Olivet Discourse Discussion

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

I don't think that the emphasis in this passage was on how long the disciples were going to live, or on how distant the event was in the future.

And yet there it is, "some of you will not taste death." Jesus set up this terminus, and you have yet to explain why. You try to state what it does not mean, but what then does it mean?

Rather, the emphasis was on what some of them would see in their lifetimes.

Yes. And one does not normally say that someone will see something in his or her lifetime when it is actually going to happen next week. "Some of you reading this post will not die until you see Saint Patrick's Day." You produce some parallels to this kind of wording applied to immediate events, and we can debate them.

Secondly, I agree with you that the transfiguration was a foretaste of the future glory to be unveiled. But it happened during the First Parousia, not the Second.

Yes, of course the transfiguration happened during Jesus' earthly ministry. You have not heard me argue otherwise.

As my post pointed out, the parousia in 2 Peter 1:16 answers to the eternal kingdom in 1:11. There is nothing in between verse 11 and verse 16 to suggest that Peter was wishing to remind his readers of anything other than the need to stand strong in view of the coming of the (still future) kingdom. You wish this parousia to be the first coming, and I am saying that it is perfectly intelligible in its usual sense when applied to Christ, his second coming. Show me how this cannot be so, and I will abandon the usual usage.

But I rather think that the passage is clear as it stands:

2 Peter 1:16: For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

We were not deceived by the kinds of false prophets that Jesus warned against and that I am going to discuss momentarily (2 Peter 1:20-2:3!). No, this prophecy of the coming in power, the parousia, is true, and was made more sure (1:19) by the fact that I, Peter, was vouchsafed a foretaste of it on the mount of transfiguration.

Notice the gar. I want you to remember to be diligent (verses 10-11), even after I am gone (verses 12-15), because (gar) the parousia will indeed happen; it is no fable. In fact, it was proven to me personally on the holy mount.

This reading is completely rational, is it not? I mean, you may prefer another reading, but does my reading make sense of the text? Of course. It flows from start to finish without a hitch, and it preserves the usual sense of the parousia of the Lord, matching this coming up with the entrance to the eternal kingdom in verse 11. You have shown me nothing to call it into question.

Note that "fables" is plural, and seems to indicate that Peter is referring to accounts that some might suspect to be made-up stories.

If the story of the transfiguration were the "fable," it would be just that, a fable (singular!). Rather, the fables are the lies of the false prophets in 1:20-2:3 (compare Matthew 24:4-5, 11, 23-26). There were as many specific versions of the end as there were false prophets in the first century.

Besides, was the destruction of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel in judgment a visible coming, a parousia? A coming in judgment, yes, but the disciples who lived until that time did not see him as they did at the transfiguration.

I have nowhere yet stated my interpretation of what concrete event the parousia is supposed to refer to. I am reading the texts at this point. The theological deductions and inductions will come later.

All in good time.

Yours in the name.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

2 Peter 1:16: For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

If the story of the transfiguration were the "fable," it would be just that, a fable (singular!).

My meaning was not that "fables" refers to the transfiguration account. It was that the plurality of "fables" corresponds to the plurality of apostolic accounts of Jesus activities and teachings during the first Parousia. The basic idea is, The things we have made known to you concerning the power and coming of Jesus are true, not made up fables, because we are eyewitnesses of His majesty.

I think that the passage can be honorably interpreted as you do it. I can't point out any glaring errors in your view. I can only point to subtle aspects of the passage, such as that above, that harmonize better if we take Peter to be referring to the First Parousia.

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

My meaning was not that "fables" refers to the transfiguration account. It was that the plurality of "fables" corresponds to the plurality of apostolic accounts of Jesus activities and teachings during the first Parousia.

I see.

It would be nice if there were some contextual clue within 2 Peter 1:10-2:3 to suggest that a multiplicity of apostolic accounts of the words or deeds of Jesus during his ministry was even on Peter's radar screen. Since we do have false prophets mentioned in the context, that is of course where I myself would first look for the mythoi.

You use that term "first parousia" rather often. This passage is, I think, the only passage in which it is even remotely possible that the term parousia is used of Jesus' earthly lifetime. Not that the apostles themselves would necessarily object to this terminology (they do sometimes employ the same term for both comings), but as they themselves do not use it, I myself would tend not to use it either.

I think that the passage can be honorably interpreted as you do it. I can't point out any glaring errors in your view.

That is a noble statement, and the sign of an open mind. It has been a pleasure chatting with you on this matter.

Under the blood.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

I forgot to comment regarding this.

Etcetera:
And one does not normally say that someone will see something in his or her lifetime when it is actually going to happen next week.

I see your point, but someone might say this if He knows that a hoped for event is very near that most people have despaired of seeing in their lifetimes. When these words were spoken, did the disciples recognize that the Kingdom of God was advancing before their eyes in the very person of Jesus? The three who shortly thereafter witnessed the transfiguration event were blessed to have their eyes opened to this.

A researcher investigating a rare form of cancer might, shortly before he has perfected a cure, announce, "I believe that a cure for this deadly disease will be found, not 100 years from now, but within our lifetimes," knowing that He is on the verge of a cure.

If he announced His cure a few days later, his earlier prediction would not be inconsistent with that. The prediction would be fulfilled earlier than expected, yes, but that would be a delightful surprise. Our Lord, out of His great love for us, sometimes answers before we even finish asking, and fulfills dreams before we can imagine them ever possibly being fulfilled.

Isaiah 65:24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.

It would be nice if there were some contextual clue within 2 Peter 1:10-2:3 to suggest that a multiplicity of apostolic accounts of the words or deeds of Jesus during his ministry was even on Peter's radar screen. Since we do have false prophets mentioned in the context, that is of course where I myself would first look for the mythoi.

Actually, Peter's comment can contrast with the sayings of the false prophets, and still refer to accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus that were made known to them.

[Etcetera]

I have just found two more parallels to Paul's discussion in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. These come from F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

Luke 21:34, 36: ...and that day come upon you of a sudden [aiphnidios] like a trap.... But keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you may have strength to escape [ekphygein] all these things....

1 Thessalonians 5:3: For, when they say: “Peace and safety,” then sudden [aiphnidios] destruction comes upon them as labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they shall not escape [ekphygein].

Both Paul and Luke speak of the suddenness of the day arriving, then, while Paul speaks of unbelievers who will not escape, Luke speaks of believers praying that they might escape, which implies that unbelievers will not escape. Bruce further comments on that first parallel (the brackets, but not the parentheses, are mine to bring in the context of his statement):

Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, page 110: A closer parallel to the present warning [than even 2 Thessalonians 1:9!] is provided by the dominical admonition of Luke 21:34-36, where "that day" will come suddenly (episte... aiphnidios) on all the inhabitants of the whole earth, including unwatchful disciples. (That is the only other NT occurrence of the classical adjective aiphnidios. In LXX it is found... only in books not translated from a Hebrew original.)

Aiphnidios, in other words, comes one use short of being a N. T. hapax legomenon. And its only contexts are Olivet and Paul's injunctions in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11.

In my original post on this Pauline passage I marked off the admonition not to sleep in Mark 13:36 as the only parallel that falls strictly outside of Matthew. Well, scratch that. These two parallels come closer to Luke's version.

In the love of the Lord.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

...someone might say [that an event will happen within one's lifetime] if he knows that a hoped for event is very near that most people have despaired of seeing in their lifetime.

Good observation. You may well have a point. The terminus of a lifetime might be appropriate for an event which has been earnestly expected for most of a lifetime, even if the event is slated to happen next week.

However, in your interpretation the event promised in our texts is the transfiguration, not the coming of the kingdom in power. No one was looking for the transfiguration. No one was looking for a mere foretaste of kingdom come, however sweet that foretaste might be. That was a surprise. So, once again, you would have to "fudge" a bit on the events in question, cleanly identifying the transfiguration with the coming kingdom for some purposes, neatly separating the two events for others.

Better to take the most natural reading of the text as it stands, I think, whatever the consequences.

Regards.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

However, in your interpretation the event promised in our texts is the transfiguration, not the coming of the kingdom in power. No one was looking for the transfiguration.

No, you are misunderstanding me. One may look for a great fulfillment of prophecy to happen, but be completely unaware of the specifics of how it will be fulfilled. Of course, he will not be looking for those specific events. The disciples were looking for the Kingdom of God to come with power.

The Kingdom of God was coming among them in the person of Jesus, but the disciples did not see the actual power with which He was coming until the transfiguration took place. Until then, His glory and power were hidden behind the veil of His flesh, and evidenced by miracles.

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

One may look for a great fulfillment of prophecy to happen, but be completely unaware of the specifics of how it will be fulfilled. Of course, he will not be looking for those specific events. The disciples were looking for the Kingdom of God to come with power.

All right, now you have the coming of the kingdom in power fulfilled at the transfiguration. But you do still believe that there will one day really be an "actual" coming of the kingdom in power, right? A parousia? So the disciples are waiting for the kingdom to come in power, Jesus says that this, the transfiguration, is it, and then they learn (just in time to pen the epistles) that, ah, there will be a (how would one phrase it?) "real" coming of the kingdom in power (much more along the lines of, though not identical to, what they expected all along), after all? Sounds like the ol' switcheroo.

Jesus repeats himself, plain and simple:

Matthew 16:27-28: For the son of man will come in the glory of his father with his angels, and then he will reward each according to his works. Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus does not say "a foretaste of the son of man coming," or "a demonstration of the son of man coming," or "a preview of the son of man coming." He says that some standing there would see exactly what he had just talked about, the coming of the son of man. He did not have to repeat himself. But he did, and we must find a way to live with that little fact.

It would have been easy for Jesus to promise to do exactly as you suggest, show the disciples that the first stages of the kingdom are here and now in some way that they do not yet understand. But he does not. He promises the thing itself, the coming of the son of man, the grand event of which he was just speaking a moment before, within the lifetime of at least some of his listeners.

At the mercy of the text.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

All right, now you have the coming of the kingdom in power fulfilled at the transfiguration. But you do still believe that there will one day really be an "actual" coming of the kingdom in power, right? A parousia? So the disciples are waiting for the kingdom to come in power, Jesus says that this, the transfiguration, is it, and then they learn (just in time to pen the epistles) that, ah, there will be a (how would one phrase it?) "real" coming of the kingdom in power (much more along the lines of, though not identical to, what they expected all along), after all? Sounds like the ol' switcheroo.

You are forgetting the post I made above, in which I explained the reason why I believe that Jesus first spoke of His second Parousia in verse 27, and then spoke of His first parousia in verse 28 (because Luke includes information that the other synoptics do not, indicating that there was a contrast between the two statements). If you are right in your contention that both verses speak of the second coming, then of course, what I believe makes no sense. But I don't hold to that, so you are poking fun at a straw man. There is no actual "switcheroo" involved in my interpretation. If I am correct, then it would be reasonable to think that Jesus was indeed promising to a few of the disciples an experience during the first coming of the power to be revealed at the second.

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

I am not poking fun. Only writing colorfully. Sorry for any offense.

Your analogy to using a lifetime as a terminus for an event about to happen in a week was a cure for cancer. When, after only one week, the cure for cancer is announced, it is just that, a cure for cancer. Not a foretaste of a cure, not the discovery of an Amazonian flower that might yield a cure, not a pill to set the progress of the disease back a few years until a cure might be found, not proof that a cure is possible. Even if this new cure has a score of drawbacks and uncomfortable side effects, it is still the cure, and that alone makes the lifetime terminus appropriate. If it is not the long anticipated cure, that terminus is completely out of place.

The cure for cancer was your example. But now you seem content to apply the lifetime terminus to an event that is not actually the long anticipated revolution of the ages. The transfiguration was not the actual cure for cancer, as it were, but only a demonstration of the cure that will be forthcoming. So the terminus of a lifetime is out of place. That was my only point in the last post or two.

If I am correct, then it would be reasonable to think that Jesus was indeed promising to a few of the disciples an experience during the first coming of the power to be revealed at the second.

But not, according to your own analogy, using the disciples' lifetime as an upper limit, since this is not yet the event itself.

Cheers.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

If I am correct, then it would be reasonable to think that Jesus was indeed promising to a few of the disciples an experience during the first coming of the power to be revealed at the second.

I really should retract that statement, which I added as poorly worked out afterthought. You are forcing me to refine and sharpen my view, and for that I am grateful.

It seems to me that the transfiguration was not a foretaste of the event Jesus is referring to in Luke 9:27, but an unveiling of the power and glory in which He was coming as He accomplished His mission. Until the transfiguration, that glory, though present, had not been seen, because it was veiled by human flesh.

In all three accounts, Jesus promised them that they would see this coming. Matthew states that they will "see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." What but the first coming meets this criteria of seeing Him within the lifetime of the disciples?

I don't consider the transfiguration to be the coming itself, but rather, it was what Peter viewed as a significant part of it, a demonstration to Him of the power and glory with which Jesus was coming. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem may have been a part of that as well. There were many events which together accomplished the complete fulfillment of this prophecy, perhaps even Pentecost and the spread of the gospel during the lives of the apostles. But if so, the promise that they will "see" the Son of Man coming in his kingdom means that Pentecost and the spread of the gospel must not be regarded as a fulfillment of this promise apart from the incarnation. The coming of Jesus and the concurrent penetration of the kingdom of God into the hearts of men continued following the ascension, in an even more powerful way.

Although the kingdom was currently in the process of coming in the person of Jesus, this coming was not yet complete when Jesus spoke these words. That may explain the variance of tenses in each of parallel accounts. Robertson writes:

Mark speaks of the kingdom of God as "come" (elhluyuian, second perfect active participle). Matthew as "coming" (ercomenon) referring to the Son of man, while Luke has neither form.

Blessings In Christ,

Athanasius

[The Curtmudgeon]

Etcetera (and other readers), I hope you don't mind if I go back several posts to raise a very minor point.

02-27-2003 @ 02:48 AM
Etcetera:
7. The seventh seal.

....

These are trumpets.

Sigh; this BB software doesn't allow for quotes-within-quotes; here's the verse you quoted:

Revelation 8:1-2, 6: And, when he broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them.... And the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them.

Anyway, my point is: I've always understood this to read that the 7th Seal was the half-hour silence, and that then the trumpets commenced following the completion of the 7 seals. I'm not sure I can logically argue the significance of such a silence, yet I believe that is what John is describing here.

Likewise, your statement "the seventh trumpet yields seven bowls" ignores what John describes as the actual result of the 7th trumpet:

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O LORD God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

as well as the fact that the 7th trumpet and the 1st bowl are separated by the account of the coming of the AntiChrist, etc.--several chapters, in fact. So I don't believe that you could argue (if you were so inclined) that the 7th seal must introduce the trumpets because it's parallel to the 7th trumpet introducing the bowls: I don't believe either 7th introduces the next series in that way, simply that three complete series-of-sevens are consecutively described (well, omitting the 7 thunders which are mentioned but not described; really it should be four series, but we're not allowed in on the secret of the thunders yet).

The point is minor, I admit, but I do believe that it throws at least a small spanner into your drawing of parallels between the seals and the OD.

The (or else I'm totally off base--again) Curtmudgeon

PS: As a total aside, Etcetera, I don't know if 'Rapture Ready' is a site that you would or do visit, but when I registered there I wasn't able to use 'The Curtmudgeon' ('curmudgeon' was already taken, and was deemed to be too close), so I used 'etc.' instead (not having met you on-line at that point). If you should ever be charged with having penned something on RR because of confusion over the monikers, please point the guilty party in my direction.

[Etcetera]

Curtmudgeon:

Greetings in the love of the Lord.

Those are excellent observations that you brought up. Allow me to explain my reasoning further.

The silence for half an hour seems to me not to be the end-all substance of the seventh seal. After all, as you indicated, what would be the point? Rather, it is a holy hush before the seventh chain of events. Point out some reasonable way of considering the silence as anything but an interlude and I would certainly reconsider.

As for the seventh trumpet, the strength of my reading is precisely in the passage that you cited:

Revelation 11:15-18: Then the seventh angel sounded, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdoms of this world have become [the kingdom] of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying: “We give you thanks, O Lord God almighty, the one who is and who was and who is to come, because you have taken your great power and begun to reign. The nations were angry, and your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should reward your servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth.”

So exactly what happens when the seventh trumpet blows? An announcement. That is all. The dead are not judged in this passage, nor the prophets and saints rewarded, nor those who destroy the earth destroyed. All those events are announced by the voices in heaven. And yet we have already been promised much more than an announcement as the content of the seventh trumpet:

Revelation 10:5-7: The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised up his hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer, but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished [teleo] as he declared to his servants the prophets.

"...the mystery of God would be finished...." Clearly, the mere announcement of the end of all things does not itself constitute the end of all things. There must be more to the seventh trumpet than mere voices in heaven. And we are told exactly what at least some of these finishing touches are:

Revelation 15:1: And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels who had seven plagues, the last, because in them the wrath of God is finished [teleo].

Recall and compare:

Revelation 11:18 [at the seventh trumpet]: And the nations were enraged, and your wrath came....

The seven bowls, representing the final episodes of God's wrath, fulfill the announcement of God's wrath at the seventh trumpet. If the seventh trumpet is supposed to wrap up the mystery and culminate in the judgment of the dead, then we have virtually no choice but to subsume the seven bowls under the seventh trumpet. In fact, it is the seven bowls that fulfill the very last line of the announcement: "...and to destroy those who destroy the earth."

As for the long gap between the actual blowing of the seventh trumpet and the pouring out of the first bowl, such gaps are normal in the apocalypse. The whole of chapter 7 is a gap between the sixth and seventh seals, and the two whole chapters from 9:13 to 11:13 are the outworking of the sixth trumpet alone, positively dwarfing all the preceding trumpets combined and including seven thunders, a couple of visions, the measuring of the temple, and the tale of the two witnesses.

But the path is clearly enough marked if one pays close attention to the signs.

As a total aside, Etcetera, I don't know if 'Rapture Ready' is a site that you would or do visit, but when I registered there I wasn't able to use 'The Curtmudgeon' ('curmudgeon' was already taken, and was deemed to be too close), so I used 'etc.' instead (not having met you on-line at that point).

Never been to that site myself, but thanks for the heads-up.



I enjoy responding to intelligent questions such as yours. Meditate on Revelation 10:5-7 and 11:15-19 and tell me if you come up with something entirely different than my analysis.

Cheers.

Etcetera.

[Justme]

Hi all,

I'm just passing thru and seeing that you people on this thread are getting along much better in your discussion than we, on another forum, are.

Just a thought. The not tasting death thing- could it be a hint that everyon else WILL taste death before they see the Kingdom of God/ coming of the son of man.

Sure, you probably hashed this out and I missed it. If so, sorry and hope it continues to go well for you all.

Take care,
Justme

[Athanasius]

The not tasting death thing- could it be a hint that everyon else WILL taste death before they see the Kingdom of God/ coming of the son of man. Sure, you probably hashed this out and I missed it.

No, I don't think any of us mentioned it, if you mean that these few were to see something no other person living in that generation would see. If that were true, it could mean:

1. Everyone else living at that time died before it happened except some of those standing there (not very likely), or
2. A few of those standing there, such as John, had the future opened up for them to view, and were granted the privilege of actually seeing the second coming (much more likely).