Eschatological Timeline?

[Josh]

For the folks that are interested in all the eschatology threads:

Since this is such a complicated subject and a lot of individual pieces in the discussion hinge on other pieces, plus there are a million different nuanced versions of the main categorical viewpoints (futurist, preterist, etc..), I'm wondering if you all wouldn't mind just giving a brief summary of the your current stance on the chronological order of eschatological events.

So, for instance, here's where I'm at right now (for the most part) in my understanding of the key issues:

Fulfilled in the past (probably by AD 70):

The events described in the Olivet Discourse up to the discussion of the 'coming of the son of man'*

The Tribulation, Anti-Christ, and coming of the "Man of Lawlessness" and other events descrived in Revelation 1-19

The spiritual resurrection and setting up of Christ's kingdom of Rev. 20:1-6

1st Century through the present: The Milleninal Kingdom of Christ

Yet in the future:

All the events of Rev. 20:7-22:5, such as-
Release of Satan to deceive the nations one last time (unless, possibly, this is the period we are in right now)
Final world-wide, physical return of Christ
Resurrection of all humanity
The Final Judgment
The final, perfect consumation of God's kingdom on earth (Christ handing over rule to the Father- and the final, full installment of the New Heavens and the New Earth)

I have a lot of follow-up questions on the other threads depending on a general idea of where others are coming from on these time-scale issues. Does that make sense?

*However, I do consider the possibility that the 'coming of the son of man' might be a judgment-coming in AD 70 different than his coming for final judgment in Rev. 20:11 as a plausable, less satisfactory perspective.

[Josh]

Let me give you an example of the reason I think this might be helpful:

Chris- in our discussion about Matthew 25, though you see those parables as a reference to an AD 70 judgment, do you also anticipate a "final judgment" at the end of millenium, or not?

Another hot one in the world of preterism is of course whether to see the "new heavens and the new earth" as describing the eternal state or the state of the church right now. I'm curious where you fall on that debate. For myself, I see the New Heavens and the New Earth as beginning at the establishment of Jesus kingdom in the 1st Century, but as reaching their final, glorious, perfect "installment" after Jesus "hands over the rule to the Father" at the end of his millenial kingdom. So, I do see Rev. 21-22 as mainly about that future state, but giving us a roadmap of where the inbreakings and overlappings of God's kingdom with the world right now are leading us.

[christopher]

Hi Josh,

I'm going to have to get a computer with voice recognition. Typing while holding a baby is like having one hand tied behind your back.

It's extemely hard for me to catalog all the passages that I think are past, future, or even present because I'm undecided on so many of them.

But yes, I do believe in a resurrection and future final judgment of believers and non-believers mostly because of non-figurative statements of Jesus and Paul about it. However, I don't know if it's at the end of the millennium or not because I'm still largely undecided about Rev 20 (which is the only place we can get that idea) and indeed the book of Revelation as a whole. There's too many allusions to OT passages that are not about the end of time IMO to declare for certain that any of it is strictly future.

I agree with you about the New Heavens and New Earth though, probably almost fully on that one.

I do believe in a physical return of Jesus mostly because of non-figurative statements about it Acts 1.

That's about all I can do with one hand right now (Zach comes unglued if I put him down ).

I'll try to write more after night-night time. ;D

[Josh]

No rush man, seriously.

It's extemely hard for me to catalog all the passages that I think are past, future, or even present because I'm undecided on so many of them.

My list is of course tentative as well. One has to be prepared to change ones course (views) many times when plunging into these deep waters.

The stuff above is just where I've currently settled for the most part.

[christopher]

Ok, so real quickly:

I would probably take all of the Olivet discourse in Matt 24 as fulfilled. Matt 25 is unique to Matthew (except arguably the parable of the talents), and I lean towards a 70AD interpretation there as well.

Man of Sin? you already know my thoughts on that one...RCC papacy.

Revelation? Again, undecided, but I suspect mostly fulfilled prophetically, with a perpetual spiritual, historical, and therefore future intended application for the church to it as well (how's that for wishy-washy? ). After all, it was written to the churches.

Ok, this is where you'll probably throw a flag on me....

I can see 2 Thess 1 being fulfilled in the past, while 2 Thess 2 being yet future for reasons we can get into later. It makes sense to me anyways.

1Thess 4 and 1Cor 15....future.

2Pet 3....I'm leaning past.

I think there is a lot to the theory of Heaven and Earth being a symbolic term related to God's established order or covenant. There seems to be much scriptural support for that. That's mainly why the passages that speak of it "passing away" (Matt 24, Mark 13, etc) or "burning up" (2 Thes 1, 2Pet 3, Rev 20:11, etc.) or "being shaken" (Heb 12) I believe are actually speaking of the Old Covenant being replaced by the New.

Anyway, much more could be said, but I'm tired now and we have a rare gift that Zach has actually gone to sleep before midnight. So I think I'm going to capitalize on some ZZZzzzz's.

Goodnight.

[Josh]

I agree with you about the New Heavens and New Earth though, probably almost fully on that one.

You know, I've been reading and thinking so much along these lines (how the New Heavens and Earth is already breaking in and overlapping our world in anticipation of the world to come and how the Church is called to live the New Creation now) that I'm going to be teaching about it this Sunday.

The only problem is, as usual, it's a monster of a topic and I'm notoriously bad about trimming down material I'm excited about!

[christopher]

Here's something funny. ;D

NT Wright takes the exact opposite view of 2Thessalonians than I do.

He wrote:

This understanding of Jesus’ message is confirmed as we turn to St. Paul and note his
clear awareness that the days of Jerusalem, as he knew it, were strictly numbered. This is
how his conviction must be interpreted that the ‘day of the Lord’ was imminent. Contrary
to the thinking of both scholars and pietists of many backgrounds, Paul was not
envisaging the ‘Parousia’ as an event which had to take place in his lifetime, and which
would result in the ending of the space-time order. If that were so, how could he possibly
write in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 that the church should not be alarmed if they received a
letter saying that the ‘day of the Lord had come’? If Paul meant by ‘the day of the Lord’
the end of the space-time universe, the Thessalonians would presumably not need to be
informed of the fact via the Roman postal service! Instead, Paul here reflects the early
Christian tradition, going back to Jesus himself, according to which Jerusalem was to be
destroyed, and according to which that destruction was to be interpreted as the wrath of
God against his sinful people. In the same Thessalonian correspondence, Paul asserted
that the wrath of God had indeed come upon them ‘to the uttermost’ (1 Thess.
2:16.)

www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jerusalem_New_Testament.pdf

He takes this as the destruction of Jerusalem where I see this chapter as being yet future. I wonder what he does with verse 1:

2 Thess 2:1
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
NKJV

[Josh]

I differ from both of you

Here's how I would humbly, at this point, see this passage:

Contrary to Wright's point (which, does of course have some weight), I would equate the day of the Lord with the "return of Christ" and the final judgment. I see Paul as saying that some people think that event will look a certain way (in secret) but it won't be secret- it will be plain for all to see, so they shouldn't be unsettled. In fact, Paul tells them, the final return of Christ/ judgment can't happen until something else happens- "the rebellion" (and the coming of the lawless one). I equate the rebellion with the Jewish rebellion against Rome and the man of lawlessness as the leader of the Jewish rebels (probably John of Gischala).

This basically is a parallel in my mind of the Synoptics, then, which, from my perspective say that no one knows when the final day will come (the day of Christ's return/ judgment) but we do know it can't come until Jerusalem is beseiged and the Temple is destroyed. After that, it will be like a thief in the night.

The only serious difficulty with my view IMO is verse 8, which seems to say the the lawless one will be destroyed at the return of Christ, and not long before:

8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there is an alternate reading for this verse which I find quite possible.

For more discussion on 2 Thess 2 might I suggest hopping over there and leaving this be a general hopping off point for other particularities?

Here's the link:

Man of Lawlessness/ 2 Thess. 2

[Josh]

Chris (and others interested in this stuff)

You said you thought 2 Peter 3 is probably a reference to the past (AD 70).

2 Peter 3:

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.



I understand the argument you'd probably make about prophetic, catacylsmic imagery (and hyperbole), and recognize that as valid.

Still, I see this passage as about the Final Judgment for a couple of reasons:

1) The reference to the "day of judgment"- of course this could be a reference to AD 70, but I tend to assign most clear references to the day of judgment to the Final Judgment

2) The impression in this passage that a long time period will intervene before these events are fulfilled (more in the order of thousands of years than days or decades)

3) The implication that the New Heavens and the New Earth will follow after this event and especially the reference to "the heavens disappering" and "the earth being laid bare" echoes quite clearly the language in the passage most clearly linked with the final judgment, IMO:

Rev. 20:

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

I anticipate counter-arguments to all these points. I think point 3 is the strongest, however.

Also, btw, I associate these two passages with Isaiah 24, which I have found a bit too cosmic (for my own tastes) to associate with AD 70.

I'm not really trying to do any convincing here, just furthering the discussion about how we might interpret different eschatological passages from some degree of a partial-preterist perspective.

[christopher]

Alrighty then, back to an easy topic

I have to confess that this is one passage I waver on. I don’t have a very long time for a response (I’ve only had time to lurk these days unfortunately). But since you addressed it to me personally, how could I refuse.

If you continue on the passage you cited, it says:

2 Peter 3:11-14
11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;
NKJV

Since Peter is addressing people of his time and implying that they should be looking forward and hastening this, it doesn’t seem to me that he has thousands of years in view here. Throughout this epistle, Peter talks about things his present audience could expect (False prophets, teachers, hypocrites who are like dogs returning to their own vomit, etc.)

You might be right that this is speaking of a future literal dissolving of heaven and earth, but there’s nothing here that insists upon it IMO. And since there is much precedence in the bible (including Isa 24 IMO) for this language to speak of localized judgment, I tend to take it as the same.

I also disagree with you on your point #1, I think Jesus used this term to describe judgment of towns of Israel (see Matt 10:15, 11:22-24).

So that just leaves point #3. And I agree, it’s the strongest point in your argument. It’s definitely very tempting to see those references to a future “end of the world” scenario (which is why most commentators do), and you may be correct. However, I would again point out that the language has been used in the bible to speak of the end of an “order” or “dispensation” through judgment. I think that’s what is being promised in Hebrews 12:25-29.

Anyway, I’m afraid that’s all I can (or ought to) do for now.

BTW, Isa 24 doesn’t have to be about the end of the world, or AD70. I think it could just as easily be about the Babylonian invasion, or (less likely), an extension on the burden against Tyre in the previous chapter (remember, chapter divisions are not inspired).

Lord bless.

[Josh]

Since Peter is addressing people of his time and implying that they should be looking forward and hastening this, it doesn’t seem to me that he has thousands of years in view here. Throughout this epistle, Peter talks about things his present audience could expect (False prophets, teachers, hypocrites who are like dogs returning to their own vomit, etc.)

I didn't state my point super well. I'm not arguing the Peter is saying that the second coming will defintely happen thousands of years later. I'm arguing that he's saying that it's definitely possible that this 'coming' won't happen for thousands of years. And therefore he could address his audience with the very real possibility that it could be soon, just as Jesus did when he said He didn't know the day or the hour of his return (if you take that to be referring to the second coming and not AD 70)

I do think that by the writing of Revelation, it was made much more clear that the second coming would not happen for a long time, by John's use of the 1,000 year reign of Christ (millenium).

I've never understood how full preterists can say the millenium was merely 40 years. Though I don't see the millenium as a literal thousand years, the term certainly means a long time if the word is going to retain any of its meaning.

I also disagree with you on your point #1, I think Jesus used this term to describe judgment of towns of Israel (see Matt 10:15, 11:22-24).

Matt 10:15

I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Unless you've got some Greek trick up your sleeve, it seem clear that Jesus is describing a judgment yet future to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah- in fact, an after-death judgment. If that's the case for those cities, then it's also in view for the inhabitants of the cities that Jesus is denouncing, whether they suffered during the Jewish revolt or not.

As to Isaiah 24, when I go through it even with a preterist perspective, I have a hard time not seeing the final judgment in view there.

I mean, look, we know there is a final judgment in Rev. 20. And it's going to be the BIG ONE. Why can't (or why wouldn't) there be significant other passages in Scripture speaking of that as well as passages that speak of AD 70?

[christopher]

No Greek tricks needed.

These kinds of idiomatic expressions are not that uncommon. Just like “shaking the dust off your feet” is symbolic of expressing a final disapproval (vs. 14), I simply take this to be a symbolic way of saying the judgment that comes on these cities will be worse than what came upon Sodom and Gomorrah. And according to Josephus, it was much greater. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed rather suddenly by fire while much of region during the Jewish war underwent great torment that lasted months.

In a similar manner, Jesus later said:

Matt 12:41-42 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. 42 The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here. NKJV

I seriously doubt the actual Ninevites will literally rise up and judge the people of Jesus’ day in the final judgment. Rather, I think this is an idiomatic way of saying that their repentance will be the measure that these people will be judged by (by God), especially since they had far less light than the Jews did. There is, again, a contrast between the Jews (who supposedly had the light of the knowledge of God) and the Gentiles (who had far less of, if any, of that knowledge).

IMO, there’s no need to see final judgment in either of these passages.

[Josh]

I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

If Jesus had wanted to express what you're saying this passage means, wouldn't he have said, "The judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was more bearable than the judgment this town will receive"? Instead he puts the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah in the future by the simple phrase "it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah". Figures of speech aside, I don't see any wiggle room in the future tense. I don't think you're addressing this issue head on.

In the 1st Century world most Jews did expect that there would be a future judgment of those who had already died. This is not some foreign concept.

Likewise, in the later passage, the clear reading is that the two cities will face judgment together, whether there is a literal conversation or not.

It seems to me in this case that you are letting other texts that are clearly about AD 70 cause you to torture a divergent meaning out of some very plain wording.

"it will be" and "rise up in the judgment with this generation" are some pretty clear phrases.

[christopher]

It seems to me in this case that you are letting other texts that are clearly about AD 70 cause you to torture a divergent meaning out of some very plain wording.

"it will be" and "rise up in the judgment with this generation" are some pretty clear phrases.

But, that's the whole point of idioms. They take otherwise clear phrases and apply completely different meanings to them, usually only recognizable to a specific generation.

"It's raining cats and dogs" is a pretty clear phrase also.

We must be careful not to analyze an interpretation of a particular scripture in a vacuum without taking the whole paradigm in account.

Think about the presuppositions you might be bringing to the text here. Are there any? Honestly?

I have a longer answer, but I'll have to come back later on and talk about it when I have more time. It's very hard to get into long discussions at the present.

[Josh]

It not the idiom, it's the tense that's important here.

"It rained cats and dogs" is a whole lot different than "It will rain cats and dogs"

Presuppositions can work both ways, that's why we need to ascertain the intent of the tense.

[christopher]

Ok, forget about the cats and dogs. You want an idiom with a future tense? How about “when Hell freezes over”? ;D

You wrote:

Presuppositions can work both ways,

That’s exactly my point. But I know of know rules on "tense" when coining an idiom.

One of the pitfalls of any systematic theology is trying to see others’ viewpoints on a particular scripture through the lenses of our own. We all do it. Systematic presuppositions are not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe it’s good to try on others’ presuppositions from time to time.

I would ask that you think about the presuppositions that you bring to the same passage (i.e. some future final judgment where the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will be raised up and punished along with the towns of 1st century Palestine, where the rejecters of the gospel suffer a greater condemnation). It doesn’t really say all that. You can draw inferences from what you believe about other texts, but the passage doesn’t explicitly say it.

Likewise, when a preterist looks at a passage like this through his own grid, he sees other possibilities than what is generally assumed because his system demands it. When it comes to topics like eschatology, it’s unavoidable if you are going to decide to camp out in a particular system IMO.

I’m not a full preterist by any stretch, but the suggestions that are brought to the argument by them are not entirely inconceivable and, in some cases, make better sense of the available data. Every system has it’s weak points and that’s usually what gets focused on by those in opposing camps. I try to look at a given view more holistically and judge it based on its overall merits rather than merely its weak points.

You may not be able to see how this future tense phrase can be applied as a future event comparing a past event, but I can certainly see a possible interpretation that way.

For clarification of this possibility, I might rephrase Jesus’ words like this:

“In the final analysis, these cities will suffer even more when they are judged than Sodom and Gomorrah did when they were judged.”

I don’t normally like doing that because I realize that it’s not what the text actually says. But I would point out that this is what dynamic translations (like the NIV) do all the time based on the translators’ theological biases and presuppositions (I mean, just look at the Message ).

Now, getting back to the original passage you asked about (2Pet 3), I’ll try to take on the argument “head on”.

I believe Peter is not giving any hint of time reference here. IMO, he’s simply saying “God will do what He’s going to do when He’s damn good ready to”. This harkens back to what Jesus told him in Acts 1:7:

"It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. “…

However, I think Peter felt that there was something his readers could do to help speed that process up. A hint of this may come from the second part of Jesus’ statement there in Acts:

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth [or land, country, region, etc](brackets mine)."

Peter knew they were living in the “last days” (of something), he said so in the next chapter of Acts (2:17). I suspect his epistle may reflect this belief also.

As far as the 1000 years in Revelation goes, what is your understanding of the preterist view on that and what about it do you find inconceivable? If a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years, couldn’t it just be saying that it’s all the same from God’s perspective? Remember it’s a symbolic book. 1000 years could simply symbolize a long time from someone’s perspective, whether it’s actually 2000+ years or just someone’s lifetime. If we’re going to press it to be literal (or close to it), then I think we’re going to have to also say that the only Christians that are reigning with Jesus in the Millennium are those that have been beheaded (vs 4). The only one I know of at that time was John the Baptist and possibly James (John’s brother). But I don't press a literal interpretation of that, nor the necessity of the 1000 years being longer than a generation. But again, that's another passage I'm not sure about and vacillate on as well. It could go either way for me at this point.

Anyway, I’ll have to make this my only post on this topic for today. For time stewardship’s sake, I’m trying to confine my posting to work breaks instead of home time and I'm not the fastest typist .

It’s probable I’ll have a few moments to read though, so blast away .

P.S. Damn! what is this web site doing to my curse words? ;D

[Josh]

Regarding folks from the past "rising up in judgment" I just don't think the parallel between that phrase and passages that are clearly about the final judgment can be easily explained away:

Revelation 20:5, 11-12
5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) ...
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

John 5:25-29
25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

That’s exactly my point. But I know of know rules on "tense" when coining an idiom.

Well, you want the tense to make sense for what the idiom is trying to convey. It doesn't matter what idiom I use- the tense dictates when I intend the event (wether highly literal or highly figurative) to occur. If I say "you'll be there until hell freezes over" you know I'm talking about something that will go on into the future. If I say "I was waiting for you at the restaurant until hell froze over", you'll know I wasn't being literal, but you'll know I was talking about something in the past.

So, when Jesus says:

"I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

then we know something is going to happen to the men of Sodom in the future, whatever it is that exactly happens (whether highly literal or figurative)

Again, he could have simply said, "When the judgment comes on that town, it'll be a lot worse than the judgment on Sodom. Indeed, I tell you, the Sodomites will rise up in judgment on them" and we could say he's just being idiomatically figurative about them "rising up". But because the will be more bearable for them, I see him saying that they will indeed have something to bear, and it harkens to several others passages in Scripture which speak of the judgment of all flesh- the quick and the dead.

Still, I suppose you can say that the Sodomites had to "bear" something in a highly figurative way in AD 70. I just don't think that makes a ton of sense for Jesus to say.

Anyway, of course this is a fun argument but not more important than you and I both know it is (I say that for the sake of others who have to endure our poker game )