Question on the resurrection of the righteous

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

OK, before I get to my question, I want to say right out that any reply other than Futurists will result in me abusing my mod powers and deleting your post.


Now, on to business:

I am trying to solidify my beliefs on the connection between Matt 24, Matt 13, and Dan 12 in relation to the "end of the age" and the resurrection of the righteous, and more specifically, Daniel himself.

Now, I want to post the verses with my understanding and then see if I can get some clarification

Matt 24
29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

31 "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 have been taught that this was premillennial because it immediately followed the Tribulation. Now, this brings to mind the parable of the wheat and tares in Matt 13 with the parallel language used:

Matt 13
40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,

42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43" Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.


The sending forth the Angels in Matt 24 connects to the sending forth of the Angels in Matt 13. But this passage really seems more like the general resurrection which takes place at the end of the Millennium. So we have a dillemma. Either Matthew used the term "end of the age" inconsistently to refer to the end of 2 different ages, or another explanation I am most certainly not ready to make.

Why do I say it is the general resurrection? It quotes Dan 12:2-4.

Dan 12
1 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

3 "Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.


Much commentary has been done on this verse. There are generally 3 schools of thought. One is that this describes Daniel's people rising up after the desecration of Antiochus. Two is that it describes the salvation offered by Jesus. Three, and this is the one I hold, it refers to the resurrection of the righteous. And I use the following verse for support of my interpretation:

Dan 12
13 "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

The messenger is telling Daniel that he would rest (in death) until he rises again at the end of the age. Now here is where these related verses cause me trouble.

Is Matt 24's post-tribulation resurrection premillennial?
Is Matt 13's resurrection premillennial?
When will Daniel be resurrected?

:btc3:
:billsign:

[eschaton]

OK, before I get to my question, I want to say right out that any reply other than Futurists will result in me abusing my mod powers and deleting your post.


Now, on to business:

I am trying to solidify my beliefs on the connection between Matt 24, Matt 13, and Dan 12 in relation to the "end of the age" and the resurrection of the righteous, and more specifically, Daniel himself.

Now, I want to post the verses with my understanding and then see if I can get some clarification

Matt 24
29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

31 "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 have been taught that this was premillennial because it immediately followed the Tribulation. Now, this brings to mind the parable of the wheat and tares in Matt 13 with the parallel language used:

Matt 13
40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,

42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43" Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.


The sending forth the Angels in Matt 24 connects to the sending forth of the Angels in Matt 13. But this passage really seems more like the general resurrection which takes place at the end of the Millennium. So we have a dillemma. Either Matthew used the term "end of the age" inconsistently to refer to the end of 2 different ages, or another explanation I am most certainly not ready to make.

Why do I say it is the general resurrection? It quotes Dan 12:2-4.

Dan 12
1 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

3 "Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.


Much commentary has been done on this verse. There are generally 3 schools of thought. One is that this describes Daniel's people rising up after the desecration of Antiochus. Two is that it describes the salvation offered by Jesus. Three, and this is the one I hold, it refers to the resurrection of the righteous. And I use the following verse for support of my interpretation:

Dan 12
13 "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

The messenger is telling Daniel that he would rest (in death) until he rises again at the end of the age. Now here is where these related verses cause me trouble.

Is Matt 24's post-tribulation resurrection premillennial?
Is Matt 13's resurrection premillennial?
When will Daniel be resurrected?

:btc3:
:billsign:

I suppose when you say Futurists you mean Premillennialists, right?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:yes:

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:bump: :sigh: Someone please answer... I'm getting frustrated...

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

OK, since no one wanted to answer this thread, I'll open it up to anyone. I'm really curious about these questions. But please remember that I reserve the right to direct this thread and I will stop all bickering by closing it.

[TasManOfGod]

In all consideration of Mathew 24 it should be remembered that Jesus (under the Law) was answering a question from His disciples (also under the law) about when would be the end of the age they lived in.
Now how we can then say that the answer Jesus gave related to the age of the Church that the disciples then had no knowledge of, defies logic. Was Jesus trying to mislead them? Or maybe you would say His answer was for our benefit not theirs. How so?
Now before you go saying that such a viewpoint is a preterist one remember the remaining 7 years of Daniels prophecy. The point is that the age that Jesus was talking about has not finished and their will be a return to the covenant of Moses after the Church has been taken out of the way.

[Xavier]

Quickly looking over the sholder...

Obviously, we have some interpretive differences. The most notably being that I don't think that Matt 24:31 refers to a resurrection at all, but rather the gathering of elect talks about the Age of the Church. Messagers sent out to the four corners of the Earth (Everywhere).

That said, I do think that you have a valid connection from Matt 13 to Daniel 12. Both have very obvious references to the Final Judgment of the world.

Which leads to the next interpretive difference. Let me quote from another translation:
But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days."

We'll note that the ESV renders this as "end of the days" rather than "end of the age", which is the majority opinion of the translation I have in E-Sword (the NASB being the sole dissenting opinion though a note indicated this as the "Final End").

To me, it would seem clear that Matthew is harking to the same time frame as Daniel in this section. Thus, both passages refer to judgement and resurrection that is postmillienial. This of course doesn't solve the issue about the inconsistant use by Matthew, but I think that a Dispensational Futurist can understand the state of more than one age... :wink:

Yours,
Xavier

[eschaton]

Is Matt 24's post-tribulation resurrection premillennial?
Is Matt 13's resurrection premillennial?
When will Daniel be resurrected?

:btc3:
:billsign:

Hi again Bill,

I'm a fellow futurist, but I'm amillennial so these questions have a very simple solution for me.

The resurrection Jesus was talking about in this part of the Olivet discourse was not premillennial. Daniel will be resurrected in the general resurrection with the rest of us.

I accept the classical Christian teaching that there are two resurrections, the spiritual and the bodily (Col 3:1 John 5:24-25). The only premillennial resurrection is the spiritual one that has been going on for a long time. I'm talking about salvation. When Jesus gathers from heaven He is preparing those spiritually resurrected for the general resurrection.

That's what makes sense to me.

Thanks,

Alan

[redifrick]

Hi Group,

I didn't see this verse mentioned and it has a lot to say. There's more to this, but I'll have to go to another area to look it up.

1 Thess 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Daniel fell asleep and he would be raised BEFORE those alive at the parousia. It is well to note that these who are raised (who slept) can not come to life before the 1000 years are over.

Rev 20

5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)

All that would mean that if the first resurrection hasn't happened yet, we are at least 1000 years from the parousia.

redifrick

[Sheepdog]

OK, before I get to my question, I want to say right out that any reply other than Futurists will result in me abusing my mod powers and deleting your post.


:rasberry:

[eschaton]

Hi Group,

I didn't see this verse mentioned and it has a lot to say. There's more to this, but I'll have to go to another area to look it up.

1 Thess 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Daniel fell asleep and he would be raised BEFORE those alive at the parousia. It is well to note that these who are raised (who slept) can not come to life before the 1000 years are over.

Rev 20

5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)

All that would mean that if the first resurrection hasn't happened yet, we are at least 1000 years from the parousia.

redifrick

Don't forget that Jesus told Martha that if anyone believed in Him they would never die.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

He said this is passing from death to life (John 5:23). Christianity taught this as the first resurrection of Revelation 20:5 for 1800 years. The scriptures can't be broken, so there can only be one first resurrection.

Paul speaks of those who have risen with Christ (Col 3:1). Had Paul not received the first resurrection? Of course he had. So it is implicit that he speaks of the general resurrection in 1 Thess 4.

In Rev 20:5 the spiritual resurrection is identified as the first resurrection. This means there will still be many who turn to Christ during the "little season," as explained in 20:3 and 6:11.

Jesus only identified two resurrections. One that is coming and one that "now is." (John 5:25) So if there is any consistency to the scriptures there are only two resurrections. Any instance of people being raised from the dead as miracles of God are just that, miracles used to show the power of God. They don't have to be classified as the spiritual or general resurrection.

AF

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

In all consideration of Mathew 24 it should be remembered that Jesus (under the Law) was answering a question from His disciples (also under the law) about when would be the end of the age they lived in.

Thanks for the response Tas. The only problem I see with this is the same term is used in Matthew 13, which quotes Dan 12, and the general resurrection.


Now how we can then say that the answer Jesus gave related to the age of the Church that the disciples then had no knowledge of, defies logic. Was Jesus trying to mislead them? Or maybe you would say His answer was for our benefit not theirs. How so?

I am really not sure when Jesus was referring to. That's why I look for the same statement in Matt 13 and Matt 25, (although Matt 25 is worse than unclear). If it refers to the end of the Jewish Temple age, then the gathering of the elect didn't start happening until after 70 AD. It's a quandry that no matter what view you hold, there is a problem. I don't see any way around it.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Quickly looking over the sholder...

:lol:

Obviously, we have some interpretive differences.

Ya think? :wink:

The most notably being that I don't think that Matt 24:31 refers to a resurrection at all, but rather the gathering of elect talks about the Age of the Church. Messagers sent out to the four corners of the Earth (Everywhere).

31 is a suplement to 30. So if you are correct, the sending of the messengers (angels) didn't start until after the destruction 70 AD, as I explained above. This causes all kinds of problems with the interpretation of Matt 13's sending of the messengers (angels) and the harvest motif.

That said, I do think that you have a valid connection from Matt 13 to Daniel 12. Both have very obvious references to the Final Judgment of the world.

And thus, my confusion

Which leads to the next interpretive difference. Let me quote from another translation:
But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days."

We'll note that the ESV renders this as "end of the days" rather than "end of the age", which is the majority opinion of the translation I have in E-Sword (the NASB being the sole dissenting opinion though a note indicated this as the "Final End").

To me, it would seem clear that Matthew is harking to the same time frame as Daniel in this section. Thus, both passages refer to judgement and resurrection that is postmillienial.

Agreed. I think Jesus was very purposeful on His choice of words in both instances.

This of course doesn't solve the issue about the inconsistant use by Matthew, but I think that a Dispensational Futurist can understand the state of more than one age... :wink:

But, even for me, a dispy, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is speaking of different time frames in these 2 verses. I will be speaking with a former Pastor of mine tomorrow and I'm going to run this one by him.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Hi again Bill,

I'm a fellow futurist, but I'm amillennial so these questions have a very simple solution for me.

These verses may end up pushing me toward amill, but who knows??

The resurrection Jesus was talking about in this part of the Olivet discourse was not premillennial. Daniel will be resurrected in the general resurrection with the rest of us.

So you think that the Trib is yet to come?

I accept the classical Christian teaching that there are two resurrections, the spiritual and the bodily (Col 3:1 John 5:24-25). The only premillennial resurrection is the spiritual one that has been going on for a long time. I'm talking about salvation. When Jesus gathers from heaven He is preparing those spiritually resurrected for the general resurrection.

I've never bought the "spiritual resurrection" of Rev 20:4-5, but that's another goose all together.

Thanks for the response Alan. I'll continue to look at input and try to make some sense of it all.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Hi Group,

I didn't see this verse mentioned and it has a lot to say. There's more to this, but I'll have to go to another area to look it up.

1 Thess 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Hi frick. You bring up an interesting comment. This opens up a whole can of worms about the rapture and Jesus returning to Earth. I'll reserve comment on this one as it relies too much on our millennial thought. Right now, I'm concerned about "the end of the age"

Daniel fell asleep and he would be raised BEFORE those alive at the parousia. It is well to note that these who are raised (who slept) can not come to life before the 1000 years are over.

Once again, this opens up a substantial can of worms. I am of the opinion that Rev 20:4-5 speaks of the resurrection before the Millennium and only those who are in Christ will enjoy it. But that to me is a little away from the "end of the age" question, so it won't be dissected much here

[redifrick]

Hi eschaton,

Yes, Jesus was talking directly and specifically to Martha when He spoke those words. Well, He had to be, there was noboy else there, I guess.

QUOTE: ( I don't know how to quote from posts yet)
He said this is passing from death to life (John 5:23). Christianity taught this as the first resurrection of Revelation 20:5 for 1800 years. The scriptures can't be broken, so there can only be one first resurrection.
**************************

I can't see those verses from John 5 as being actual resurrection. The reason being that Hymenaeous (sp) and Philetus(sp) were handed over to Satan for saying the resurrection had happened. That episode with Paul occurred after John said these things in chapter 5.

QUOTE:
Paul speaks of those who have risen with Christ (Col 3:1). Had Paul not received the first resurrection? Of course he had. So it is implicit that he speaks of the general resurrection in 1 Thess 4.
*******************************

I forget from the thread if you feel the 'first' resurrection is actually the 'born again' experience, or the baptism event as Catholics look at it(???).

I like to keep the 'first' resurrection as is written.

QUOTE:
In Rev 20:5 the spiritual resurrection is identified as the first resurrection. This means there will still be many who turn to Christ during the "little season," as explained in 20:3 and 6:11.
*******************************

Yes, I see rev 20 as a spiritual resurrection. That 'little season' is as the 100 years closes out, right?

In Rev 6 I get the feeling this is before or at least earlly into the time of the great tribulation. I don't know.
QUOTE:
Jesus only identified two resurrections.
************************

I'm going to go with three.

The first , the general and the resurrection of those who are alive and remain at the parousia...1 Thes 4:15.
QUOTE:
Any instance of people being raised from the dead as miracles of God are just that, miracles used to show the power of God.They don't have to be classified as the spiritual or general resurrection.
********************************

Like Lazurus......I agree with you.

Interesting, thank you

redifrick

[redifrick]

Hi Bill the cat,

QUOTE:
Right now, I'm concerned about "the end of the age"
********************
Isn't that covered by this verse from Hebrews 9?

NIV
26.........But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

KJV
26........but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

redifrick

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Hi Bill the cat,

QUOTE:
Right now, I'm concerned about "the end of the age"
********************
Isn't that covered by this verse from Hebrews 9?

NIV
26.........But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

KJV
26........but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

redifrick

Frick,

use the text [/QUOTE ] tags without the space in there around the text you want to quote and it will look like this:
[QUOTE]Bla bla bla

second, if the "end of the age" in Matt 24 is when Jesus sacrificed Himself, then it preceeds the Tribulation of Matt 24, which the text says otherwise. I don't think Paul is referring to the same period as Matthew is.

[redifrick]

Hi Bill,


So which/where are the quote tags?

QUOTE
second, if the "end of the age" in Matt 24 is when Jesus sacrificed Himself, then it preceeds the Tribulation of Matt 24, which the text says otherwise. I don't think Paul is referring to the same period as Matthew is.
****************

Oh, I see what you mean, but I assume it means it begins with the crucifixion.
What else can that verse mean?

redifrick

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:nsm: see why I am baffled at this...


oh, and you manually type the codes in. PM Xavier for a full explanation of how they work.

[Manasseh]

Hi BTC

Is Matt 24's post-tribulation resurrection premillennial?
Is Matt 13's resurrection premillennial?
When will Daniel be resurrected?

As a classical Pauline dispy I don't believe any of the passages you quoted speak of the resurrection.

Starting with matt 13...

The wheat and the tares are those who are alive in the world at the coming of Christ. At any one time in the Church there are those who profess faith in Christ who are wheat, and there are those who profess faith in Christ who are Tares. The Wheat and the Tares have been in the professing Church side by side through out Church history. At the end of the age Christ will gather the tares from among the Wheat. The Tares will be taken away in judgment, the wheat will be left to enter the millennium i.e. "SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father"

So this parable is not talking about resurrection, but the judgment of those professing christ who will be alive on earth at the coming of Christ. Read the parable again with this in view and see if it makes sense. It does to me.

Matt 24...

Mat 24:31 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.

Compare with it's parallel verse...

Isa 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Matt 24:31 is speaking of the regathering of the elect of Israel from among the nations. At the end of the age there will be a regathering of the southern kingdom (Judah) and the northern kingdom (Israel), back to the land.

Daniel 12 is speaking of this same event. Israel is now aleep in the dust of the nations, they will be regathered as a nation. There will be a judgment of the nation at that time, "some to everlasting life", "some to everlasting contempt".

Regards
M

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

But does not the coming of Christ include the resurrection?

[Manasseh]

But does not the coming of Christ include the resurrection?

It might depending on what view you take. But I don't believe those passages speak of the resurrection.

It's a question of the timing of the resurrection of the OT believers and the Church believers. Some believe both groups are resurrected at the pre-trib rapture, others that the Church only at the rapture, the OT believers at the second advent. My opinion is reserved until I do a more comprehensive study of the subject. Though i'm sure about what I said with the passages you quoted, ESP the Matt parables. But it's an interesting thing to think about.

M

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

That's why I am trying to fit it into my view. I am not 100% sure on the timing of the resurrection now. I was solidly Pre-trib resurrection and rapture, but this study has thrown that for a major loop.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will re-examine things this weekend.

[terluvire]

I just want to say that when we die we are with the Lord. Remember when Jesus was hanging on the cross and he told the one malfactor, TODAY you will be with me in paradise. And God says he is the God of the living and not the dead. Also, on the Mount of Transfiguration, both Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ. They weren't in some hole in the ground. They were fully alive, just in spiritual bodies. Look at the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus was in the bossom of Abraham after he died. He too was not in a hole in the ground. Only our flesh bodies stay in the ground. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, (kjv)
If we are absent from our bodies, we are present with the Lord.

God does not contradict himself. We do that. we are not reading it right! In Daniel 12, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake. Some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." This happens at the 7th trump, at Christ's return. "Those who sleep in the dust of the earth",
He is speaking to us who live in flesh bodies. Our bodies were created from the ground, or dirt. this is the dust of the earth, our bodies. He's not speaking of the literal ground. There are no souls in any grave. Dead bodies are not going to rise out of their graves as some preachers teach. As for those who sleep. The word sleep can imply 2 meanings. There are those who are not awake to the truth, and there are those who rest (sleep) in the Lord. Those who are not awake to the truth will be greatly ashamed at Christ's return. For they would have been worshipping the antichrist, whom they thought was the true Christ. Just imagine their embarrassment when they see the true Christ. These are the ones that pray for the mountains to fall on them at Christ's return. Their shame is going to be very great. Those who awake to everlasting life, are the ones who waited for the true Christ to return. They were not deceived by the antichrist. These are the ones who stand firm to the end.:smile:

[Manasseh]

BTW I believe you were right about Heb 9 not speaking of "the end of the age".

But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

It's actually the end of the "ages" plural in Heb 9:26. All other ages looked forward to the death of Christ. So his death was the focus, the end, of those ages. Thats not the same as the end of the current age.

M

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Terluv,

So do you deny the future bodily resurrection of all mankind?

[Manasseh]

BTC

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus has died and has risen again, so also God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.
1Th 4:15 (For this we say to you in the word of the Lord, that *we*, the living, who remain to the coming of the Lord, are in no way to anticipate those who have fallen asleep;
1Th 4:16 for the Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel's voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and [the dead in Christ shall rise first;
1Th 4:17 then *we*, the living who remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall be always with the Lord.

Interesting thing to note about the dead that are resurrected in the above passage. It speaks of "the dead IN CHRIST". I don't know if you have ever done a study of the phrase "in christ". But it is a Pauline phrase, peter uses it on three occasions in his epistles but doesn't explain it's meaning. It is never used in reference to OT believers. In the writings of Paul it is only used in reference to the Church the body of Christ.

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

I have my doubts that OT believers are referred to in 1 thess 4.

M

[redifrick]

Hi Turluvire,
[QUOTE]
There are no souls in any grave. Dead bodies are not going to rise out of their graves as some preachers teach.[QUOTE]

Tell me more. A flash of verses that I bring to mind all line up with what you wrote.

redifrick

[redifrick]

Hi,

Concerning the plural there of ages.

The KJV uses end of the 'world'. I don't knowe if that clears or muddies.

redifrick

[terluvire]

There is so much more. Just ask any question and I will see what I can do.

[Manasseh]

Hi,

Concerning the plural there of ages.

The KJV uses end of the 'world'. I don't knowe if that clears or muddies.

redifrick

Sure, but have a look at just about every other version.

M

[Etcetera]

Bill:

Greetings in the holy name.

I am glad that you opened up this thread to those who do not hold to premillennial views, as I am a recent convert, if you will, to some form of preterism. That said, I am going to offer you my own answer, based on my reading of both the Bible and certain ancient Jewish apocalyptic writings, and assure you that it will technically work with a futurist view as well as with a preterist view.

I present my view across the following points:

1. You mentioned the (unwelcome) possibility of Jesus confusingly referring to the end of two different ages in Matthew 13 and 24, thus implying a structure of at least three ages: The age in which Jesus lived (culminating in the great tribulation), the age of the millennium (culminating in the general resurrection), and the age after that (eternity).

This kind of structure is, in my judgment, a modern construction. The ancient Jews knew of two, exactly two, ages. They were known as this present age and the age to come. This age is finite; it will end. The age to come is eternity.

So what about the millennium? There were many Jews, of course, who believed in a messianic period (like a millennium, though the hypothetical count of years was not always a thousand); the trick is that they did not call the millennium an age. The messianic period was simply not called the age to come. Some Jews seemed to regard the messianic period as the last segment of this present age, others possibly as an interim between the two great ages, but I have found none that regarded it as an age unto itself, with a preceding age (this present age) and yet another age (eternity) to come afterward.

A two-age structure, which I believe can be demonstrated in spades both within the Bible and without, simplifies matters considerably. When Jesus or Matthew refers to the end of the age, there is only one age, and only one end, in view.

2. But in the futurist viewpoint this raises the specter of the apparent gulf of years between a premillennial (not to mention pretribulational!) rapture (Matthew 24) and a postmillennial general resurrection (Matthew 13, Daniel 12). The preterist viewpoint also has a problem here. Most preterists will admit a connection between Matthew 13 and Daniel 12, but then have to deny that Daniel 12 has anything to do with the general resurrection. This, to my mind, is untenable. Such a split has one detail seemingly in its favor (the many of 12.2), but the entire Jewish tradition against it.

My view of biblical prophetic language avoids this dilemma with what appears at first to be utterly illogical. It is my position that the end of the age equals the so-called last days (if one asks what they are the last days of, I answer that they are the last days of this present age), and is in fact not a point in time but rather a broad span of time, so broad as to include both the great tribulation and the entire millennium.

In other words, the millennium (along with a few years just before it, at least) is the end of the age. When Jesus or Matthew speaks of what will happen at the end of the age, he is not committing himself by those very words to any particular point of time (such as a rapture that inaugurates the tribulation, or a resurrection of the just, or the general resurrection). All that he is committing to is a potentially huge span of time.

This view of mine, I freely admit, seems counter-intuitive, at least at first. How can a particular event be said to happen at the end of the age, and then another event a thousand years later is still at the end of the age?

But I have more than mere wishful thinking on my side. I have an ancient Jewish apocalypse called 4 Ezra in which this scenario is exactly what is presented. Press me, and I can provide more details, but 4 Ezra envisages a great tribulation, followed by a 400-year messianic period (recall that I mentioned that the number was not always imagined as 1,000), and then the general resurrection inaugurating the age to come. The book also specifically says that the general resurrection at the end of the messianic years is the end of this age and the beginning of the next. And the book also says that the tribulation period will happen during the last days of the age, the time when the age is beginning to finish its course! In other words, the age is already starting to end during the tribulation, yet there are still 400 years to follow before the age to come gets underway with the general resurrection.

I call 4 Ezra to the stand, not as scripture, but as testimony to what those phrases, last days and the consummation of the age, would have meant to the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking. I submit that all that those terms meant to an ancient Jew was that the prophesied turn of events from this present evil age to the future age of glory will have begun. Once the first event on the list (whatever that may be in our prophetic imagination) is checked off, the consummation of the age is upon us.

3. My view of most eschatological prophecy, therefore, is aoristic. I do not know how much if any Greek you know, but the term comes from one of its tenses. An aoristic prophecy is one that does not actually commit to an actual timeline of events; it simply lumps all events of the last days together as if they were one, even if any given two may be separated by a millennium.

Take Zechariah 12-13, for instance. Both chapters purport to tell what will happen on that day. Yet most Christians would agree that some of the prophecies therein have already been fulfilled (such as the shepherd prophecy of 13.7), while others have not (such as the prophecy of 12.3-5, which even on a preteristic reading is only in the process of being fulfilled; it has not yet been completed).

How can Zechariah get away with such fluctuation? By speaking aoristically, as if all of the significant future events were one.

I propose that we find much the same thing in prophecies concerning the end of the age. It matters not that the actual event of Matthew 13 is supposed to happen (or, on some preteristic readings, culminate) after the millennium, and the event of Matthew 24 is supposed to happen before the millennium. Prophetically speaking, they are all cut from the same cloth. All of those events belong to the last days of the present age, no matter how long those days actually go on.

If any of this helps at all, I am glad. If it is too convoluted or confusing, set it aside, or trash it.

May God richly bless you in your eschatological studies.

Etcetera.

[Manasseh]

The ancient Jews knew of two, exactly two, ages. They were known as this present age and the age to come. This age is finite; it will end. The age to come is eternity.

You might have a problem with a verse like Eph 2:7....

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

[Etcetera]

Manasseh:

A good observation. Ephesians 2.7 is, like many Jewish expressions of eternity, hyperbole, and of a most common variety. Examples abound of eternity being expressed as...:

1. ...unto the age.
2. ...unto the ages.
3. ...unto the age of the age.
4. ...unto the age of the ages.
5. ...unto the ages of the ages.

It can be shown that all of these expressions simply mean forever. (Whenever you encounter that word forever in an English translation of either of the testaments, in fact, it is almost always one of those expressions lying behind it. Some translations render the latter three as forever and ever, but even in English we can agree that forever and forever and ever mean the same thing, really; one is just more hyperbolic.)

And it works going backward through history, as well, as an author might say something like ages past or the like. None of these expressions is counting ages. What does count ages is the twin expressions this age and the age to come, repeated many times in many different contexts.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Manasseh]

Manasseh:

A good observation. Ephesians 2.7 is, like many Jewish expressions of eternity, hyperbole, and of a most common variety. Examples abound of eternity being expressed as...:

1. ...unto the age.
2. ...unto the ages.
3. ...unto the age of the age.
4. ...unto the age of the ages.
5. ...unto the ages of the ages.

It can be shown that all of these expressions simply mean forever. (Whenever you encounter that word forever in an English translation of either of the testaments, in fact, it is almost always one of those expressions lying behind it. Some translations render the latter three as forever and ever, but even in English we can agree that forever and forever and ever mean the same thing, really; one is just more hyperbolic.)

And it works going backward through history, as well, as an author might say something like ages past or the like. None of these expressions is counting ages. What does count ages is the twin expressions this age and the age to come, repeated many times in many different contexts.

In him.

Etcetera.

I disagree, there are ages to come and ages past. It's certainly not hyperbole, the vast majority of scripture being in fact an understatment and it's an easy thing to do, to call scripture hyperbole when the plain language doesn't agree with your view. From the point of view of the Apostle Paul there were two ages to come, the Millennial age and the age of eternity, "the ages to come". The Jews may have seen two ages WRT the times of the world, the Mosaic age (the current age, "this age") and the millennial age ("the age to come"). But scripture interprets scripture, extra biblical writings and culture do not interpret scripture. Anyway, i'll leave you and BTC to it.

M

[TasManOfGod]

I believe that we need to consider the resurrection of the righteous in terms of the covenants in which they were righteous. Othewise you are forced to believe that there is one only event in the "First Resurrection" whereas Revelation dispells this concept.

[Etcetera]

Manasseh:

I disagree, there are ages to come and ages past. It's certainly not hyperbole....

It is your position that unto the ages, unto the age of the ages, and unto the ages of the ages are not hyperbole?

All right, then, what is the difference between them? How does the literal meaning of unto the ages differ from that of unto the age of the ages?

I do not think that these are hyperbole because they would otherwise disagree with my viewpoint. I think that these are hyperbole because I have absolutely scoured the Masoretic, LXX, and NT for examples of such expressions to see if there is any difference between them, and there is none that I can discern. In fact, one kind is sometimes translated as the other kind between the Masoretic and the LXX. That tells me that they are all telling me the pretty much the same thing.

Furthermore, I thought that these were all hyperbolic even when I (briefly) held to three ages (under the influence of a very nice argument by Dee Dee). It has nothing to do with my views of the ages as a whole.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Manasseh]

It is your position that unto the ages, unto the age of the ages, and unto the ages of the ages are not hyperbole?

All right, then, what is the difference between them? How does the literal meaning of unto the ages differ from that of unto the age of the ages?

In what way, apart from your interpetation of them, are they an exaggeration? You can't see a difference between "the ages to come" and "the ages of ages". Why, in the context, is "ages of ages" an exaggeration when describing eternity? Hyperbole is when exaggeration is used for emphasis; but we can have emphasis without exaggeration. I suggest to you that the double rendering of "ages" in "ages of ages" is purely emphasis. But the word "Ages" in itself is also not hyperbole.

Eph 3:9 and to enlighten all with the knowledge of what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things,

If there were only two ages, the current age and the eternal age then the above verse is not hyperbole, it is just plain wrong. You call it hyperbole because it doen't fit with your scheme. The above verse makes it plain that there were previous ages. Can you prove from the bible that there are only two ages?

Heb 9:26 since he had then been obliged often to suffer from the foundation of the world. But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested for the putting away of sin by his sacrifice.

Why is the above hyperbole? Can it be proven to be hyperbole? The fact that
you had to go to extra biblical writings is very telling.

You can have the last say on this one.

M

[Etcetera]

If there were only two ages, the current age and the eternal age then the above verse is not hyperbole, it is just plain wrong.

Hyperbole is always just plain wrong. When I say that I have told you a million times, that is hyperbole, and it is also just plain wrong (the real count probably being nowhere near the hundreds, let alone the millions). If I really counted and did tell you a million times, then it is no longer hyperbole.

You call it hyperbole because it doen't fit with your scheme.

This is a watered down ad hominem. I made it clear that I regarded them as hyperbole even when I held to more than two ages.

Heb 9:26 since he had then been obliged often to suffer from the foundation of the world. But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested for the putting away of sin by his sacrifice.

Why is the above hyperbole? Can it be proven to be hyperbole?]

Because the verse says that ages were ending when Jesus was crucified. Plural. How many ages were running concurrently and ending at that time? We read about this present age plenty. Do we ever hear of these present ages? It looks like consummation of the ages really means no more than consummation of the age. Both mean that the present age is being consummated.

The fact that you had to go to extra biblical writings is very telling.

Telling of what, exactly? How did you think biblical lexicons are made? We could probably define some terms from the Bible alone, but for most we rely on outside usage. The biblical authors wrote in an existing language; they did not make it up on the spot. We are supposed to look to outside sources to help us define our terms and test the range of idiom.

Besides, and this is very important to grasp for all biblical studies, we know that the New Testament authors read these extrabiblical works. They even quoted and alluded to them in the New Testament. If the apostolic writers read and referred to them, why would we ignore them?

This is no covert attempt to smuggle extra books into the canon. It is an attempt to understand where the authors were coming from, and what they meant by certain terms and expressions. If the apostles gave you their reading list of extrabiblical books that they appreciated, would you read them? Well, we have a limited form of that list in the allusions and references that they make to those books.

Check out Isaiah 45.17 (Masoretic and LXX):

ישראל נושע ביהוה תשועת עולמים לא־תבשו ולא־תכלמו עד־עולמי עד׃

Ισραηλ σωζεται υπο κυριου σωτηριαν αιωνιον· ουκ αισχυνθησονται ουδε μη εντραπωσιν εως του αιωνος.

Israel is saved by the Lord with an eternal salvation. You will not be ashamed or humiliated through the age[s].

I bracket the final s of the word ages in my English translation precisely because the Hebrew of that word is plural while the Greek is singular. The ancient translators who put together the LXX, in other words, recognized the plural עולמים for what it was, an exaggerated hyperbolic expression just as easily rendered in the singular as in the plural.

Tobit 3.11:

Και εδεηθη προς τη θυριδι και ειπεν· Ευλογητος ει κυριε ο θεος μου και ευλογητον το ονομα σου το αγιον και εντιμον εις τους αιωνας· ευλογησαισαν σε παντα τα εργα σου εις τον αιωνα.

And she prayed toward the window and said: Blessed are you, Lord my God, and blessed and honored is your holy name unto the ages! Let all your works bless you unto the age!

Is the divine name to be honored in all future ages, but his works blessed only until the next one?

I do not think that two different extents of time are in view in this verse. The plural appears to mean no more than the singular. Both mean forever.

You can have the last say on this one.

Well, thank you. Hardly necessary, but thanks. :smile:

Nice talking with you. In the name.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

These verses may end up pushing me toward amill, but who knows??



So you think that the Trib is yet to come?



I've never bought the "spiritual resurrection" of Rev 20:4-5, but that's another goose all together.

Thanks for the response Alan. I'll continue to look at input and try to make some sense of it all.

Hi Bill,

Although the tribulation may be fulfilled in an idealistic or even typological sense, I think the great tribulation referred to in prophecy is definitely still in the future, and I think that's the only view that is consistent with the majority of church fathers. I've been studying them lately and the only one that appears to have entertained preterist ideas, as far as the tribulation, was Clementine of Alexandria, since it seems that he felt Daniel's seventy weeks had been fulfilled. His pupil and successor, Origen, was definitely a futurist who expected a future tribulation and Antichrist.

I also think the amill belief was the most popular among the church fathers. Victornius identifies chiliasm (premill) with Cerinthus in his commentary on Revelation.