The fact that the passage regarding nobody knowing the hour except the father no longer applies is interesting. I agree that it certainly no longer applies to Jesus.
However, my thinking is that the only reason Jesus didn't know it during His earthly ministry was because He had "emptied Himself" of the independent exercise of His divine attributes. While, upon returning to Heaven with the Father, I think we both agree that He once again began "using" His divine attributes and therefore would, at that time, know the time of His coming.
In that context, I think an argument could still be made that still nobody else knows the time. I take it that the only reason Jesus included Himself in the group of those who did not know this information was because He was not exercising His omniscience during that time.
Once He was exercising His omniscience, I don't know that the information would be divulged to anyone else, including the angels. After all, I would ask the question...why would the angels not have known the time of Christ's return prior to His ascension? I doubt there was any fear that they would "spill the beans" so to speak.
So, from that standpoint, while either position could be argued, I still think this passage shows that we cannot predict the second coming as this information is known only to God Himself.
The remaining question in all of this is the fact that Jesus does say, explicitly, that it is only the Father who knows. So, that brings up the question as to why the Holy Spirit did not seem to know. This weakens my argument a bit, I'm sure, but I don't think it completely destroys it.
(Matt. 24:33–34)Notice Jesus said "This Generation", not "That Generation". He was referring to the generation he was living with.Audience prevalence is important here.
http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm for a full Preterist perspective.
http://americanvision.org/category/eschatology/ for a Partial Preterist perspective.
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.
-----
Since it was God the Father that gave the Revelation to Jesus Christ to show His servants can't we then also assume that this very same verse says that it must, "Shortly take place," and just 2 verses later says, "The time is near," that this meant just that?
God the Father revealed it. He said "The time is near & that it must shortly take place."
So do we let our view of end-times define what these terms mean...Or do we let the text define what our view is?
Michael
I believe your right, but because Jesus didn't come the way we moderns think he should have come then the majority of the church has to manufacture another eschatological point of view. If Christians would study the various comings of God in the O.T. they would see the judgment coming of Christ on Israel/Jerusalem up to A.D.70. For further reading check the links on my post above.
God Bless.
Doug and Michael - thanks for the posts. I firmly believe the modern American, Evangelical Protestant Church has the "End Times" eschatology so firmly planted in its psyche that it cannot step outside to question whether, as you say Doug, it is using the Bible to fit its preconceived view. The New Testament is full of references and warnings to the hearers at the time which are rendered meaningless if they are not meant to apply to them. The "1000 years is as a day" tactic is a cop-out, I say. Don't tell me you'll be over to my house "soon" unless I can expect you in a reasonably "soon" time. Otherwise, it's a false promise.
Times now may be bad, but history is almost a complete continuum of bad. I hear Christians speak as if they think the world began about 90 years ago, and these are the worst times ever, "just as the Bible predicted." Oh yeah? Try living in plague-riddled Europe in the 1400s.
The time has come.
The Faithful Witness
Posted by: Duke | January 31, 2011 at 04:36 AM
The fact that the passage regarding nobody knowing the hour except the father no longer applies is interesting. I agree that it certainly no longer applies to Jesus.
However, my thinking is that the only reason Jesus didn't know it during His earthly ministry was because He had "emptied Himself" of the independent exercise of His divine attributes. While, upon returning to Heaven with the Father, I think we both agree that He once again began "using" His divine attributes and therefore would, at that time, know the time of His coming.
In that context, I think an argument could still be made that still nobody else knows the time. I take it that the only reason Jesus included Himself in the group of those who did not know this information was because He was not exercising His omniscience during that time.
Once He was exercising His omniscience, I don't know that the information would be divulged to anyone else, including the angels. After all, I would ask the question...why would the angels not have known the time of Christ's return prior to His ascension? I doubt there was any fear that they would "spill the beans" so to speak.
So, from that standpoint, while either position could be argued, I still think this passage shows that we cannot predict the second coming as this information is known only to God Himself.
The remaining question in all of this is the fact that Jesus does say, explicitly, that it is only the Father who knows. So, that brings up the question as to why the Holy Spirit did not seem to know. This weakens my argument a bit, I'm sure, but I don't think it completely destroys it.
Your thoughts?
Posted by: Daniel | January 31, 2011 at 09:23 AM
(Matt. 24:33–34)Notice Jesus said "This Generation", not "That Generation". He was referring to the generation he was living with.Audience prevalence is important here.
http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm for a full Preterist perspective.
http://americanvision.org/category/eschatology/ for a Partial Preterist perspective.
Posted by: Doug | January 31, 2011 at 02:53 PM
Peace be with the reader.
Food for thought:
"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the
Son of man."
"Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."
The Faithful Witness
Posted by: Duke | January 31, 2011 at 11:30 PM
Peace be with the reader.
The quotations are from Luke 17:26 & 30
The Son of man was speaking about His second coming.
The Faithful Witness
Posted by: Duke | February 01, 2011 at 12:48 AM
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.
-----
Since it was God the Father that gave the Revelation to Jesus Christ to show His servants can't we then also assume that this very same verse says that it must, "Shortly take place," and just 2 verses later says, "The time is near," that this meant just that?
God the Father revealed it. He said "The time is near & that it must shortly take place."
So do we let our view of end-times define what these terms mean...Or do we let the text define what our view is?
Posted by: Michael J Loomis | February 01, 2011 at 06:21 AM
Michael, most people I think would reply with the 2 Peter passage at this point:
ESV: II Peter 3:8. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
So it seems like no matter how much time passes, it could still be "soon" to God, given his existence as an eternal being.
Posted by: Eric | February 01, 2011 at 07:46 AM
Michael
I believe your right, but because Jesus didn't come the way we moderns think he should have come then the majority of the church has to manufacture another eschatological point of view. If Christians would study the various comings of God in the O.T. they would see the judgment coming of Christ on Israel/Jerusalem up to A.D.70. For further reading check the links on my post above.
God Bless.
Posted by: Doug | February 01, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Peace be with all those who have ears that can hear.The Son of man has come to separate the sheep from the goats.
Now is the time of judgment.
The Faithful Witness
Posted by: Duke | February 01, 2011 at 09:02 PM
Doug and Michael - thanks for the posts. I firmly believe the modern American, Evangelical Protestant Church has the "End Times" eschatology so firmly planted in its psyche that it cannot step outside to question whether, as you say Doug, it is using the Bible to fit its preconceived view. The New Testament is full of references and warnings to the hearers at the time which are rendered meaningless if they are not meant to apply to them. The "1000 years is as a day" tactic is a cop-out, I say. Don't tell me you'll be over to my house "soon" unless I can expect you in a reasonably "soon" time. Otherwise, it's a false promise.
Times now may be bad, but history is almost a complete continuum of bad. I hear Christians speak as if they think the world began about 90 years ago, and these are the worst times ever, "just as the Bible predicted." Oh yeah? Try living in plague-riddled Europe in the 1400s.
Posted by: Perry Shields | February 01, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Keep up with the latest news.
http://twitter.com/judgmenttime
The Faithful Witness
Posted by: Duke | February 04, 2011 at 11:42 PM