NOGO

Not so. Jesus said that it would all end before the generation passed. He later said that he did not know the exact day and hour. That is a far cry from "he did not know".

Peter Kirby

I don't say that the interpretation is clear; I think that either the apostles or the patriarchs could be in view here.

Michael Green writes: "This meaning of 'fathers' [as the apostles] is possible here, and could well be the right one in the passages in 1 and 2 Clement cited above. However, since every other reference to 'the fathers' in the New Testament (cf. Acts 3:13; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:1, etc.) means 'the Old Testament fathers', such I take to be the probable meaning here. For it is not said that things continue as they have done since the coming of Christ, but since the beginning of the creation." (2 Peter and Jude, p. 140)

The interpretation of the fathers as apostles might be supported by analogy with 1&2 Clement (or maybe not). Here are the passages.

1 Clement
23:3 Let not that scripture be applicable unto us which saith, Wretched are the double-minded, even they that doubt in their heart and say, We have heard these things in the time of our fathers; and lo, we have grown old, and none of them hath happened unto us.
23:4 O foolish ones! compare yourselves to a tree. Take, for example, the vine: first it sheddeth its leaves, then cometh the bud, then the leaf, then the flower, after that the unripe grape, then the ripe grape. See how in a little time the fruit of the tree attaineth to maturity.
23:5 Of a truth, quickly and suddenly shall his will be fulfilled; the scripture also bearing witness that he shall come quickly, and shall not tarry; and the Lord shall come suddenly into his temple, even the holy one, whom ye expect.

2 Clement
11:2 For the prophetic word saith, Wretched are the
double-minded who doubt in their heart, and say, We
have heard these things of old, even in the time of
our fathers, but we have seen none of them, though we
expect them from day to day.
11:3 Ye fools, compare yourselves unto a tree; take
for an example the vine. In the first place it
sheddeth its leaves, then there cometh a shoot, after
that the unripe grape, then the mature cluster.
11:4 In like manner my people hath in time past had
disorder and trouble, but afterward it shall receive
the things that are good.
11:5 Wherefore, my brethren, let us not be
double-minded, but let us abide in hope, that we may
obtain our reward.

The question to ask is, was the scripture quoted of Jewish or Christian origin? If Alvar Ellegard and others are right to think that 1 Clement came before 70 CE, then I think the probability would be raised that this scripture quoted is of Jewish origin, because there would have been less time for a Christian document to be written against scoffers on the delay of the parousia and also less time for that Christian document to gain stature as scripture. If the scripture is of Jewish authorship, then the "fathers" might be the patriarchs or could just be the parental generation who passed on the story of God's impending deliverance.

If the scripture is of Christian authorship, however, it becomes less likely but still possible that the author of 2 Peter had in mind the biblical patriarchs, which is suggested (as Green notes) by the reference to things staying the same since the beginning of creation instead of the beginning of the Christian mission.

The problem of the delay of God's deliverance is not a peculiarly Christian one; similar scoffing is addressed in Isaiah 5:19 and in a rabbinic comment on Psalm 89:50, which says "They have scoffed at Messiah's coming" and "He delays so long that they say 'He will never come.'"

I just did a quick check for the appearance of the term "fathers" in Irenaeus of Lyons. As late as Irenaeus is, there is not a single case in which the apostles are termed "fathers." But there are dozens of cases in which the biblical patriarchs are referenced with the word "fathers." The same holds true in the case of Justin Martyr: the "fathers" consistently mean people in the time of Moses and before. The earliest occasion in which a Christian author seems to call an apostle a "father" is Clement of Alexandria, who says, "Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds." But Clement of Alexandria gives the term a broad scope to apply to any teacher: "But words are the progeny of the soul. Hence we call those who have instructed us, fathers."

I am not aware of any possible occurence of a passage that refers to apostles as "fathers" that dates to Irenaeus or before, excepting the passages in question in 2 Peter, 1 Clement, and 2 Clement. This suggests that we should be open to the probability that the "fathers" in these disputed passages refers to the common use of the term at the time, to mean the patriarchs.

This is not obvious. Here is the passage:

2 Peter 3
3 knowing this first, that there shall come at [the] close of the days mockers with mocking, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for from the time the fathers fell asleep all things remain thus from [the] beginning of [the] creation.

What the passage says is that the mockers saw things as staying the same from the beginning of creation and through the time that the "fathers" died. Others expected something to happen, perhaps soon, perhaps before the apostles died, but the trope of the death of the fathers belongs to the scoffers and may not have been drawn from an expectation of the believers concerning the death of the fathers. The matter of the death of the fathers would likely originate with the believers if the "fathers" were the apostles, but that is not clear.

I don't know whether the author of 2 Peter had read the Gospel of Matthew. As I indicated in my previous post, it is clear from the context that 2 Peter is dealing with the delay of the Parousia, and you are certainly correct to affirm that.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NOGO
Hi Meta,

First the "age of the Law of Moses" suffers from the same problem as Layman's culmination of salvation history.

Nobody can seriously say that Jesus chose to be born on Christmas day.[quote]

You don't have to. IT's not like there was pre set day when the age ended. It ends when Jesus is born. So if he was born on 9/11/01 then that's when it ended.




why can't we say that?

No it doesn't! There wasn't anything in any of those defitions which said there was a pre set day.

NOt if there is another age after the chruch age.

If not why not?

because the age in the first Hebrews passage is the church age, when Jesus is born. The future age where they wont marry is the age of the eschaton when the new earth had come and the chruch age is no more.

that's if you are a dispensationalist. I'm not, let's don't forget my real argument is that it doesn't matter if the author of Hebrews (for my money Pricilla) was wrong about the end of the world.



aion is just a word. that word is free of particular scheme of ages or dispensations. The use of it in no way implies a particular committment to any dispensational outlook on the part of the author. So one passage can use that term and not mean to speak of eschatology at all, and another passage can use and actually mean eschatology.

NOGO

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the info.

The only comments would be that the idea that everything continues as from the start of the world as opposed to the start of Christianity is no surprise to me. If this verse is intended to apologize for the fact that the generation passed and Jesus did not return then the mockers expected the end of the world, when things would not continue as they have been since the begining of time.

The author of 2 Peter did not have to read Matthew if such beliefs were common among Christians. We all know that Jehovah's witnesses claim that 1914 was the start of the last generation which is about to pass and I have not read any of their publications.


Granted. That is why I asked you to show me where a clear transition of AION designates something other than the end of the world ... for example the church aoin that you talk about, where is it mentioned in the NT.

The reason I started this thread was to show Layman that he was doing the same thing with Heb 9:26 as he was denouncing Doherty on Heb 9:27-28

Is it "second time" or "secondly".

I can make exactly the same comments as you do above.

Layman wants to see where else in the NT does the word in question mean "secondly". I want to know where else in the NT does the word aion mean an age transition other than the end of the world.

Note also that Heb 9:26 says "aions" in the plural which would signify the end of all the ages.

Tercel

Nogo,

Do you understand what quote marks mean?
Just because I ask you for clarification with regards your argument doesn’t mean I agree with it!

Perhaps one does need to be a Christian to understand basic logic?

I am extremely skeptical of such an interpretation of this verse. Paul elsewhere in his writings records a desire to travel to places where the Gospel has never been preached where he will not be building on “a foundation laid by others”. I think Paul is far more likely meaning that Christ’s “proclamation” of man’s reconciliation unto God has implications for every creature under heaven.

Well I thought the “how do you know” part was obvious: The findings of modern scholarship have indicated thus.

I see you also have an active imagination about events in the fourth century. I know the occasional atheist writer has gotten a bit carried away about what “really” happened in early Christianity, but as an alleged “skeptic” I would hope you would be more skeptical of unsubstantiated dreaming. I am currently in discussion with Fiach on this issue in GRD who appears to have a similar view to you. You are welcome to join:
I suggest you start reading with my post that begins “Fiach,” which is about 2/3rds down this page.


Dealing now with your original post:

I must first question your continual implicit assumption that whenever any author refers to an Age or the end of one they are always meaning the same thing. Now I would not be surprised to a fundamentalist Christian argue that the Biblical texts exhibit unity because they were written by the same God. But I see no good reason to believe that when an author speaks of “the end of the age” he necessarily has in mind the same age that another author might have when he speaks of it. I am not convinced that this assumption is even valid within one author: An author might well mention the “end of this [one of the ages of the world] age” and also speak of “the [heavenly] age to come” without at all believing that the heavenly age would immediately follow this earthly age (or whichever earthly age the author is thinking of at the time).

You should realise that these early Christians are writing at a time when their Jewish society has been heavily exposed to Apocalyptic literature (Daniel and Revelation are examples of this genre) which often spoke of the ends of ages and generally meant not the end of the world, but simply a major event or power shift within the world.

He can be read as simply meaning that the Son spoke recently. Like if I say “In these last weeks I have felt sick” I don’t mean that these are the last weeks before the end of the world, merely that they are recent weeks. Alternatively he may really mean that these are the last days – that the world is over half-way towards its end. (thus leaving less 15 billion years to go )

It isn’t any sort of reference to the end of the world at all. A reference to a heavenly age to come is not an indication of a belief in the imminent end of the world. I, for example, believe the first but not the second.

Er, no. If it’s in the plural then he’s meaning that the worlds or the ages of this world “were prepared by the word of God”

Not at all. That the author even means “the end of aions” as opposed to “the consummation of aions” is something I am not convinced of.

Nobody ever claimed “aion” = the culmination of salvation history, not even Layman. I think your real issue with Layman is that “sunteleia” cannot mean “culmination”.

Yet I fail to see the force of your argument. Even if the author of Hebrews meant that Christ died at the end of the ages, there is still plenty of scope to interpret that as meaning something other than “the end of the world is imminent”. An example would be that the author believed that the age he was writing in (the “Church age”) was the final age of the world, and Christ having died to begin this age had died in the last age: the end of the ages. This would imply nothing about how long the author believed the church age would last.

[....snip lots of verses that I think are irrelevant...]

Obviously these indicate the writers belief in a comparatively near end of the world. But just how comparatively near? “Near” as in “the end of the world is closer than the beginning”? Or did the writers really think the end of the world would occur in their lifetimes? If so, what caused them to think this? Was this their own insight that the persecution of Christians must mean the end was imminent? Or was this a common Christian belief, shared by most Christians? And if so, what was the cause of this belief? A prophesy of one of the apostles? A misunderstanding by the apostles of Jesus’ words? A misinterpretation by later believers about Jesus’ prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem? Or Jesus’ own belief?
I don’t think we can know the answer.

But you do, so let’s look at what you claim as evidence of Jesus’ belief:
Firstly I am surprised at your apparent happiness to assume that Matthew is correct here. It’s normally an uphill battle to convince skeptics that anything in the Bible is correct, so the way in which you appear to take this passage as a true and accurate word-for-word recording of what was said is surprising. Or is this simply a case of believing things that you would like to be true?

Very seriously, this passage is not in any rhyming form, or in parable form. (ie its not as easy to remember as most of Jesus’ other teachings) Thus the chances that this recording faithfully reproduces the original are rather less likely. (Unless you’re one of these people that thinks Matthew was on hand writing down each word as it came out of Jesus’ mouth?) Now in this case, I happen to believe the passage largely authentic: That Jesus almost certainly did say something regarding his 2nd coming and probably something regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. However I am far from convinced that an analysis involving individual words serves any useful purpose since the word-for-word accuracy is in serious doubt. You only have to change or reinterpret a few things in this passage to get far more consistent passage which does not have Jesus preaching an imminent second coming: As I intend to show.
I believe, therefore, it is completely unsubstantiated to assert that Jesus believed the second coming to be imminent.

As regards to your two points about this passage, I disagree with [2]. You unnecessarily confuse the end of an age with the end of the world. One interpretation of this passage would be to interpret the ending of the age as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (surely a great event for any Jew worthy of being referred to as the end of an age). This event of course occurred in 70AD, within the generation that Jesus spoke to, and 24:15-25 records a prediction of this.
For some reason this prophesy has ended up placed smack in the middle of a passage of a more general prediction of the future and the second coming (24:4-14, 26-31, 36-44): as has short tangent about a fig tree, this generation not passing away, and Jesus’s words not passing away (32-35) – which aside from breaking the smooth flow between vs 31 and 36, it hardly agrees with vs 36, 39 and 42-44 which suggest that the time of the return will not be known or expected, nor does it agree with vs 4-14 which foresees a significant passage of time before the second coming which includes: wars, famines, earthquakes, death for the apostles , Christians subsequently falling away, many subsequent false prophets, and finally envisages the gospel reaching to the ends of the world. This passage would indeed appear to envisage a significant passage of time before the second coming.

Well we appear to be in agreement here.

I see the “immediately after the tribulation of those days” as being a reference to vs 4-14 as Jesus is by this point (vs 29) back continuing the answer left of at vs 14. If you see 4-14, 26-31 as being a continuous narrative broken by the later insertion of a prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem in the middle, then this is the only interpretation that makes sense.

Let’s put it this way. Jesus is answering two questions here. Them and their answers are:

• What can you tell us about the destruction of the temple?
  
  When you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains; Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, "Behold, here is the Christ,' or "There He is,' do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance….
  Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
  
• What can you tell us about your second coming?
  
  See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ,' and will mislead many. You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come….
  So if they say to you, "Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, "Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. and he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other….
  But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

I see nothing wrong with him thinking there was some chance he would still be alive at the end of the world: As I think Jesus taught that the time of the end of the world could not be known.

Funny that Paul should include himself among the living given that he was alive at the time, isn’t it?
Again I can agree that this indicates the author believed it possible (and no doubt strongly hoped) that he would be alive at the time, but that doesn’t prove your point.

Ignoring your dubious interpretation of Col 1:23, this condition remains unfulfilled, so I don’t see what you’re complaining about.

And of course according to Revelation, John indeed saw “the son of man coming in his kingdom” before he died. Similarly there is nothing to say that other apostles didn’t have visions of the end times.

Well more than 2000 years have passed and their task of converting the Jews is far from complete. So to answer the question: A very long time.

If you used a decent modern translation you wouldn’t be so confused. The day of Christ is not “still ‘at hand’” at all. The author is saying “Do not be deceived into thinking that the day of Christ has already occurred” And then reminds them of the things that must occur before the day of Christ.
This is not an ad hoc addition of new conditions at all, but a clearing up of an apparently very confused belief that the second coming had already happened.

2 Peter is something I’m prepared to agree with you on. I think chances are the writer’s community had expected an imminent second coming which had not occurred, so the writer is engaging in apologetics.


Phew, done.

NOGO

Hi Tercel.

Let me restate my position on the end of the world issue.
All of the references that I made together constitute convincing evidence that early Christians believed that the end of the world was imminent. The references are numerous and from many authors.

What you have done is to try and answer each one of these individually and evoked the possibility of other interpretations. Overall, I believe, that your position is rather weak, so my first reaction was to let is stand as your answer to my initial post and let others judge for themselves. I do have some comments and I may answer all of your post later when I have more time.

Tercel:
Ignoring your dubious interpretation of Col 1:23, this condition remains unfulfilled, so I don’t see what you’re complaining about.

Nogo:
"for a witness to all nations" is the key here. It is like Col 1:23 which talks about "proclaiming". "preached as a witness" is something that I would think is rather quick to do and certainly what Paul says in Col 1:23 satisfies Mt24:14.

As with Mt10 below you seem to think that Mt24:14 implies that everybody needs to be converted to Christianity and then the end will come. That this is incorrect is easily demonstrated. In many places the NT talks about those who will be punished eternally because they have failed to believe, so the insistence that everybody alive must be a Christian for the world to end is rather ridiculous.

Tercel:
And of course according to Revelation, John indeed saw “the son of man coming in his kingdom” before he died. Similarly there is nothing to say that other apostles didn’t have visions of the end times.

Nogo:
I guess that you missed the "For the son of man will come ... and then he will reward each according to his works" I do not believe that John in Revelations talks about this nor do I believe that the John of Revelations was the disciple of Jesus.

Your interpretation of "his Kingdom" is rather dubious. Jesus' ascension to heaven is not what is intended here. What is intended is what Mt24 talks about ie his second coming. John in Revelation did not witness Jesus' second coming.

... anything will do to help the cause. Right?

Tercel:
Well more than 2000 years have passed and their task of converting the Jews is far from complete. So to answer the question: A very long time.

Nogo:
Standard answer, But Matthew 23 does not talk about converting all the Jews. It talks about "going through all the cities of Israel".

Consider also that just before this statement Jesus tells his disciples to dust off the sand from their shoes when they are not welcome, then one cannot believe that complete conversion was intended.

Also, nobody would give people a task which they cannot possibly accomplish. If you give your children a task which will take 2000 years or more you cannot then say "you will not finish doing this job that I will return". What a non-statement! If Jesus intended to give his disciples some idea of the time of his returm, then strike 1-2-3, and out.
But nice try.

I do not believe that the Jews will ever convert to Christianity and I do not blame them.

But still, a condition to Jesus' return which was not mentioned before is added here.

Tercel

Your deliberate misinterpretation of my post is not appreciated. The philosophical arguments referred to are of course those surrounding the existence of God. Those beliefs you list above are simply logical implications of the existence of God and experiences within the Christian tradition. Upon making the observation that the Christian religion appears to be the best religion for experiencing God within, it is reasonable to conclude that there is significant likelihood of the core teachings of Christianity being true. This core teaching is the atoning death and subsequent resurrection of Christ, God incarnate. If we then accept the truth of this teaching, we can deduce God’s loving nature and conclude that the question of the existence of suffering and evil reasonably demands an explanation. The additional Christian teaching of the existence of malevolent spiritual beings who can influence this world to some degree seems conducive to producing a solution to this problem. Also, the acceptance of the belief that Christ is God incarnate makes not unreasonable the Christian teachings surrounding Christ’s alleged virgin birth: There seems no reason to reject it and the apparent widespread acceptance of this belief by the early Christians gives us further reason to accept it.

Experiential data can always be explained using naturalistic explanations. No matter what the observed phenomenon an ad hoc naturalistic explanation involving unknown natural laws, hypotheticalising unlikely possibilities and anything else a naturalist can dream up can all combine into a “possible” naturalistic explanation. Simply because something is possible does not mean it is the best explanation however and a decision must be made at what point acceptance of a naturalistic explanation becomes unreasonable. The point at which a naturalistic explanation becomes unreasonable will of course depend of the individual’s opinion on the likelihood of the existence of the supernatural and the likelihood of its interference in a given situation.

I disbelieve in the existence of these creatures because everyone else disbelieves in the existence of these creatures and I have no reason to doubt the universal consensus.

NOGO

All you asked was for clarification ... Right!
Innocent Tercel.

Do I know what quotation marks mean?

Quotation marks are sometimes used to introduce a controversial subject or to make an absurd remark without exposing one's derriere.

Am I close?

NOGO

I hope that you will agree that Heb 1:2's "these last days" is the same period of time as Heb 9:26's "at the end of the ages" since both presumably refer to the life and death of Jesus.

So for our purpose then
"these last days" = "the end of the ages"

This does away with your first attempt at muddying the issue in order to avoid the obvious.

As for the second attempt ...
It is the lot of believers to have to resort to this type of fallback position when they have, otherwise, nothing substantive to say.

Tercel

I totally agree that some early Christians thought the end of the world imminent. (Some current Christians think the end of the world imminent too. In my opinion things like that don't change much.)

I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to know just how widespread this believe was, or whether Jesus believed it.

If this means we are in agreement: fine. But it means I totally object to any sort of argument that alleges that Christianity itself is unbelieveable on the grounds that the world did not end. If that is what you are trying to argue, then we do disagree.

Yes. I am noting that given the other possible interpretations that so many of the passage have, it is difficult if not impossible to deduce exactly which authors held a belief in an imminent end, and why they held such a belief if they did.

I do not believe that everyone in the world need be a Christian. Rather, my interpretation (which is todays standard Christian one) of the gospels on this subject is that all people-groups need to have heard about (not necessarily believed in) the gospel before the 2nd coming.

I don't understand that first point. And I don't believe the John of Revelations was the disciple of Jesus either.

I didn't say anything about Jesus' ascension to heaven. I believe that the author in Mt 16 is referring to the second coming.

Have you read Revelation? Last time I read it it included an alleged vision of the end of the world including the second coming.

You seem determined to see any "extra conditions" as new inventions that the Christians made up to explain why the second coming wasn't happening. (We don't even know that 2 Thess was written that late)

To me this serves as just another example on why a bit of humility is needed in examining early Christian beliefs. If not for the confused situation at Thessolonica, we would never have known there existed a belief that this condition must be met before the second coming could occur. What other conditions that the early Christians believed must be met might we still be ignorant of? It is therefore impossible to say with any claim to certainty that the early Christians had a universal belief in an imminent second coming.