Is there a preterist gap?

[themuzicman]

I was reading for something else, and noticed Matt 24:29-31, immediately after the tribulation, the Sun will be darkened... And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they wil see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."

I assume all this hasn't happened. Where's the gap?

Michael

[dizzle]

You assume wrong. It happened.

[themuzicman]

His elect were gathered from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other? When? How?

Michael

[dizzle]

Sigh. We are gathered and we are all the way in America.

[themuzicman]

What? :huh::doh:

[dizzle]

Are you not gathered into the Body of Christ?

[Solly]

:popcorn:

[themuzicman]

Are you not gathered into the Body of Christ?


Err... Well... You're saying that people were in the body of Christ before AD 70?

Plus, I've never seen where we are gathered from the four winds into the body. Seems to me that we become a member when we are saved... no "gathering" necessary...

Michael

[dizzle]

Err... Well... You're saying that people were in the body of Christ before AD 70?

Sure they were, and more were gathered.




Plus, I've never seen where we are gathered from the four winds into the body. Seems to me that we become a member when we are saved... no "gathering" necessary...

Michael

Because you have decided what "gathering" must mean and pointed to your assumptions as proof. I do not have my Bible in front of me. Do a word search and find the verse that somethign to the effect of "He came to gather together in one the children who were scattered abroad." Take a look at other gathering analogies and I think you will be illuminated. If the Body is "spiritual" the gathering is spiritual.

[themuzicman]

So, you're saying that the Angels are gathering people (spiritually) into the Body?

[dizzle]

Take a look at the word "angels" as well when you are at it. You do realize that the disciples and other people have been called "angels" - it simply means messengers. When Jerusalem was destroyed - the Church, which still had its headquarters at and was still fixated on, Jersualem was scattered out forcefully. The messengers of Christ have gone from one end of heaven to the other and gathered His elect and still are.

[themuzicman]

Well, in reviewing aggeloV in my lexicon (BDAG pp. 8, column 1), the used of the word in that context refers to "a transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks" and is translated "messenger or angel."

Now, within scriptural language, those sent out are referred to as aposteloV, not aggeloV.

In fact, aggeloV as referring to men only occurs 5 times in the New Testement, John the Baptist's disciples (Lk 9:52 and 7:24), who were sent to prepare a place in a town, and to ask a question of Jesus when JTB was in Jail, and about John the Baptist himself (Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27), who was specific in his mission of being the voice calling out from the desert.

The rest fit into the "transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks" and speaks mainly of angels.

So, aggeloV is not a synonym for kind of role you're describing.

(FYI, I looked up John 11:52. It's temporal context is as vague as this one is.)

Michael

[studyhound]

:popcorn:

[dynomite]

Well, in reviewing aggeloV in my lexicon (BDAG pp. 8, column 1), the used of the word in that context refers to "a transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks" and is translated "messenger or angel."

Now, within scriptural language, those sent out are referred to as aposteloV, not aggeloV.

In fact, aggeloV as referring to men only occurs 5 times in the New Testement, John the Baptist's disciples (Lk 9:52 and 7:24), who were sent to prepare a place in a town, and to ask a question of Jesus when JTB was in Jail, and about John the Baptist himself (Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27), who was specific in his mission of being the voice calling out from the desert.

The rest fit into the "transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks" and speaks mainly of angels.

So, aggeloV is not a synonym for kind of role you're describing.

(FYI, I looked up John 11:52. It's temporal context is as vague as this one is.)

Michael

Hello Michael,

I believe this verse is being fulfilled and this is why: The whole flow of the Olivet Discourse finds its roots in Mt. 23, which inspires the questions in Mt. 24:3. At the end of Mt. 23 Jesus laments over Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your hose is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Who is Jesus talking to in this discourse? The Scribes and the Pharisees (23:2). Now the Pharisees "travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, [they] make him twice as much a child of hell as [they are]." At the end of Mt. 23 those who sat on the seat of Moses were not willing to gather God's people ("how often would I have gathered your children together"), but the Pharisees "would not." [Note: this verse has nothing to do one way or the other with the Calvinism/Arminian debate, but it is appealed to a lot. The simple point is that those that sat on the seat of Moses were not doing their job.] In Mt. 24, however, God will send out his messengers (James 2:25 and the verses you mentioned) to gather (snynagogue) in the elect. This is consistent with the Old Testament revelation, notabley Dt. 30:4, "If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts fo the heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you." There is no reason to believe that this verse is talking about "the resurrection" or "rapture" as much as Jesus is saying how he yearned to "resurrect", "rapture" Jerusalem, but they, the Pharisees, were not willing.

In short, this verse is about the ingathering of God's elect through his messengers.

dynomite

[themuzicman]

You're kidding me, right? James 2:25 refers to the spies (messengers) sent into the land of Cannan to scout out the land, and specifically Jericho. They had a specific mission, which was aided by Rahab, and then returned and reported to Israel what they found. That has nothing to do with apostles who are sent into the world to make disciples.

(Not sure how I missed this one in BDAG. Maybe they missed it :doh:)

Either way, this kind of messenger is very distinct from the apostles who go into the world to make disciples. There is no mandate of gathering elect given to them.

Michael

[Abigail]

What about Isaiah 66:19-20

[dynomite]

You're kidding me, right? James 2:25 refers to the spies (messengers) sent into the land of Cannan to scout out the land, and specifically Jericho. They had a specific mission, which was aided by Rahab, and then returned and reported to Israel what they found. That has nothing to do with apostles who are sent into the world to make disciples.

(Not sure how I missed this one in BDAG. Maybe they missed it :doh:)

Either way, this kind of messenger is very distinct from the apostles who go into the world to make disciples. There is no mandate of gathering elect given to them.

Michael

Mikey Mike,

Your response is really no response, but simply begs the question. The point is to simply show that James uses aggelos (I don't know how to use greek font) in a way other than angels or a "transcendent..." This is happens several times in Scripture and there is no reason to question that use here, especially given the contextual issues, which you failed to address. You assume the meaning of the texts and just say, "Well, it has to means 'transcendent...'" How are we not commanded to gather the elect into God's Kingdom? Are you really so caught up in a concordance exposition that you fail to see the idea being there if the word isn't? Do you really not see the Great Commission a part of synagoging God's people and a specific mission? The Church has a specific mission, which is discipling the nations. We are to go into all the world and gather God's elect. I can't believe you don't see that, especially with your fine use of BDAG.

So, no, I am not kidding you, but I am taking your profound exposition of Scripture as a joke.

Why is this kind of messenger very distinct? Other than the fact that you want it to be. Please go back into Dt. 30, Mt. 23, and Is. and show why this is a distinct gathering. I'm not asking you to beg the question, but answer it.

[dizzle]

Dynomite that was well, dynomite!

[themuzicman]

Mikey Mike,

Your response is really no response, but simply begs the question. The point is to simply show that James uses aggelos (I don't know how to use greek font) in a way other than angels or a "transcendent..." This is happens several times in Scripture and there is no reason to question that use here, especially given the contextual issues, which you failed to address. You assume the meaning of the texts and just say, "Well, it has to means 'transcendent...'" How are we not commanded to gather the elect into God's Kingdom? Are you really so caught up in a concordance exposition that you fail to see the idea being there if the word isn't? Do you really not see the Great Commission a part of synagoging God's people and a specific mission? The Church has a specific mission, which is discipling the nations. We are to go into all the world and gather God's elect. I can't believe you don't see that, especially with your fine use of BDAG.

So, no, I am not kidding you, but I am taking your profound exposition of Scripture as a joke.

Why is this kind of messenger very distinct? Other than the fact that you want it to be. Please go back into Dt. 30, Mt. 23, and Is. and show why this is a distinct gathering. I'm not asking you to beg the question, but answer it.

I detailed the uses of aggelos referring to men in the NT in my previous post. The refer to JTB's disciples going to a town to prepare for his arrival, JTB's disciples going to Jesus with a question, expecting a message to take back to him, and about JTB himself, as the voice calling from the desert, a special messenger.

For some reason, I missed the James reference, but it refers to spies going into Canaan and Jericho.

Also, I didn't simply conjour up the "transcendent" definition. It's from the Lexicon greek scholars us to translate scripture (colloquially known as BDAG.) So, this isn't just me making something up. If you're interested in translating greek, you might go buy one.

As for the great commission, Jesus commanded that as they went into the world, they were to make disciples of all men. There is no sense of gathering together all the elect (much less from the four winds) anywhere, either physically or spiritually, and those who were going are never referred to as aggelos.

So, if you're going to play the symbolic theme game, you're going to have to tie up this loose end, rather than claiming that magically aggelos and suvagw have application to apostles and evangelism.

(Forgot to include what I think it is...)

At some point, we are all gathered to dwell in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, and as per the parable of the wheat an the tares, the angels are sent to pull up the tares, which are burned, and then harvest the wheat, we will be gathered to dwell in the new Jerusalem by the Angels from the four winds, where Christians have been making disciples to be gathered.

Michael

Michael

[dynomite]

I detailed the uses of aggelos referring to men in the NT in my previous post. The refer to JTB's disciples going to a town to prepare for his arrival, JTB's disciples going to Jesus with a question, expecting a message to take back to him, and about JTB himself, as the voice calling from the desert, a special messenger.

For some reason, I missed the James reference, but it refers to spies going into Canaan and Jericho.

Also, I didn't simply conjour up the "transcendent" definition. It's from the Lexicon greek scholars us to translate scripture (colloquially known as BDAG.) So, this isn't just me making something up. If you're interested in translating greek, you might go buy one.

As for the great commission, Jesus commanded that as they went into the world, they were to make disciples of all men. There is no sense of gathering together all the elect (much less from the four winds) anywhere, either physically or spiritually, and those who were going are never referred to as aggelos.

So, if you're going to play the symbolic theme game, you're going to have to tie up this loose end, rather than claiming that magically aggelos and suvagw have application to apostles and evangelism.

(Forgot to include what I think it is...)

At some point, we are all gathered to dwell in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, and as per the parable of the wheat an the tares, the angels are sent to pull up the tares, which are burned, and then harvest the wheat, we will be gathered to dwell in the new Jerusalem by the Angels from the four winds, where Christians have been making disciples to be gathered.

Michael

Michael


Oh Mike,

There is a point when a discussion is futile, so, unless you can demonstrate an ability to do a little bit of exegesis and expostion rather than a concordance study and an addressing of the context, this will be my last addition to this thread. First, ADDRESS THE CONTEXT! I don't care if you can run to a lexicon and rattle off a few different meanings, which, if anything, supports my position that the word can be understood as messenger. Since you understand that the word can be understood as messenger, why can't it mean messenger here? YOU DON'T KNOW WHY IT CAN'T EXCEPT IT WOULDN'T SUPPORT YOUR NOTION and that is why you are failing to do exegesis and exposition. What are you saying this text says? You want it to mean "transcendent...", but this wouldn't fit the flow of ch. 23 and what is going on until this point. What gathering were the Pharisees and Scribes to do in chapter 23? How did they fail to do that? Did they fail because they weren't "transcendent..."? Why did they fail? How was Jesus willing to gather Jerusalem? How are you interpreting "gather" in 24? I don't care if you can spit out a couple of definitions from BDAG, because that doesn't qualify as exegesis (Oh and see James 2:2 for synagogue). I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I went to show contextually why my position is that it is Christ's messengers going out into the world to "gather" God's people through the preaching of the Gospel. The Pharisees failed, but Christ's messengers (opposed to the children of the devil making people twice the sons of hell) succeed at gathering in the elect. Note that the Church was not to forsake "synagogueing" together (Heb. 10:25).

As already noted, the WORD DOESN'T have to be there for the CONCEPT to be there. What do you understand the "four winds" to be? Contextually, given Mt. 23-24, why must these be "transcendent..."? Why can't they be human in origin, especially when your use of BDAG shows that they can be. Apostles are simply "sent out" ones, which Christ conveniently does in v. 31, so the word apostelei is even there for you. Acts 4:31, 12:12, 14:27, 15:30, 20:7, 8 and Heb. 12:25 are all references to the "gathering" of God's people. So, the words are used and the concepts of there, so the the loose ends are well tied and won't be undone by sleight of hand. It's gonna take a little bit more of a Boy Scout effort than what you put forth to undo this well tied knot.

[dizzle]

Here is something I had written before on this:

Okay you had asked me about the “angels gathering the elect.” Here is the verse in question:

Matthew 24:31 – And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

I want you to take a look at how Young’s Literal Translation renders the verse:

and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

Okay first things first. This passage appears in verse 31 which is before verse 34 in which Jesus unequivocally says that ALL the preceding events will take place prior to the death of that then-living generation. This it happened or Christ was wrong.

First, I think one problem with approaching this passage is that we automatically assume that the word translated as “angels” MUST mean heavenly beings. The fact is that the Greek word “angelos” simply means messenger and is used throughout the NT to refer to mere men such as John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10) and others (Luke 9:52, James 2:25). Now it is possible that angelic beings are being referred to here, but I have another view. I believe that our focus needs to be on the idea of “gathering” and see how the Bible instructs us to view that concept…..

Consider this passage:

John 11:49-52: And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

Both of these passages are allusions to:

Isaiah 27:12-13: In that day the Lord will start his threshing from the flowing stream of the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt, and you will be gathered up one by one, O sons of Israel. And it will come about in that day that a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.

See also

Ephesians 1:7-10: In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.

The “gathering” is a gathering into the community of faith of all true believers. The word used in some of these passages are variants of “sunago” which is where we get the word “synagogue.” You can see this idea in ….
Hebrews 10:25 – not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

The word here for “assembling” is the same word found in our passage under discussion. While Jerusalem was still intact, it was still the center of the Christian faith as the daughter was still tied to her mother – apostate Judaism. But when Jerusalem was destroyed the Christians were thoroughly scattered throughout the world and began the gathering of God’s elect into His Kingdom. That process continues through our day.
All of these are a reference to the gathering of the true Israel of God from all nations in fulfillment of the Great Commission. This is made especially clear in that the New Testament nowhere even hints at the restoration of a “fleshly” Jerusalem or earthly centralized place of worship to be restored, in fact, it teaches the opposite (John 4:21, Galatians 4:25, Revelation 3:12).
The mention of the great trumpet is simply the call of the gospel. It is an allusion to the Isaiah passage already mentioned above and to Numbers 10:1-10 where trumpets are used to summon the people for worship and battle. Notice the symbolic use of trumpets in describing the call of God’s messengers for repentance (Isaiah 58:1, also Jeremiah 6:17).

[themuzicman]

Oh Mike,

There is a point when a discussion is futile, so, unless you can demonstrate an ability to do a little bit of exegesis and expostion rather than a concordance study and an addressing of the context, this will be my last addition to this thread. First, ADDRESS THE CONTEXT! I don't care if you can run to a lexicon and rattle off a few different meanings, which, if anything, supports my position that the word can be understood as messenger. Since you understand that the word can be understood as messenger, why can't it mean messenger here? YOU DON'T KNOW WHY IT CAN'T EXCEPT IT WOULDN'T SUPPORT YOUR NOTION and that is why you are failing to do exegesis and exposition. What are you saying this text says?

Before we do exegesis, we have to do translation so we understand the sphere of meaning for the words we're using. So, First, we ADDRESS THE MEANING OF aggelos. Which is what I've been doing. We use lexicons for this, and BDAG is the lexicon's lexicon.

You want it to mean "transcendent...", but this wouldn't fit the flow of ch. 23 and what is going on until this point. What gathering were the Pharisees and Scribes to do in chapter 23? How did they fail to do that? Did they fail because they weren't "transcendent..."? Why did they fail?

Because they introduced them to the law, rather than to God.

How was Jesus willing to gather Jerusalem? How are you interpreting "gather" in 24?

Being a preterist, I would assume you know how to use symbolic language. A hen gathers her chicks by bringing them under her wings and shielding them from harm.

I don't care if you can spit out a couple of definitions from BDAG, because that doesn't qualify as exegesis (Oh and see James 2:2 for synagogue).

You don't use BDAG for exegesis. You use it for translation, which preceeds exegesis. A step that you apparantly forgot.

I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I went to show contextually why my position is that it is Christ's messengers going out into the world to "gather" God's people through the preaching of the Gospel. The Pharisees failed, but Christ's messengers (opposed to the children of the devil making people twice the sons of hell) succeed at gathering in the elect. Note that the Church was not to forsake "synagogueing" together (Heb. 10:25).

However, that refers to people remembering to gather in their local churches, and not a gathering of all the elect by aggelos.

And, once again, apostles are those sent out (which is what apostellw means) are never called aggelos. There is a definate distintion in scripture and apparantly in the greek language between the two.

As already noted, the WORD DOESN'T have to be there for the CONCEPT to be there. What do you understand the "four winds" to be?

All parts of the earth.

Contextually, given Mt. 23-24, why must these be "transcendent..."? Why can't they be human in origin, especially when your use of BDAG shows that they can be.

As I've already shown, aggelos is used for specific purposes, and specifically not for apostles and those sent to communicate the gospel to the world. If you examine the references I've provided, you'll find that they perform as messengers, whereas those who go into the world are making disciples. Thus, the reason for the distinction.

As for "transcendent", I use it because that is meaning of the word relative to how it is used elsewhere, both in the NT and other greek sources. This context specifically doesn't fit with how aggeloV is used elsewhere when refering to humans.

Apostles are simply "sent out" ones, which Christ conveniently does in v. 31, so the word apostelei is even there for you. Acts 4:31, 12:12, 14:27, 15:30, 20:7, 8 and Heb. 12:25 are all references to the "gathering" of God's people. So, the words are used and the concepts of there, so the the loose ends are well tied and won't be undone by sleight of hand. It's gonna take a little bit more of a Boy Scout effort than what you put forth to undo this well tied knot.

However, sending out messengers is different than sending out apostles to make disciples. If you study aggelos, you'll see the difference. The apostles, in fact, aren't sent out as messengers. They're sent out to make disciples.

I find it humorous that you whine about context, and then make the claim that the gathering of a local body of believers means that apostles are angels, and that gathering all the elect from the four winds has anything to do with a local body gathering for church. If you'd have taken the time to read these references, you'd have seen that they all are talking about local gathering, and not a gathering of the elect from the four winds.

Michael

[dynomite]

Before we do exegesis, we have to do translation so we understand the sphere of meaning for the words we're using. So, First, we ADDRESS THE MEANING OF aggelos. Which is what I've been doing. We use lexicons for this, and BDAG is the lexicon's lexicon.

Yea, the range of meaning is well established and isn't really at issue. To continue to assert its meaning is superfulous at this point.



Because they introduced them to the law, rather than to God.

Huh, what? That has nothing to do with the Pharisees failing to "gather" Israel, but I don't care to debate that at this point.



Being a preterist, I would assume you know how to use symbolic language. A hen gathers her chicks by bringing them under her wings and shielding them from harm.

Nice avoidance of answering what "gather" means in this verse. I want you to tell me what "gathering" this is, so we can proceed to ch. 24. I'm well aware of the picture Jesus is painting, but you didn't answer the question.


You don't use BDAG for exegesis. You use it for translation, which preceeds exegesis. A step that you apparantly forgot.

Sure you do, but, again, beyond this topic. Translation and exegesis aren't mutually exclusive, but your exegesis influences your translation, so you are making errors in your exegesis from the giddy-up.


However, that refers to people remembering to gather in their local churches, and not a gathering of all the elect by aggelos.

Tisk, tisk, that's the issue of contention, so you are still begging the question.

And, once again, apostles are those sent out (which is what apostellw means) are never called aggelos. There is a definate distintion in scripture and apparantly in the greek language between the two.

Again, you are begging the question. The issue is if those who are sent out can be called messengers? According to your use of BDAG this can be the case.

All parts of the earth.

Seems to work fine with going into all nations.


As I've already shown, aggelos is used for specific purposes, and specifically not for apostles and those sent to communicate the gospel to the world. If you examine the references I've provided, you'll find that they perform as messengers, whereas those who go into the world are making disciples. Thus, the reason for the distinction.

Mikey Mike, you have not demonstrated the specific purpose, nor the specifically that it cannot refer to apostles. Those preaching the Gospel to all nations aren't messengers? There is no message in making a disciple? Thus, no reason for the distinction.

As for "transcendent", I use it because that is meaning of the word relative to how it is used elsewhere, both in the NT and other greek sources. This context specifically doesn't fit with how aggeloV is used elsewhere when refering to humans.

How it is used elsewhere depends on the context. "Doesn't fit with how greek...", why not? It fits fine with the flow of ch. 23 and 24 and the rest of aggelos in the NT.



However, sending out messengers is different than sending out apostles to make disciples. If you study aggelos, you'll see the difference. The apostles, in fact, aren't sent out as messengers. They're sent out to make disciples.

A little loosey goosey with your understanding of disciples and messengers. You assume that discipling doesn't have a message. Maybe you have, but I have always been discipled in the context of someone giving me a message.

I find it humorous that you whine about context, and then make the claim that the gathering of a local body of believers means that apostles are angels, and that gathering all the elect from the four winds has anything to do with a local body gathering for church. If you'd have taken the time to read these references, you'd have seen that they all are talking about local gathering, and not a gathering of the elect from the four winds.

Again, I stated that sleight of hand won't work to untie the knot. If you follow my line of reasoning then you will see that I am saying that Apostles are messengers and NOT angels. This is either an inability to read on your part or dishonesty. I'll let you decide what it is. Having taken the time to read the context I see the issue as them being a part of that gathering, which f you would take the time to follow what we are saying, then you would've noticed that is the connection I am making.

You have a strong penchent for question begging, but you still haven't addressed the basic issues of Mt. 23-24, which is the context of these verses and the context of exegesis, which includes translation.

[dizzle]

The board last night ate my response.

Michael, I think your OP has been answered, there is no gap. You may not agree with the interpretation but we do have one, and have a reasonable basis for it.

The fact is though that even if we could not expain it Jesus thrust it into the first century at least at its beginning and that needs to guide our perspective.

Dynomite - that is a great point with the "gathering" that Jesus talked about with the Jerusalem statement. It shows the proverbial slap in the face He was given to the apostates. He was saying that they of all people should have known, but since they rejected Him He would gather the willing out of the Gentiles. This is analogous to the parable of the wedding feast.

[Solly]

MM asked: I assume all this hasn't happened. Where's the gap?

DD says: You assume wrong. It happened.

Dynomite says: I believe this verse is being fulfilled

Then DD says: This passage appears in verse 31 which is before verse 34 in which Jesus unequivocally says that ALL the preceding events will take place prior to the death of that then-living generation. Ths it happened or Christ was wrong.

Then DD says: The fact is though that even if we could not expain it Jesus thrust it into the first century at least at its beginning.

So, I am not sure that MM's question has been answered clearly. He is asking about the specific imagery that is being used by the Lord, so could we have some explanation addressing all the verse, instead of bandying around rather immature comments by newbies about "Boy scout exegesis".

Mat 24:29 But immediately after the oppression of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;
Mat 24:30 [u]and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 He will send out his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

The oppression is presumbably the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple.
So, what is the imagery in v 29. Symbolic or actual
What is the sign in v 30. Spiritual, or visible
What is the coming in v 30 that will cause the tribes to mourn. Spiritual/judgmental or actual/eschatological
Who are the angels - angels or messengers;what is the trumpet - the gospel or the last trump; what is the gathering - gospel or eschatological, and what are the geographical indicators indicative of [four winds, ends of the sky] - Israel, the world?

[dizzle]

MM asked: I assume all this hasn't happened. Where's the gap?

DD says: You assume wrong. It happened.

I was imprecise for I made an assumption. The part of the quoted verse people usually have issues with is the "coming" language not the "gathering" language so I was answering the "coming" issue. Muz did not specify and I made a reasonable assumption which as you pointed out I clarified later.



Dynomite says: I believe this verse is being fulfilled

And I agree with him.

Then DD says: This passage appears in verse 31 which is before verse 34 in which Jesus unequivocally says that ALL the preceding events will take place prior to the death of that then-living generation. Th[u]s it happened or Christ was wrong.



Then DD says: The fact is though that even if we could not expain it Jesus thrust it into the first century at least at its beginning.

Precision is so very important here. The verse say that Christ back then will send. He did. They will gather. Nothing says that the gathering will be complete by then merely that He will send. One has to be pretty pendantic to say otherwise.



So, I am not sure that MM's question has been answered clearly. He is asking about the specific imagery that is being used by the Lord, so could we have some explanation addressing all the verse, instead of bandying around rather immature comments by newbies about "Boy scout exegesis".

I believe the verses that MM pointed out have been addressed. You are bringing up the rest, and we can certainly move on to those if you wish, but the answers have been tailored to Muz's specific inquiry. I do not think the responses to the explanation given by those specific verses has been very thorough.

But again like I do, it doesn't matter if I cannot explain it it (though I can very easily) - Jesus limited the time frame, and I have never seen a credible way out of that bramblebrush.

[Solly]

To a certain extent the argument is moot. DD/Dynamite say Jesus sent his angels to gether then (or at least from that point), MM as a dispensationalist, says the gathering started after Acts 9 as far as the church is concerned, although of course he is putting a futurist slant on the words in matthew 24.

As far as v 31 is concerned, it seems to be a pretty commonplace statement to make in the midst of all that apocalyptic imagery. Jesus has already dealt with sending in Matt 10.

I do like Dynamite's linking of Matt 23 & 24 with regard to gathering though, esp if one sees that in the context of apostate israel, and the New Israel community that Christ is establishing, even during the troubles that are to come in the immediate future. And i can see how that relates to the work from then on down through history.

As far as pedantry is concerned, one of my problems with preterism is the claim that "all these things have been accomplished" but then we find out that some of them only started to be accomplished. The time frame you speak of would seem to bracket the thoughts within it. Will gather speaks of an action not only taking place within that time frame, but in a sense completed within it to. He didn't say, begin to gather the first ones. There is also the fact that the geographical brackets of this chapter are israel and Jerusalem; agian, one would draw the conclusion that it refers to his elect within that bracket, and the tribulation to be experienced by Israel.

[dizzle]

quickly - Muz isn't dispesnational

[Solly]

Really? I always thought he was. Must be the OVT that made me think so.

[dizzle]

Really? I always thought he was. Must be the OVT that made me think so.

No he really isn't. Geebob isn't either by the way just so that you know. I think because of where we came from we are very used to the two being paired together, but they are not. From what I understand there is a significant OVT preterist contingent out there, and I heard that Sanders (and Boyd if I am right) are at least preteristic if not preterists.

[dizzle]

On another note...

To a certain extent the argument is moot. DD/Dynamite say Jesus sent his angels to gether then (or at least from that point), MM as a dispensationalist, says the gathering started after Acts 9 as far as the church is concerned, although of course he is putting a futurist slant on the words in matthew 24.

I think MM is denying full out the way we are propsing the meaning of gathering - and I suspect you do not have much of an issue with the preterist way of looking at it. I will have to put my other responses on a back burner. We have had significant admin stuff to deal with so I am drained and so behind with real life that I gotta just know when to quit debating and catch up. That is hard for me.

[Solly]

Now I am confused. what's his problem, if he is not dispie.
Must stop referrng to him in the third person.

Are you a futurist MM?

[dizzle]

Now I am confused. what's his problem, if he is not dispie.
Must stop referrng to him in the third person.

I know it is like we are talking about him and he is not here.



Are you a futurist MM?

I think so but not very firm but exploring the issues.

[John Reece]

Before we do exegesis, we have to do translation so we understand the sphere of meaning for the words we're using. So, First, we ADDRESS THE MEANING OF aggeloV. Which is what I've been doing. We use lexicons for this, and BDAG is the lexicon's lexicon.

Michael

You have it backwards, Michael.

What if BAGD (= Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker = not BDAG) is exegetically misleading re a particular word (as in the case of genea)?

You cannot transcend your own presuppositions - as well as those in the minds of lexicographers, commentators, and translators - unless your translation is determined by sound and thorough exegesis, rather than by merely looking up words in lexicons.

John

[themuzicman]

Solly,

In terms of dispy/covenantal, I'm in the middle. I don't buy into the different requirements/covenants for salvation for people in different eras, but I don't go whole hog into the "We are the new Israel" thing, either.

Eschatologically, I'm agnostic. I see some good and some issues in most views. I can almost certainly say that I am not pre-trib, pre-mil (dispy). If you held a gun to my head and demanded an answer, I'd say futurist, post-trib, pre-mil. But that's not a definite.


DD/dyno, I had one other item to deal with, and that is "from the four winds." The preposition used id ek, which has a connotation of "out from", meaning that the object is being moved out from where it is now. In this case, the elect are being gathered "out from" the four winds. It's not merely a locational issue (I am from Michigan), but a movement issue (I came out from my home town to where I live now.)

Thus, if we're going to maintain a spiritual gathering, you'll have to explain the spiritual significance of the elect coming out from the four winds (which I believe we agreed was all the nations.)

The other remaining issue was how aggelos could refer to those going out and making disciples.

DD, my purpose is to understand the basis for calling those who go into the world making disciples aggelos, because the hermeneutical issues of translation (both diachronic and syncronic), and fitting meaning into the bigger picture of scripture (specifically the role of making disciples) aren't panning out, dyno's objections notwithstanding.

I'd like to hear a biblical theology perspective on aggelos used in this way in other places or in parallel with apostles.

The difference, to me, may be best reflected in a scene from Shrek (:egad:), where Fiona says, "If Lord Farquad wants to rescue me properly, tell him that he can find me RIGHT HERE." To which Shrek responds, "I'm nobody's messenger boy. I'm a delivery boy."

Our calling isn't merely to go somewhere, deliver a messasge, and then leave. That's what angels do. That's what John's disciples were doing. That's what John did. In a manner of speaking, that's what the spies did, although their message was delivered back to the people of Israel. Their missions were to speak a specific message to a specific place and time, just as we see angels doing throughout scripture, but then when they'd delivered the message, they were done.

The one making disciples doesn't to go tell someone a message, and then leave. They go teaching, preaching, building relationships, and leading people to Christ, and then teaching and preaching those to be disciples, and building a church there. Their emphasis isn't getting a message to a person or people, but helping them understand, believe, and then mature as Christians.

The two roles really don't overlap in meaning, function or outcome.

Michael

[themuzicman]

You have it backwards, Michael.

What if BAGD (= Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker = not BDAG) is exegetically misleading re a particular word (as in the case of genea)?

You cannot transcend your own presuppositions - as well as those in the minds of lexicographers, commentators, and translators - unless your translation is determined by sound and thorough exegesis, rather than by merely looking up words in lexicons.

John

BAGD is version 2, BDAG is the newer version 3. I realize that further exegesis may be required, but we must first understand how the word is used in context elsewhere, so we can understand possible meanings here. The problem is that I don't find aggelos used as synonym or in any way describing those going out to make disciples. It seems to have a very different meaning. BDAG (and BAGD) provide us not only with possible translations, but where the various glosses and meanings are used in scripture.

Michael

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I think DDW and dynomite are doing an excelent job, so I really have no desire to get deep into this thread, but I could not let this go unaddressed.

However, sending out messengers is different than sending out apostles to make disciples. If you study aggelos, you'll see the difference. The apostles, in fact, aren't sent out as messengers. They're sent out to make disciples.


Come on Muz. Did you really think this out? How does one make disciples?

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.18But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."

How can they hear without a messenger?

[themuzicman]

Come on Muz. Did you really think this out? How does one make disciples?

Yes, actually, I did. Once you study the sphere of meaning for an aggeloV, you find that their mission is very different from one who is making disciples.

In fact, if you bump up in Romans 10 to verse 14 and 15, Paul deals with this very issue, but rather than using aggelos to deliver the message, the Word is proclaimed (khrussontoV), and it is proclaimed by (oddly enough) one who proclaims (or a preacher), and he cannot preach unless he is apostalwsin (sent, aka an apostle.)

So, Paul has a very clear opportunity to tie this in for us, taking the word via a messenger, and yet he uses a participle to make more than a messenger, but one who proclaims or preaches.

Thus, Paul appears to be avoiding using messenger, most likely because it is simply the wrong connotation for those who are sent to proclaim the gospel and make disciples.

Michael

[eschaton]

Excuse me if I butt in, but I'm having a hard time following.

Mat24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is what we're talking about, right?

1Th4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

This sounds like the same thing to me.

1Cor15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

It's clearly talking about the resurrection, nothing in 70AD. Not unless you're one of those other types of preterists.

Mt 13:41 Mt 13:41 25:31 Mk 13:27 Eph 1:10 2Th 2:1

[dizzle]

They are not at all talking about the same thing and it is relatively easy to prove if the chronoloy of the Bible is allowed to speak for itself.

And no, no heretical preterist views are being expressed as per forum guidelines.

[John Reece]

BAGD is version 2, BDAG is the newer version 3. I realize that further exegesis may be required, but we must first understand how the word is used in context elsewhere, so we can understand possible meanings here. The problem is that I don't find aggeloV used as synonym or in any way describing those going out to make disciples. It seems to have a very different meaning. BDAG (and BAGD) provide us not only with possible translations, but where the various glosses and meanings are used in scripture.

Michael

Ah!

So that's it re BAGD/BDAG.

Me and my old out-of-date books :smile: .

From BAGD:

aggeloV . . . messenger -- 1 of human messengers: an envoy, one who is sent

a. by men . . .

b. by God . . .

. . .


BDAG (and BAGD) provide us not only with possible translations, but where the various glosses and meanings are used in scripture.

Questions:

Does BDAG list all of the 176 occurrences of aggeloV in the GNT?

Does BDAG list Matthew 24:31 with the sense of "angel" rather than "messenger" as a rendering of aggeloV?

[eschaton]

Hi Dee Dee,

If we are consistent with are interpretive methods, we will reach the same conclusion about these things. I we are going to see the angels and winds of heaven in a figurative manner, then we should also see the Body of Christ in consistent way.

Occasionally I challenge preterists to give me the name of the
historical "man of sin" of 2 Thess 2:3. Sometimes they say John of
Gischala, and sometimes they'll simply admit they don't know.

For those who don't know I've found an answer and an ally in Tyconius
the Donatist. He wrote the "Book of Rules" for Bible interpretation
in 380 AD.

He went to some length to prove that the "man of sin," is actually
the earthly Jerusalem of Galatians 4:25. This is in the same way
that preterists take 1 John 2:18 to mean that there is not a single
antichrist, but many. And in the way the church is the body of
Christ (1Cor 12:27), so the earthly Jerusalem is the "man of sin."
This makes sense to me.

However, he also said;

>Daniel says the following about a king of the end time: "In God will
his place be glorified" [cf. Dan. 11:38], that is made famous. This
king will secretly establish something like a church in the place of
the church, in the holy place; an "abomination of devastation" [Matt
24:15] in God, that is, in the church.<

Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church - by Karlfried Froehlich

It seems Tyconius also expected some parts of Daniel to be literally
fulfilled in his future. He expected a king to establish a false
substitute church in the end time.

More importantly, to me anyway, he said the following.

>In its head, therefore the Body is the Son of God, and in his Body
God is the Son of Man who comes daily through a birth and "grows into
God's holy temple" [Eph.2:21] Now the temple itself is bipartite.
Its second part, though built of large stones, suffers destruction;
in it, "not one stone will be left upon the other" [Matt 24:2]. We
must beware of its continual coming until the church departs from its
midst.<

It has long been an assertion of mine that the temple Jesus spoke of
in the Olivet discourse is the church, not the literal temple, and
Tyconius apparently agreed with me. So I can agree that the man of
sin is a body of people if preterists can agree that the temple Jesus
spoke of is His body, the church.

Also, the Alexandrian and the Antiochene differed in their view of
allegory in scripture, but according to Froelich, "The fact remains
that in acknowledging the divine author of Scripture both sides
sought deeper meaning and hidden treasures of revelation in the
sacred text."

So if we want to be consistent in our chronolgy and interpretation, we should accept that Jesus spoke of His body, the temple is the church.

Alan

[dizzle]

Oh wow, so His Church would be destroyed and have vengeance wreaked upon it

:no:

Sorry that is more wrong-headed then I know how to say.

[themuzicman]

Ah!

So that's it re BAGD/BDAG.

Me and my old out-of-date books :smile: .

From BAGD:

aggeloV . . . messenger -- 1 of human messengers: an envoy, one who is sent

a. by men . . .

b. by God . . .

. . .




Questions:

Does BDAG list all of the 176 occurrences of aggeloV in the GNT?

Not sure. BDAG doesn't tell you if it's included all the references. It would appear that it does not, but there is no indicator either way. (Should I count them? :doh:)

Does BDAG list Matthew 24:31 with the sense of "angel" rather than "messenger" as a rendering of aggeloV?

The meaning it gives for the group of verses that include Matt 24:31 is "a transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks" and includes the glosses of "messenger" and "angel".

This stands opposed to the first portion, which refers only to the spies in Jericho, John the Baptist's disciples, and JTB himself in the NT, and says, "a human messenger serving as an envoy" and includes the glosses of "an envoy" and "one who is sent." But Matt 24:31 is not in this section.

Michael

[eschaton]

31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.


3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

[dynomite]

Excuse me if I butt in, but I'm having a hard time following.

Mat24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is what we're talking about, right?

1Th4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

This sounds like the same thing to me.

1Cor15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

It's clearly talking about the resurrection, nothing in 70AD. Not unless you're one of those other types of preterists.

Mt 13:41 Mt 13:41 25:31 Mk 13:27 Eph 1:10 2Th 2:1

I see a difference between the Lord himself descending and doing this, and Him sending out messengers. Similar language doesn't automatically infer the same event, so everywhere we see "trumpet", "gather", etc., doesn't mean it is talking about the same event. That's why I am seeking to establish the meaning of gather in Ch. 23. Are you suggesting that the Lord is saying, "How I have longed to resurrect you, but you were not willing." No, ch. 23 and 24 aren't talking about the resurrection, but the gathering of God's people through His messengers.

So, yes, we are talking about Mt. 24:31, but no we aren't talking about heretical preterism, which, as Dee Dee mentions, is prohibited in this forum.

[dynomite]

Hi Dee Dee,

If we are consistent with are interpretive methods, we will reach the same conclusion about these things. I we are going to see the angels and winds of heaven in a figurative manner, then we should also see the Body of Christ in consistent way.

Occasionally I challenge preterists to give me the name of the
historical "man of sin" of 2 Thess 2:3. Sometimes they say John of
Gischala, and sometimes they'll simply admit they don't know.

For those who don't know I've found an answer and an ally in Tyconius
the Donatist. He wrote the "Book of Rules" for Bible interpretation
in 380 AD.

He went to some length to prove that the "man of sin," is actually
the earthly Jerusalem of Galatians 4:25. This is in the same way
that preterists take 1 John 2:18 to mean that there is not a single
antichrist, but many. And in the way the church is the body of
Christ (1Cor 12:27), so the earthly Jerusalem is the "man of sin."
This makes sense to me.

However, he also said;

>Daniel says the following about a king of the end time: "In God will
his place be glorified" [cf. Dan. 11:38], that is made famous. This
king will secretly establish something like a church in the place of
the church, in the holy place; an "abomination of devastation" [Matt
24:15] in God, that is, in the church.<

Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church - by Karlfried Froehlich

It seems Tyconius also expected some parts of Daniel to be literally
fulfilled in his future. He expected a king to establish a false
substitute church in the end time.

More importantly, to me anyway, he said the following.

>In its head, therefore the Body is the Son of God, and in his Body
God is the Son of Man who comes daily through a birth and "grows into
God's holy temple" [Eph.2:21] Now the temple itself is bipartite.
Its second part, though built of large stones, suffers destruction;
in it, "not one stone will be left upon the other" [Matt 24:2]. We
must beware of its continual coming until the church departs from its
midst.<

It has long been an assertion of mine that the temple Jesus spoke of
in the Olivet discourse is the church, not the literal temple, and
Tyconius apparently agreed with me. So I can agree that the man of
sin is a body of people if preterists can agree that the temple Jesus
spoke of is His body, the church.

Also, the Alexandrian and the Antiochene differed in their view of
allegory in scripture, but according to Froelich, "The fact remains
that in acknowledging the divine author of Scripture both sides
sought deeper meaning and hidden treasures of revelation in the
sacred text."

So if we want to be consistent in our chronolgy and interpretation, we should accept that Jesus spoke of His body, the temple is the church.

Alan

Alan,

We aren't using the same hermeneutic and we are coming to different conclusions. *Maybe* if we are consistent with our interpretive methods (which I'm taking to mean that you and I use the same method rather than consistently applying our hermeneutic) then we will come to the same conclusion, but as it is we differ greatly.

[eschaton]

Thanks dynomite,

Dividing between the Lord and his angels is a little too literal for me. I'm not a literalist. But none-the-less, Christ also accomplishes the resurrection with His angels.

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony

Why should gathering from the four winds of heaven be equated with gathering chicks in Jerusalem? There is a difference between heaven and earth.

27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

If we're looking for consistency with chapter 23, then the house that is destroyed is spiritual.

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


Like I said, I was having a hard time following. I'll go back through and read again.

Thanks,
Alan

[John Reece]

The meaning it gives for the group of verses that include Matt 24:31 is "a transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks" and includes the glosses of "messenger" and "angel".

This stands opposed to the first portion, which refers only to the spies in Jericho, John the Baptist's disciples, and JTB himself in the NT, and says, "a human messenger serving as an envoy" and includes the glosses of "an envoy" and "one who is sent." But Matt 24:31 is not in this section.

Michael

Thanks for the lexical info, Michael.

[John Reece]

The other remaining issue was how aggeloV could refer to those going out and making disciples.

DD, my purpose is to understand the basis for calling those who go into the world making disciples aggeloV, because the hermeneutical issues of translation (both diachronic and synchronic), and fitting meaning into the bigger picture of scripture (specifically the role of making disciples) aren't panning out, dyno's objections notwithstanding.

I'd like to hear a biblical theology perspective on aggeloV used in this way in other places or in parallel with apostles.

Our calling isn't merely to go somewhere, deliver a message, and then leave. That's what angels do. That's what John's disciples were doing. That's what John did. In a manner of speaking, that's what the spies did, although their message was delivered back to the people of Israel. Their missions were to speak a specific message to a specific place and time, just as we see angels doing throughout scripture, but then when they'd delivered the message, they were done.

The one making disciples doesn't to go tell someone a message, and then leave. They go teaching, preaching, building relationships, and leading people to Christ, and then teaching and preaching those to be disciples, and building a church there. Their emphasis isn't getting a message to a person or people, but helping them understand, believe, and then mature as Christians.

The two roles really don't overlap in meaning, function or outcome.

Michael

Would you consider Paul to be one "making disciples , , , teaching, preaching, building relationships, and leading people to Christ, and then teaching and preaching those to be disciples, and building a church there. Their emphasis isn't getting a message to a person or people, but helping them understand, believe, and then mature as Christians"?

Galatians 4

12 Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel (aggeloV) of God, as Christ Jesus. 15 What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? 17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. 18 It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, 19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! 20 I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

[themuzicman]

Note the word "as" meaning "like." In this case, they received him like they would receive an angel (messenger). Paul isn't calling himself an messenger, nor is he identified as an messenger.

Michael

[John Reece]

Note the word "as" meaning "like." In this case, they received him like they would receive an angel (messenger). Paul isn't calling himself an messenger, nor is he identified as an messenger.

Michael

He was "received" . . . "as an aggeloV of God, as Christ Jesus".

And that's how he was sent.

And that's the sense of Matthew 24:31.

From Matthew (TNTC), by R. T. France:

31. Again the language is recognizably drawn from the Old Testament. For the loud trumpet call, see Isaiah 27:13 . . . , and for the subsequent phrases especially Deuteronomy 30:4 and Zechariah 2:6 (LXX). Such passages refer to the regathering of Israel’s exiles, but now those to be gathered are described as the elect (cf. verses 22, 24, and the same word translated ‘chosen’ in 22:14). The ‘Son of man’s people’ are no longer merely the members of the nation, but (as in 8:11-12) a chosen remnant, drawn from all corners of the earth. This will be the necessary corollary of the vindication of the Son of man. Angeloi might be translated ‘messengers’ (as in 11:10), and referred to human preaching of the gospel throughout the world, or taken in its normal sense of angels (as the roughly parallel language of 13:14; 16:27 may suggest), in which case it refers to the supernatural power behind such preaching. But whereas in 13:41 the ‘angels of the Son of man’ gather the evil out of his kingdom, here they gather the chosen into it. The reference is not, therefore, as in 13:41, to the final judgment, but to the world-wide growth of the church . . ., which is consequent on the ending of Israel’s special status, symbolized in the destruction of the temple.

Thus when the significance of the Old Testament imagery is appreciated, verses 29-31 may be recognized, as the context virtually demanded, as a highly symbolic description of the theological significance of the coming destruction of the temple and its consequences. The next four verses go on to emphasize the imminence of ‘all these things’, before verses 36ff. go on to distinguish the unknown time of the parousia clearly from events envisaged in these verses.


See also N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, pages 360-363.

[John Reece]

The last post above has been edited to add a comment by R. T. France.

[John Reece]

Another note appended to (edited into) penultimate post above.

[themuzicman]

He was "received" . . . "as an αγγελος of God, as Christ Jesus".

And that's how he was sent.

And that's the sense of Matthew 24:31.

That's how he was sent? Evidence?

You didn't even address as.

As for the context, I agree that it refers to the gathering of the Jews after the exile, but that just reinforces the point that they are being gathered out of the four winds, just as the jews were gathered from the various places they were scattered to, back into the promised land. Gathered spiritually is interesting, but gathered (spiritually) out from the four winds (nations) doesn't make sense.

Michael

[dizzle]

That's how he was sent? Evidence?

You didn't even address as.

As for the context, I agree that it refers to the gathering of the Jews after the exile, but that just reinforces the point that they are being gathered out of the four winds, just as the jews were gathered from the various places they were scattered to, back into the promised land. Gathered spiritually is interesting, but gathered (spiritually) out from the four winds (nations) doesn't make sense.

Michael

It has ZERO to do with the Jews (in the way you intend it)

[themuzicman]

Again the language is recognizably drawn from the Old Testament. For the loud trumpet call, see Isaiah 27:13 . . . , and for the subsequent phrases especially Deuteronomy 30:4 and Zechariah 2:6 (LXX). Such passages refer to the regathering of Israel’s exiles, but now those to be gathered are described as the elect (cf. verses 22, 24, and the same word translated ‘chosen’ in 22:14).

It doesn't? John's reference says that it is a type of the exile, but now referring to the elect.

Michael

[dizzle]

Who are the elect Michael?

[themuzicman]

All those who receive Christ and are saved.

[dizzle]

Okay just checking cause maybe I misunderstood something you said.

[John Reece]

That's how he was sent? Evidence?

You didn't even address as.

As for the context, I agree that it refers to the gathering of the Jews after the exile, but that just reinforces the point that they are being gathered out of the four winds, just as the Jews were gathered from the various places they were scattered to, back into the promised land. Gathered spiritually is interesting, but gathered (spiritually) out from the four winds (nations) doesn't make sense.

Michael

Michael,

You need evidence that Paul was a messenger of God bearing Christ to the nations?

:smile:

You want to quibble over "as"?

:smile:

I can't help what "doesn't make sense" to you. The problem is with your presuppositions, and I learned long ago that it is futile to fuss with such.

Blessings,

John

[themuzicman]

You need evidence that Paul was a messenger of God bearing Christ to the nations?

I need evidence that he was an aggelos to the nations. My impression is that he was an apostelos.

As for "as", I would quibble if someone said I acted as a dog, and you took it to mean that I was literally a dog.

Michael

[dizzle]

Michael, I have to say that I am in full agreement with John's analysis above. I think you are being hyperliterally pendantic with the passage and missing the forrest for the trees.

Let me try this.

You say being gathered out of the nations makes no senses. Try this okay?

Taken from my proofs that satan is bound now so ignore the parts of the commentary which is from another debate ....

This plundering of satan’s kingdom is expressed repeated and in many ways:

Col. 1:13

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

the "nations" were under the sway of satan - the unregenerate of them still are - we are delivered out of that kingdom into a new one

My position is, of course, that the binding [Greek – deo] of satan began in the first century during the earthly ministry of Christ. You commented that using a parable to make a statement about the general state of the world is dubious. I disagree on several counts. First, I am not using a parable to make a statement about what is going on in the earthly ministry of Christ, Christ is. He used this illustration, in which it is obvious that the strong man represents satan, and that he is being bound so that his “house” and “kingdom” which would represent the area of his dominion would be plundered. Satan’s dominion is not a physical dominion, nor is his being bound physical. Jesus, by His presence, and His Word was plundering his “house” and “kingdom” which was proven by the casting out of demons and the preaching of the salvation of the God of Israel to even the Gentiles. It is satan’s spiritual dominion that is being plundered and that clearly began in the first century.

Matthew 4:15

“The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles: The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.”


As for Paul being sent as that messenger

Acts 26:15

“’I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God , that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’”


Colossians 1:13

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.


Ephesians 2:12

that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

1 Peter 2:9

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

[John Reece]

I need evidence that he was an aggeloV to the nations. My impression is that he was an aposteloV.

As for "as", I would quibble if someone said I acted as a dog, and you took it to mean that I was literally a dog.

Michael

:smile:

I am beginning to wonder about you, Michael . . .

:smile:

[themuzicman]

Well, I think I have the answer to the question, so I guess I'll leave it here.

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

Hello Michael,

I believe this verse is being fulfilled and this is why: The whole flow of the Olivet Discourse finds its roots in Mt. 23, which inspires the questions in Mt. 24:3. At the end of Mt. 23 Jesus laments over Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your hose is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Who is Jesus talking to in this discourse? The Scribes and the Pharisees (23:2). Now the Pharisees "travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, [they] make him twice as much a child of hell as [they are]." At the end of Mt. 23 those who sat on the seat of Moses were not willing to gather God's people ("how often would I have gathered your children together"), but the Pharisees "would not." [Note: this verse has nothing to do one way or the other with the Calvinism/Arminian debate, but it is appealed to a lot. The simple point is that those that sat on the seat of Moses were not doing their job.] In Mt. 24, however, God will send out his messengers (James 2:25 and the verses you mentioned) to gather (snynagogue) in the elect. This is consistent with the Old Testament revelation, notabley Dt. 30:4, "If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts fo the heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you." There is no reason to believe that this verse is talking about "the resurrection" or "rapture" as much as Jesus is saying how he yearned to "resurrect", "rapture" Jerusalem, but they, the Pharisees, were not willing.

In short, this verse is about the ingathering of God's elect through his messengers.

dynomiteGood expression of thought. I agree with your argument.

[dizzle]

Good expression of thought. I agree with your argument.

You are ready then Grasshopper. Do not deny your destiny :teeth:

[GoBahnsen]

You are ready then Grasshopper. Do not deny your destiny :teeth:So who is the dead guy in your screen picture?

[dizzle]

my last futurist opponent

[GoBahnsen]

my last futurist opponentAre you Reformed?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

my last futurist opponentAre you Reformed? As in "reform school"?


Yes :grin:


:eek:


:wink:

[dizzle]

Are you Reformed?

I am Molinist.

[GoBahnsen]

I am Molinist.How or where would I go about learning more about why you are a Molinist?

[dizzle]

How or where would I go about learning more about why you are a Molinist?

Hm that is a good one. Here is one thread

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6181

But generally it was through reading Molinist stuff and thinking about it. Craig's book The Only Wise God was instrumental.

To me it is the only system that reconciles the good points of Calvinism and Armenianism.

[dynomite]

Good expression of thought. I agree with your argument.


Thanks, GoBahnsen. I am a huge Bahnsen fan. Every now and then I type some stuff up and I'm not sure if it makes any sense to anyone but myself, so I'm glad you were able to follow and believed it was a good expression of thought.

Since you are a Bahnsen fan there is no fear of you being seduced away by Dee Dee's Molinism. :teeth:

[GoBahnsen]

Thanks, GoBahnsen. I am a huge Bahnsen fan. Every now and then I type some stuff up and I'm not sure if it makes any sense to anyone but myself, so I'm glad you were able to follow and believed it was a good expression of thought.

Since you are a Bahnsen fan there is no fear of you being seduced away by Dee Dee's Molinism. :teeth:How did she go wrong? She is so kind and articulate. I really like her even though I don't know her. I think she will come around as she discovers that guys like me... just can't be wrong. That's powerful man. I'm going to ponder my brilliance for awhile and get back to you.

[dizzle]

:blush:

[GoBahnsen]

:blush:After some momentary ponderance....GB found himself in a state of temporary ecstasy. He almost became OVT, but then realized he wasn't that clever. Desparately searching for meaning and significance in life ...he settled again into the contentment of being one of Christ's common sheep. Feeling stupid like sheep do, he wondered if it might be possible to get as close to Jesus as Dee Dee and dynomite appear to be. He knows if he keeps a straight face, none will probably notice his calculated moves toward beating some of the other disciples into sitting at Christ's right hand in glory. Shhhhh.

[BHuston]

my last futurist opponentNo doubt I've found the preterist rah-rah board.... *sigh*:teeth:

BH

[studyhound]

No doubt I've found the preterist rah-rah board.... *sigh*:teeth:

BH
Na we just stomped the theological snot out of all the furturists and they have yet to recover. :blush:

:studyhound:

[studyhound]

Oh and welcome BHuston :hi:

:studyhound:

[kendemyer]

TO: Musicman

I think your initial points are excellent. I know that as part of the Jewish wedding situation a trumpet is sounded before the groom meets his wife after the wedding if memory serves. I wonder if we will hear some heavenly trumpet?

Sincerely,

Ken