 70 AD? If it wasn't acceptable worship of God (which we both agree it was not), then what was it?

well i would say that the time inbetween was a "transition" when the realities of the new covenant were being realized in the covenant community. you see in acts in a few areas..the events surounding conversion of cornelius, jerusalem council, ect. i hope that helps, i am not 100% sure how best to describe that period so i apologize for any vaguness
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Well, what I'm getting at is this: If it wasn't acceptable worship to God, then, Biblically, it could only be one other thing: acursed idolatry. Those priests who were offering sacrifices were not worshipping God, but were instead blaspheming Christ.

So, how is it that Paul would call the place were this blasphemous mockery of the sacrifice of Christ of the cross was occurring, the "temple of God"?
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by sastark
Well, what I'm getting at is this: If it wasn't acceptable worship to God, then, Biblically, it could only be one other thing: acursed idolatry. Those priests who were offering sacrifices were not worshipping God, but were instead blaspheming Christ.

So, how is it that Paul would call the place were this blasphemous mockery of the sacrifice of Christ of the cross was occurring, the "temple of God"?

he was using a term that was understood by the first century reader as refering to the temple. john does the same thing in rev.11 while i agree that those where not at all offering sacrificed accpetable to God in any sence, yet i do not conclude the designation "temple of God" cannot refer to jewish temple Jesus call the temple "my fathers house" yet said it was "desolate" and "den of thieves" i believe the apostles where boring the same theme
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
You assume that that is what the first century reader would understand Pauls meaning to be, but the first century reader would have also read Paul's other works where he clearly states that the Church is the temple of God.

Again, I must emphasize the need to interpret Scripture with Scripture, not the percieved mindset of a first-century Christian.
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
that is why i provided rev.11 and luk.21 as support for my thesis. i have not seen any exegetical response to what i said just the line that since Paul calls the church the "temple" in other places that means he is refering to it here, but you have not compared 2 thes. with the other eschatalogical passages that Paul is alluding to..ie the olivet discourse. i have given exegetical reasons for the conclusion i have made. i realize that i bring assumptions to the text, but we all do that. but i have tried in this thread to show my conclusions from the text themselves and not rely on mere assertions.
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
Quote:"you are right. the destruction of the temple is a key event redemptive-history right along with pentacost. it marked then end of Jewish dispensation."

The end of National Israel as the external corporate representation of the kingdom of God occured on the cross.Before the cross, sacrifices pointed to Jesus,the Lamb,who was sacrificed for our sins.When Jesus was crucified,the veil was rent.Matthew 27:51.The temple was no longer holy,and Jerusalem was no longer a holy city.This was the end of the era of National Israel,at the cross ,not 70 A.D.

andreas.:candle:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
brother form one that constantly says all i do is make assertions, you have not provided and exegetical defense of your claim is the case nor have offered counter exegesis to my work that was posted here. you are right just making statements is not enough, please offer some proof, lets engage the bible
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
Herminio,you tell us that you have proved conclusively that the prophecy of Matthew 24 came to fruition in 70 AD,when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus.(The gospel according to Josephus).That can not be.Verse 27 says,

"For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

In verse 29 to 30 God ,and not Josephus says,

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

These things have not happened.Therefore, it is not a prophecy about 70 AD,but about the end of the world,the second coming of Jesus.

andreas.:candle:
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
Herminio,let us look at Matthew 24,

We are told that the sun is darkened and moon does not give her light and stars fall from heaven.This is judgment day language and the destruction of the universe.,nothing to do with 70 AD.

" And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places".Revelation 6:12-14

andreas.:candle:
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
Bob,

The sun is darkened and the moon does not give her light,suggest end times.The sun and moon regulate time,so when they fail to function,time has finished, and we move into eternity.When there is no more time,the end is here and Jesus has returned.

andreas.:candle:
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
Bob,
Regarding your question on 2 Peter 3:10-13,

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

We again see judgment day language.The old universe has to be destroyed, for it is under the curse of sin.Not only man was cursed but also the universe.We read in Romans 8,"the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain".

Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3,and Revelation 6, all talk judgment day, the end of the world, and the second coming of our Jesus.Nothing to do with 70 AD,or the Josephus gospel.

andreas.:candle:
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by andreas
Bob,
The sun is darkened and the moon does not give her light,suggest end times.The sun and moon regulate time,so when they fail to function,time has finished, and we move into eternity.When there is no more time,the end is here and Jesus has returned.
Andreas,
Thanks for the clarification.

I've never heard that interpretation before, but associating the sun, moon, and stars with time seems like a valid alternative to the literal interpretation.

Gen 1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Its used similarly in the OT, especially in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel. I've not taken the time yet to study those passages closely, perhaps somebody else has. Do these passages all point to the end of time itself just before the judgment, or are they applied to actual historical events in the OT (perhaps both)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top