No. It's Not The End Of The World

[Apologiaphoenix]

What is the purification? How does it happen?

Why is it called a New Heaven and New Earth?

Nobody thinks the actual Earth will be destroyed, Nick. The "end of the world" means that this fallen creation will be remade and renewed. The old will pass away and be no more. That is the end of the world. I think that will entail a lot of physical changes though, and earthquakes and fire and such.

I don't think it's necessary. This is the only place in Scripture where fire is described in this way and yes, I think some peopel do think the Earth will be destroyed because everyone lives in Heaven at that point. New does not just refer to chronology. It also refers to quality. Anyone in Christ is a new creation. We're not destroyed and then remade. We are in the process of purification instead.

[Sparko]

I don't think it's necessary. This is the only place in Scripture where fire is described in this way and yes, I think some peopel do think the Earth will be destroyed because everyone lives in Heaven at that point. New does not just refer to chronology. It also refers to quality. Anyone in Christ is a new creation. We're not destroyed and then remade. We are in the process of purification instead.

sure some people think we will all live in heaven floating on clouds and playing harps, but that is not what the bible says. It says there will be a new Earth and a new Heaven and we will live on the New Earth. I think it refers to a restoration of God's creation to what it was before the fall, probably better. The entire universe. There will be fundamental changes. There will be no more death or decay for example. I think that means changes down to the molecular level. The old Earth will be destroyed. But the destruction means it will go away, be transformed. Not blown to bits. I have never heard anyone think the planet was going to be disintegrated or blown up. But it will be remade. Just like our bodies will be remade. The old bodies will be transformed. They will be no more. We will have glorified bodies.

[Apologiaphoenix]

sure some people think we will all live in heaven floating on clouds and playing harps, but that is not what the bible says. It says there will be a new Earth and a new Heaven and we will live on the New Earth. I think it refers to a restoration of God's creation to what it was before the fall, probably better. The entire universe. There will be fundamental changes. There will be no more death or decay for example. I think that means changes down to the molecular level. The old Earth will be destroyed. But the destruction means it will go away, be transformed. Not blown to bits. I have never heard anyone think the planet was going to be disintegrated or blown up. But it will be remade. Just like our bodies will be remade. The old bodies will be transformed. They will be no more. We will have glorified bodies.

I agree entirely, but yes. I do think there are many people who think this world will go away. This world is not my home. I'm just passing through!

This world is our home. It's where we were made to dwell.

[TheWall]

I agree entirely, but yes. I do think there are many people who think this world will go away. This world is not my home. I'm just passing through!

This world is our home. It's where we were made to dwell.

I thought the idea behind that statement is that our home is in the presence of God. I can see how the interpretation you said can be a problem.

[Sparko]

I agree entirely, but yes. I do think there are many people who think this world will go away. This world is not my home. I'm just passing through!

This world is our home. It's where we were made to dwell.

ok so we are saying the same thing then. I misread you.

We are not complete without our bodies and we won't have our bodies in heaven, but eventually heaven will be on Earth when New Jerusalem comes.

[37818]

eggzactly. Sounds like the end of the world to me. And then God makes a New Heaven and a New Earth. Basically he renews his creation. The old creation passes away and is transformed into a new creation. Apparently that involves a lot of noise, elements melting and the Earth burning. Sounds like every "end of the world" scenario I have ever heard of.

Only for the Judgement. After the judgment, God brings us down in the New Jerusalem to the New Earth in the New Heaven. Romans 8:22, Psalm 104:5, Revelation 21:1-

[Scrawly]

Why should I think Jesus will descend after that?

Because of verse 31: "And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." This is the same language expressed in Matt. 13:39;41-43, which likewise seems to refers to the second coming/day of the Lord.

Also Matt 24:42-44 states: "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will."
This coming like a thief in the night theme is echoed in 1Thess 5:2 and likewise seems to deal with the second coming/day of the Lord.

So even though I agree that the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem in 70 AD was highly significant, I can't help but see the imminent return of Christ to take place shortly after that significant event, as the biblical text seems to indicate. Jesus judged the tribes of Israel and the "riding on a cloud" language is lifted from Isa. 19:1 to make that point. However, it seems that the second coming/Lord's return is also in view, hence Matt. 24:31;42-44 and Matt 25:31-46.

The book of Revelation pertains to the 70 AD destruction, but also the imminent return thereafter -- Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. (Rev. 22:12). This echoes Matt. 16:27 (also Isa. 40:10; 62:11) and likewise seems to deal with the second coming/day of the Lord.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Because of verse 31: "And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." This is the same language expressed in Matt. 13:39;41-43, which likewise seems to refers to the second coming/day of the Lord.

Also Matt 24:42-44 states: "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will."
This coming like a thief in the night theme is echoed in 1Thess 5:2 and likewise seems to deal with the second coming/day of the Lord.

So even though I agree that the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem in 70 AD was highly significant, I can't help but see the imminent return of Christ to take place shortly after that significant event, as the biblical text seems to indicate. Jesus judged the tribes of Israel and the "riding on a cloud" language is lifted from Isa. 19:1 to make that point. However, it seems that the second coming/Lord's return is also in view, hence Matt. 24:31;42-44 and Matt 25:31-46.

The book of Revelation pertains to the 70 AD destruction, but also the imminent return thereafter -- Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. (Rev. 22:12). This echoes Matt. 16:27 (also Isa. 40:10; 62:11) and likewise seems to deal with the second coming/day of the Lord.

There are different interpretations of the latter part of Matthew 24. I'm unsure where I stand exactly, but I think the gathering of the elect actually refers to the work of evangelism. Angels refers to messengers as well and even human ones. John the Baptist was an angelos.

[Scrawly]

There are different interpretations of the latter part of Matthew 24. I'm unsure where I stand exactly, but I think the gathering of the elect actually refers to the work of evangelism.

I think such an interpretation fails to account for the wider context. In the parables immediately following: Matt. 24:45-51, 25:1-13;14-30 we have Jesus driving home the importance of keeping awake and staying ready because they will not know the day or hour. These parables reiterate what was expressed in Matt. 24:36-44, namely be ready and keep awake because the Messiah is returning like a thief in the night who will then proceed to judge the righteous and wicked (Matt. 24:50-51, 25:10-12;30;31-46). I therefore fail to see how the latter part of Matthew could have anything other than the bodily return of Messiah in view.

Angels refers to messengers as well and even human ones. John the Baptist was an angelos.

Yes, but it is difficult to accept that the angels spoken of in Matt. 24:31 are human messengers when the context demands otherwise (Matt. 25:31-46). Let us also recall a similar account in Matt. 13:36-43. In verses 41-43 we have a similar scenario playing out as the one found in Matt. 24:31 where the Son of Man sends out his angels who this time gather the wicked and toss them into the furnace of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (13:42), and then the righteous will dwell in eternal bliss with their Father in the kingdom, which connects to the imagery in Rev. 22:3-5. Matthew 13:36-43 is dealing with the "end of the age" (13:39-40) which is clearly in relation to the eternal fate of the wicked and the righteous. Matthew 23 is likewise dealing with "the end of the age" (24:3). And it appears that "the end of the age" was to occur "immediately after the tribulation/suffering of those days" when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Now I know partial preterists believe in a two age model that states God executed his wrath upon apostate Judaism via the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD which ushered in the "age to come", the age we are now living in; however, I find that the difference between "this age" and the "age to come" is the difference between "the temporal" and "the eternal" in the bible so we cannot currently be living in "the age to come" -- see for example, Luke 20:34-36.

[37818]

Because of verse 31: "And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." This is the same language expressed in Matt. 13:39;41-43, which likewise seems to refers to the second coming/day of the Lord.

Also Matt 24:42-44 states: "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will."
This coming like a thief in the night theme is echoed in 1Thess 5:2 and likewise seems to deal with the second coming/day of the Lord.

So even though I agree that the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem in 70 AD was highly significant, I can't help but see the imminent return of Christ to take place shortly after that significant event, as the biblical text seems to indicate. Jesus judged the tribes of Israel and the "riding on a cloud" language is lifted from Isa. 19:1 to make that point. However, it seems that the second coming/Lord's return is also in view, hence Matt. 24:31;42-44 and Matt 25:31-46.

The book of Revelation pertains to the 70 AD destruction, but also the imminent return thereafter -- Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. (Rev. 22:12). This echoes Matt. 16:27 (also Isa. 40:10; 62:11) and likewise seems to deal with the second coming/day of the Lord.

The "I am coming soon" is better translated "I am coming quickly." Not when, but how, "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." -- Matthew 24:27. His second coming is yet future. What the Apostle Peter wrote is to be understood as yet true, ". . . But the end of all things is near: . . ." --1 Peter 4:7.

[Rushing Jaws]

I think St Matthew 24-25 is:

1. apocalyptic
2. contains examples of “prophetic foreshortening”
3. addressed to 3 distinct audiences:

a. the bystanders present during the original incident
b. the first Christian hearers of St Matthew’s text about the incident
c. The Church since.

He was addressing Jews, who were His disciples, who would, because they shared the same 1st-century, Palestinian, Jewish religious culture as He did, would be able to take certain ideas for granted that we, 1980 years and many cultures and a lot of ideas later, cannot.
In addition, we have pretty much no way of knowing with what tones, body language, and so forth He spoke. Those who heard Him in person, would know. And that means we lack a lot of clues as to how He expressed what He meant.

But the exegesis of the canonical Gospel has, until the last 300 years or so, occurred in an almost entirely Gentile Church, with no understanding of Jewish apocalyptic literature until about 1900, that did not really value the human historicality of Jesus Christ.

I think all the teaching in St Matthew is delivered against this threefold background. And I think it is an expression of three aspects of the character of Jesus as Messiah:

a. the historical past - Jesus addressed the Jews, His countrymen.
b. the present life of the Church - He speaks through St Matthew’s Gospel to the church St Matthew lived in & wrote for
c. the as yet not fully realised consummation of the life of the Church - He speaks to the Church in the ages since, as long as this Gospel shall last.

He has come, He is the Coming One, and He shall come. His speaking to His People seems to follow that pattern, at least in St Matthew.

If that is correct, then “this generation” (in 24.34) becomes whichever generation He is addressing through those words. His words are, on this hypothesis, not *meant* to be addressed only to their original hearers.

[Scrawly]

The "I am coming soon" is better translated "I am coming quickly." Not when, but how, "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." -- Matthew 24:27. His second coming is yet future. What the Apostle Peter wrote is to be understood as yet true, ". . . But the end of all things is near: . . ." --1 Peter 4:7.

1) OK, so Jesus is coming "quickly" in such a manner that everyone will see him (24:27), not like the false Messiah's in verses 24:23-26 who are situated in certain places so that only some can see them. How does this demonstrate that his coming is yet future?

2) 1Pet. 4:7 has stated to his readers that "the end of all things is near", so this really means...?

[Scrawly]

I think St Matthew 24-25 is:

1. apocalyptic
2. contains examples of “prophetic foreshortening”
3. addressed to 3 distinct audiences:

a. the bystanders present during the original incident
b. the first Christian hearers of St Matthew’s text about the incident
c. The Church since.

He was addressing Jews, who were His disciples, who would, because they shared the same 1st-century, Palestinian, Jewish religious culture as He did, would be able to take certain ideas for granted that we, 1980 years and many cultures and a lot of ideas later, cannot.
In addition, we have pretty much no way of knowing with what tones, body language, and so forth He spoke. Those who heard Him in person, would know. And that means we lack a lot of clues as to how He expressed what He meant.

But the exegesis of the canonical Gospel has, until the last 300 years or so, occurred in an almost entirely Gentile Church, with no understanding of Jewish apocalyptic literature until about 1900, that did not really value the human historicality of Jesus Christ.

I think all the teaching in St Matthew is delivered against this threefold background. And I think it is an expression of three aspects of the character of Jesus as Messiah:

a. the historical past - Jesus addressed the Jews, His countrymen.
b. the present life of the Church - He speaks through St Matthew’s Gospel to the church St Matthew lived in & wrote for
c. the as yet not fully realised consummation of the life of the Church - He speaks to the Church in the ages since, as long as this Gospel shall last.

He has come, He is the Coming One, and He shall come. His speaking to His People seems to follow that pattern, at least in St Matthew.

If that is correct, then “this generation” (in 24.34) becomes whichever generation He is addressing through those words. His words are, on this hypothesis, not *meant* to be addressed only to their original hearers.

I think you've gone off on a tangent.

[KingsGambit]

I think you've gone off on a tangent.

That's a rather unfair way of dismissing a post that seems very much relevant.

[Scrawly]

That's a rather unfair way of dismissing a post that seems very much relevant.

I don't think so. His post would be relevant if it engaged in exegesis of the text(s) at hand. He's constructed a hypothesis (or a rabbit trail) that is not engaging in exegesis of the text(s) at hand.