New Jerusalem

Before Christ returns again the Sun will be dimned, the moon will appear blood red, and the stars well not shine. That is one of the signs that the generation that will not pass away will see. Did the generation in Jerusalem see that sign? No. When Jesus returns his foot will touch the Mt. of Olives and that mountain will split in two. It is from there Jesus will walk to the Temple Mount as He enters Jerusalems sealed East Gate. Also before Christ could return the prophecies of the New Testament had to be fulfilled. The 200 million man army from the East would have to of already marched during the last battle over Israel. At the time of the writing, there may not of been 200 million people on earth, so clearly the prophecy was for a later time. It did not mater what people believed about the prophecy back then, what matters, are the facts of the prophecy.

 

Wait... which second coming? The one where He comes secretly and snatches up all the Christians or the Final Judgement?

Oh yeah, is the before or after the millenial reign with Christ physically reigning on earth with reinstituted temple sacrifices that are efficacious for salvation?

So when someone translates the word oikoumene as world and you take it to mean "the entire known and unknown world" regardless of what it says in the original greek, you begin to see the bigger picture?

 

And you see this as literal, yes?

When we read a statement like this: Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

… we low-context moderns have images of the very fabric of the entire universe unraveling. But is that what is really being communicated here? Not if we use a basic rule of Biblical interpretation, use the Bible to interpret the Bible if possible. Do we find this same kind of “decreation imagery” elsewhere in Scripture? Yes in fact we do, indeed, this type of language is identical, to that used to describe things said to have already happened to ancient Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and Edom:

Isaiah 13:9-10 Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.

The context makes it clear that this is a description of a past judgment on Babylon. The language is almost identical to Jesus’ words in the Discourse, and the NAS even has the Jesus’ words indicated as being a direct quote from this passage, a past judgment in which the created universe did not actually dissolve.

Ezekiel 32:7-8 When I put out your light, I will cover the heavens, and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of the heavens I will make dark over you, and bring darkness upon your land,’ Says the Lord GOD.

Again, this is a past judgment on Egypt. Did all this LITERALLY happen back then?

Isaiah 34:4-5 All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; all their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree. “For My sword shall be bathed in heaven; Indeed it shall come down on Edom, and on the people of My curse, for judgment.

And this is a past judgment on Edom. Did I miss the dissolution of the universe back then?

Jeremiah 4:23-26 (go back to verses 14 and 16 to see the context) I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; and the heavens, they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled, and all the hills moved back and forth. I beheld, and indeed there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, by His fierce anger.

This is a historical judgment on Israel.

This cosmic imagery is not limited only to ideas of judgment and cursing, the exact same imagery in reverse is used when a nation is blessed:

Isaiah 60:19-20 The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you; But the LORD will be to you an everlasting light, and your God your glory. Your sun shall no longer go down, nor shall your moon withdraw itself; for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and the days of your mourning shall be ended.

Now is the “sun” here literal? How can the literal sun no longer give light and yet no longer go down? Is it a big ashen ball up in the sky? For anyone who thinks so, take a look at this next passage…

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD binds up the bruise of His people and heals the stroke of their wound.

These are speaking of the same or similar blessing events, and the eschatological blessing. Well in this one, not only does the “sun” still give light, it is intensified sevenfold! Now no one in their right mind thinks that a sevenfold brightness to the sun would literally be a good thing. The earth would be utterly incinerated.

Jesus’ words are no different. He is describing a cataclysmic judgment to occur upon the nation of Israel. But some may say “okay Smarty Pants, I may buy your idea of decreation language being used hyperbolically but what about this??”

Matthew 24:30 …And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Well again, does the Bible tells us anything about “coming” and “clouds”? Yes it sure does. The OT is replete with language of YHWH “coming” in judgment and being enfolded in clouds, and not once did it mean that He literally set foot on earth or saddled up a cloud. For example:

Isaiah 19:1 – The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst.

If we were to interpret this passage the way that futurism does the Discourse, we would be forced to believe that YHWH actually sat atop a cloud, rode on into Egypt, dismounted, and then started kicking over idols. Why don’t the literalists do this? Why aren’t they consistent?

Even in Revelation, Jesus threatens to “come” and visit judgment upon real historical first century churches if they did not repent, but certainly He was not threatening a bodily visitation or the end of the world (Revelation 2:16, 3:3).

For some other passages connecting clouds and judgment, see 2 Samuel 22:12; Jeremiah 4:13; Ezekiel 30:3; Nahum 1:3; Zephaniah 1:14-15.

So the third plank of the Positive Case for Preterism is the proper use of apocalyptic symbolism and hyperbole.

As RC Sproul has said,

“The advantage of preterism is that it 'saves the phenomena' of the New Testament time-frame references; it interprets biblical prophecy according to the images used in Scripture itself; and it offers a framework for consistent interpretation of the difficult apocalyptic literature of the Bible, such as that found in Daniel and Revelation."

The locusts (Rev 9:7-10) bespeaks an army of great military strength. We need not look beyond the forces of Rome for an acceptable preterist interpretation. The binding of the Euphrates (v. 14), so often seen as letting the way in for the armies of China, represents no more than a barrier to Israel's classical enemies (Babylon, Assyria, Persia) which is now also lifted, symbolically, to admit another invader. The "heads [which] were as it were crowns like gold" matches with the burnished gold helmets of Rome's military, and so match also the iron breastplates; "faces as the faces of men" notes their humanity. "Hair as the hair of women" (think of Samson and his strength) and "teeth were as the teeth of lions" both indicate strength. "Tails like unto scorpions" corresponds with known pagan imagery of man-scorpion combinations and would suit a description of a pagan army.

Literalists may insist that we still need an army of 200 million coming over the Euphrates. Given the nightmarish descriptions above, it is hard to see why, but for their satisfaction, here is an interesting note. Jerusalem was originally attacked in the Jewish War by 4 military sections of Cestius, composed of strong cavalry, that came from near the Euphrates to invade Palestine. Those who wonder whether Cestius had 200 million with him once again need to read this portion in light of the OT:

Ps. 68:17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.​

The expression here is intended to do no more than indicate an incalculable, indefinite number -- and is also intended, in Revelation, to allude to the army of God coming in judgment (though perhaps in this case, as more of an evil parody -- which Revelation does in other ways as well). Much of the imagery here is also borrowed from the description of Leviathan (Job 41:18-21). It is out of line to read into these passages descriptions of shoulder-launched nuclear missiles and helicopters and tanks. The ancient world provides all the antecedent language that we need.

Except that it was written TO them. It was written using language and imagery that was commonly understood. There is also this to consider:

We have one to offer now that sticks a dagger right into the heart of dispensationalism/futurism (as well as a view called historicism) -- making in quite clear that there is a serious burden upon anyone who wants to argue for an "our future" fulfillment for the bulk of the passages in the Bible. Pilch and Malina in The Handbook of Biblical Social Values [189f] describe the "time orientation" of the Biblical world as one that is present-centered. Unlike moderns, who are "future-centered" (always planning for the future), the ancients concentrated on the present. This was reflected Jesus' teachings about not worrying about tomorrow, for today had enough troubles of its own.

Pilch and Malina observe that a present-oriented society, when faced with a problem, roots their solution in the present. The past was a secondary preference for orientation; the future, a distant third. Even elites "showed complete indifference to the future" and long-range planning as such was non-existent.

How does this orientation support a preterist understanding of the NT? It is quite clear how: The present-orientation of the ancients makes it highly improbable that any part of the Olivet Discourse, or of Revelation, would be concerned with anything beyond the lifetime of the readers/hearers of those materials. It makes it quote impossible, as dispensaltionalists are wont to claim, that passages like Is. 13 refer to what is for us a future destruction of Babylon.

Now a pushback that is immediately obvious is, "But there were events predicted that were beyond the lifetimes of those present! Look at Isaiah predicting Cyrus! And even preterists say that past the millennium of Revelation, and elsewhere, there are predictions about the resurrection of all people!" That is so, but it is clear that such incidences are few, far between, and extremely short on detail. It is also a point that the majority of such prophecy is typological in nature (like Is. 7:14), not actual predictions by past writers of the future, but use of the text of the past by writers in the present. Rather than reflecting a future-orientation by the OT, such usage reflects a past-orientation by the NT. Even the passages about the future resurrection are made possible only within the framework of Jesus' own resurrection; as Pilch and Malina put it, in this view, something "is forthcoming when its later presence is already guaranteed by its present presence...." Hence appeal to Christ as "firstfruits" of the resurrection is sensible in context.

In light of the present-orientation of the Biblical world, futurists will be hard-pressed to explain why the message of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation ought to be understood as a message into the distant future, of which the readers of the Bible would have had no concern or conception. Futurism renders the Bible thoroughly irrelevant and seriously decontextualizes its message.

 

Campbell, that's a very reasonable explanation from a strictly Christian and Biblical perspective. Thank you.

This is for the sake of discussion, not argument...I'm not trying to convince you of anything...I'd be wasting my time. You handed me back a reasonable answer and I'd like to in turn give a reasonable view to you.

As a Hindu with Christian roots, my interpretation of this passage is that Jesus is telling his listeners to re-discover the soul and relationship with God that exists eternally within, rather than listen to those who point to external events as evidence of God's existence. This idea in no way diminishes Jesus as divine, because in the context of the Bible he is the way to God and the savior of those who were listening then and those who believe in him at the present time.

In the Christian perspective, the soul is inherently sinful and saved by the grace of God; in the Hindu perspective, the soul is inherently sinless but its true nature is obscured by many past lives of self-will and sin, and is rescued from this hopelessly fallen condition by the grace of God. In both Christianity and Hinduism, an individual must take a definite step toward God, and make a decision to begin to live by God's will as opposed to self-will...this is what a Hindu would call being "born again". In Hindu theology, the Holy Spirit is already within, but must be re-activated after long neglect, and this is accomplished by giving one's life to God...in some very pure-hearted persons, this may take place instantly, but most need a long period of gradual surrender. In any case, this re-established relationship is never lost, even if the person dies before the ego is completely surrendered. Spiritual development will be resumed in the next life. A mistaken idea that Christians often have about reincarnation is that it's a free ticket. It's not...a person can open the doors to future lives of suffering as a human being or even as an animal by a very sinful life, neglect of God, and improper treatment of their fellow creatures, both human and animal. In extreme cases, the person may go to hell for a very long period. The various hells are described in excruciating detail in Vedic scripture.

Again, in the Hindu perspective, the second coming of Christ is not an external event...it is a spiritual rebirth happens in the heart of the willing individual. Jesus Christ has long been accepted as divine by most Hindu schools of thought. A Sanskrit term that is used to describe Christ is saktavesya-avatara, or empowered incarnation of God. Jesus Christ can act in the theological realm of Hinduism as well as that of Christianity, and grant salvation to a lost soul, whether the person believes in the Biblical concept of original sin, or the Hindu concept of samsara--endless reincarnation and suffering as the result of sin. Of course, from the Hindu point of view spirituality is universal and inclusive, and not the exclusive domain of one faith, one scripture, or one divine personality, and this point is where the vehement disagreement on the part of most Christians takes place.

 

Ok...amidst the debate of these other folks, Colours, I'm gonna see if I can simplify this, even though I already responded.

The new Jerusalem, if you take it literally, would be the city of Jerusalem here. That's why literalist Christians fight so hard about the issues of the second coming because their faith will fail if they cannot take these Scriptures literally.

Instead, I like to think that although Jesus did ministry around Galilee and Jerusalem, God's presence and word are everywhere ...all over the earth. The new Jerusalem is the kingdom of peace that would reign at the end, and then God comes.

Mainline Protestants tend to be post-millenialists (kingdom of God reigns, then God comes down) while Evangelical Christians are pre-millenialists (fire and tribulations occur, then God comes.)

Either way, no one knows except God. Even pastors and priests don't know. No one literally knows what will happen.

P.S. (I may have mixed up the labels of pre-and post millenialists. Please excuse me if I did because we don't talk a lot about end times in my tradition.)

peace

 

Isaiah 13:9-10

The context makes it clear that this is a description of a past judgment on Babylon?

What past Judgement of Babylon are you talking about?

And are you aware that the Bible speaks of two Babylons?

 

So when someone translates the word oikoumene as world and I take it to mean "the entire known and unknown world" regardles of what it says in the original greek?

Well the original Greek word oikoumene has been stated by most scholars to mean, (inhabited world). I need to point this out to you. It was not just SOMEONE, it is most scholars that I have encountered. And it does not just mean WORLD, it's translation means, INHABITED WORLD. And I would say if you could agree with the opinion of most of those scholars, you to might begin to see the big picture.

 

The judgement when Babylon ceased to be a power.

Way to latch on to only ONE aspect of my post and ignore the rest.

And even if it WASN'T about a "past Babylon" (and I do not grant that), you still have to deal with the fact that the same decreation imagery used for past judgements on Edom, Egypt, and Israel. And you still haven't answered the overarching theme in that decreation and creation language is used metaphorically to describe what an event is LIKE, not what actually happens.

One that is the historical and actual Babylon, the other is metaphorical (you believe this, I know, because you think the USA is 'Babylon'). However, you assume a literal description of events happening to a metaphorical entity with absolutely no literary or contextual clues as to why you should do this. What is consistent is to understand a metaphorical series of events happen to a metaphorical entity.

Does this mean that ALL the Bible is metaphor? Of course not, but Hebrew apocalyptic literature is. And we should read it that way. By the way, you read it as metaphor too. I do not think you believe Christ returns with an actual sword protruding out of His mouth. How do you justify what you read as metaphor vs. what you read as literal?

Also, please respond to my entire post. Don't just try and latch on to a single example as though that would completely undermine/eliminate the crux of my argument.

 

Spook and Alsharad... nice posts. 43 & 44.

 

Thanks, happy that you liked it.

 

First let me point out to you that my time is limited, I work in Il. I live in Michigan. I would like to respond to everything that every person puts before me, but time does not allow me to do so. Second, you throw out the word metaphorically way to much. The Bible is not a Book which waste space with endless metaphorical descriptions. And if the text is not clear, I donot simply call what I donot understand a metaphore. And the Old Babylon that you claim was the fulfillment of the prophecy, does not even fit the text historically, or any other way. And that is why I asked you, if you knew there were two Babylons. Jermiah 51:13 states that Babylon dwells on many waters. Did Old Babylon dwell on many waters? NO. Jeremiah 51:36 states that Babylon whould have her own sea. Did ancient Babylon have her own sea? NO. Jermiah 51:25 states that Babylon would have a destroying mountain. Did ancient Babylon have a destroying mountain? NO. Jeremiah 51:53 states that Babylon will be able to mount up to heaven. Did ancient Babylon mount up to heaven? NO. In Jermiah 50:3 it states that Babylon would have an enemy to her north, and they would destroy Babylon's cities, and her mountain of war. Did ancient babylon have her cities destroyed and her mountain of war by a northern nation? NO. The reason you don't understand the Bible, is because you are way to quick to disimiss it's words with your magical word METAPHOR. Detailed chapters dedicated to understanding who Babylon is, are simply dismissed by your pet word, METAPHOR. To me when people throw out the word METAPHOR the way you do, it's the same as saying, I DON"T CARE WHAT THE BIBLE STATES, I DON"T BELIEVE IT. There are simply to many details to write it off to METAPHOR. I believe the details of the Bible. God would not author a Book of endless METAPHORS. And much of the prophecy I have stated here, does not speak or adress ancient Babylon, and that should be obvious, even to you.

 

^Sounds like something president Bush would say. "You and your fancy words, with ur fancy facts and voodoo logic. 'Metaphor' this 'metaphor' that, i dont buy it"
It sounds like you dont really understand what a metaphor is, even. What do you have against METAPHORS?
You dont honestly believe God would dumb down all of reality it one book meant to be understood exactly how it was written? That is just fucking stupid.
With your stupid-ass explanations of everything you wonder why christianity is under attack

 

Actually Colours, the problem was the denying of the facts, the facts were replaced with the idea of metaphor. Another words, the Bible gives a number of stated facts, only to be disimissed by saying those facts are only figures of speech, and they are but words that are applied to something other than a literal application. What is stupid, is to ignore those facts. I understand why Christianity is under attack. You live in your own world, which has no room for God or His truth. And in order to feel comfortable in your world, it is important to deny the authority of the Bible. Because if the Bible is true, then your fate in the life to come, looks pretty bleak. And it is not God that is dumbing down reality, it is people who attempt to ignore the truth of the Bible.

 

Such as those who interprete fables contained within the bible as literal truths.

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Or those who interprete parables as literal truths:

"10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'"

 

Not so. What is stupid is to ignore the contexts of the passage. To read literal "facts" in a metaphorical passage. I have pointed out where and how it is consistent to interpret the deconstruction imagery used in scripture as hyperbolic metaphor. You just say that I am explaining away facts as metaphor. Please provide a literary explanation and logical justification as to why we SHOULD read this passage as an account of actual events.

By the way, saying that it is a plain reading doesn't stand up as justification because it refuses to take into account that there are more ways than actual descriptions to communicate a point. For example, my college footbal team was slaughtered in their last football game. Now, do you think that butchers actually came onto the field and actually killed and carved up my college football team in order to sell their body parts at a market? Of course not! However, someone who had no idea of the colloqialism (like, oh, say, someone from the 1st century) would have a very disturbing idea about the game of football. We use metaphor DAILY. Just start looking for it. This is a method of speaking that is pretty much universal throughout the world. So, what might seem to mean a literal fact to you might be, in fact, a metaphor. In fact, the more absurd the idea (like slaughtering a football team) the more likely the event is to be metaphorical.

I don't see how reading a passage according to its literary, historical, and cultural context somehow denies the authority of the Bible. I agree with you on principle for the rest of your comment though.

 

Nicely put Alsharad.

 

"I DON'T SEE HOW READING A PASSAGE ACCORDING TO ITS LITERARY, HISTORICAL, AND CULTURAL CONTEXT SOMEHOW DENIES THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.''

It denies the authority of the Bible, when you ignore the fact, that the text is nolonger speaking of the historical reality. This is understood when you consider the description of Babylon. A quick read will reveal that this description has nothing to do with the existing Babylon.

1. When did Old Babylon dwell on many waters?

2. When did Old Babylon have her own personal sea?

3. When did Old Babylon have the ability to mount up to heaven?

4. When was Old Babylon's CITIES destroyed in one hours time?

5. When did Old Babylon have a destroying mountain?

6. When did Old Babylon have an enemy to her North?

7. And why would the Bible say, that Babylon was beyond the rivers of Ethiopia?

8. And when was Old Babylon split into three sections by a global earthquake?

 

Pangea, 225 million years ago (a few geological days).

225 million...

Always, everything is in God's eyes.

The massive extinction of dinosaurs...

When the mountain (asteroid) fell from the heavens and killed the old race (dinosaurs- the dragon), preparing the way for the new (humans).

The ice has always been to her North- it is what killed the old race after the falling of the mountain from heavens.

The extent of Babylon is far greater than the immediate area around the rivers of Ethiopia.

Over the last 225 million years the continents have been split into 3 major sections (Australia, the Americas, and the Asia/Europe/Africa supercontinent).

 

225 million years ago? Did the Jews living in Babylon return to Jerusalem 225 million years ago?

 

This is getting to be pointless. Let's start on the common ground. We both think that there are two Babylons. One is the historical Babylon, the other is metaphorical. I say that the second Babylon was metaphorical and that the descriptions of the events that occur (especially the more extreme events) are more likely to be metaphor as well. This is consistent with other passages referring to Tyre, Egypt, etc. where we see similar decreation language used. You say that ONLY "Babylon" is metaphorical and that all other events are literal. I ask again, how do you justify picking and choosing what is metaphor and what is not?

In order to understand what any text means, we must understand the methods of communication employed as well as any colloquialisms that we might run across in a text. You seem to take Scripture as literal unless it is obviously metaphorical TO YOU. Never mind that the people to whom it was written saw it as metaphor, that is communicated a different idea. I try to read the Bible as a first century Jew would have understood it. I feel that this will provide much more valuable insight as to the more obscure passages and books (i.e. Revelation). What is your justification for your method of interpretation?

These all just beg the question. You assume that there is no other way to interpret the passages. You assume that they MUST be literal and then you argue from there. What I am arguing is that you cannot just assume that they are literal events. You must justify why Babylon is metaphorical and everything else is NOT.