Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology
I already answered all of the questions. I don't know why you keep reposting them. Your questions have nothing to with what I understand Paul said about "Israelites according to the flesh" (Romans 9:3-5). You were asking things about your own views (i.e. "loaded" questions).
As Donald said, you need to show us where there is any "disembodied spirit realm" found in scripture. You seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between pagan Greek philosophy and biblical theology. Without any exegetical evidence for "disembodied spirits", you shouldn't be claiming that your views are an interpretation of the Bible. There isn't much we can do to repsond to questions about topics that are unrelated to scripture.
Please show us even one occurence of the word SHeOL (Heb) or HADES (Grk) in the biblical canon that requires a meaning other than "grave" or "tomb". I can show you dozens of times that each word plainly refers to a common dirt "grave" where dead people (souls) were buried in the ground (per Genesis 3:19).
Hi Rivers, whilst your preparing your answers for me in the other thread, maybe you could also answer these. I asked them of Don but he didn't want to respond.
As we know, ALL of Christ's parables were founded on "truth" (Jn 8:28, 38, 12:49, etc). Christ was not of the sort of Man who would seek to scare people into believing in Him by lying to them. In fact the opposite was true (Jn 6:56, 60, 66).
In the 1st century Roman Empire the Greek concept of "Hades" was well understood as the realm of 'disembodied existence', even amongst the Hebrews, hence its use in the LXX (see, here). In Lk 16 Christ used this common understanding to illustrate a teaching about the "deceitfulness of riches". Tell me:
1. Why do you believe Christ did this when He could have used any number of things to illustrate His point?
2. Why do you believe Christ taught His audience that the "rich man was in torments in Hades" (Lk 16:23; also,Matt 11:23, 16:18, Lk 10:15)? What do you believe His audience understood by this?
3. Why do you believe the apostles also referred to "Hades" (Ac 2:31, 1 Cor 15:55), when they could have translated the Hebrew word for "grave" (shĕ'owl) with the Greek word for "grave" (mnēmeion). What do you believe their audiences understood by this?
4. In what way is living a life without "fear of God" (Ps 36:1, 1 Cor 15:32) and then being annihilated on death "eternal punishment/destruction"? In what way do you experience "punishment" when you don't exist? Is not annihilation a "blessing" rather than a "punishment"? Are you maybe projecting your own wishes on to scripture and history?
5. Why do you believe Christ said of Judas that it would have been better if he'd "not been born" if only annihilation awaited him for his "betrayal" (Matt 26:24)?
6. What do you understand about Christ's teachings in places like Matt 5:29-30? If the mental picture of geenna only meant annihilation why did they need to worry about this? Wasn't Christ wasting His breath with such dire warnings? (Consider the arrogant attitude you have concerning what happens on death (Ps 36:1). Do you think many amongst Christ's/the apostles audiences were any different (2 Pet 3:4)? As I said, annihilation would have been a "blessing" to them, NOT a "punishment".)
7. What do you make of Rev 14:11?
8. What does this verse mean Ac 24:15? Were the "unjust" mentioned here "raised up" from their "graves", told they'd been naughty boys and girls, and then immediately annihilated? Is that what you believe it meant to have the "secrets of their hearts" judged (Rom 2:16, Heb 6:2)?
9. Where were the "spirits" of the Israelites kept before they were "raised up"? "Just" AND "unjust"?
10. Please point me to scripture that says "Israelites according to the flesh" were anatomically/constitutionally different to other men (i.e. if they has a "spirit" that survived their biological demise, so did others).
11. What do you believe it meant for the "beast" to be "cast alive into the Lake of Fire burning with brimstone.." (Rev 19:20)?
[ NB Every paedophile and thief cheers you and Don on as you proclaim, in effect, your "God is dead" gospel for the creatures who bear His "image". God may give man "life, breath and all things" (Ac 17:25) but He's no longer concerned about the "life" He gives them or with their "righteousness" or lack thereof. The only thing lawbreakers have to concern themselves with now is not being caught by the cops. WOW. What an amazing "gospel" this is guys. I think Hitler may have had a similar one! ]
Sorry I’m a little confused. When you said “The meaning of "eternal" (AIWN) here is not duration, but permanence.” For instance, in the OT we have seen some passages that say “forever/everlasting (Hebrew: OlaM, same as Greek AIWN) but they were ceased, i.e. Promised Land (Gen. 17:8); circumcised (Gen. 17:19); feast (Ex. 12:14); Sabbath (Ex. 31:16); priesthood (Ex. 40:15); temple (1 Kings 9:3) and some others. This doesn’t sound like permanence, more like duration. Could you please clarify?
Do you have a website or a book that can be helpful? Thanks.
The words OLaM (Heb) and AIWN (Grk) don't mean exactly the same thing in every particluar context. Most of the uses of the words refer to a "distant, incomprehensible, unknown period of time." It can also mean "permenant, irreversible, complete." However, the words never mean "eternal" (in the sense of having no beginning or end).
The point of my comments is that neither word can mean "eternal." As you've pointed out, even though the Law, Priesthood, Temple, and Sabbath were called OLaM, they were all known in scripture to have a beginning and an end (e.g. Matthew 5:17-20).
I think the idea of "permenant" or "final" is implied in certain contexts where things like the rule of Christ are said to be both "without end" (Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:35) and to "end" (1 Corinthians 15:24) after a specific period of time (Revelation 20:4). This is an example of where it makes more sense to think that "without end" referred to the "completion" of the Kingdom (in the sense that there was no limit to the certainty of accomplishing its purpose) and that took place during a specific period of time.
I also think this is what is intended when it is used of "eternal (AIWN) destruction" (Matthew 25:46). In this context, it is not necessary to "destroy" something "endlessly" and thus the sense in which the "destruction" is AIWN is that it is irreversible or permenant (i.e death without any hope of resurrection to life). Oftentimes the other words that are modified by AIWN help us understand how the word is being used in a particular context.
Let's go back to Isaiah 9:7. Here it says that Christ's "government" would "have no end." Yet, the same "government" is also identified as "throne of David over Israel" (which certainly includes only a limited genealogical scope) and the same reign has an "end" at the parousia (1 Corinthians 15:24).
Thanks. Just a few more:
1. I am trying to understand the concept of OLaM/AIWN because it is not always the same in all passages, correct?
2. It can be duration or permanence, depending on the context?
3. If it says “age of the ages”, it means the completion of all ages at the Parousia, correct?
4. Is the “end of the age” same thing as #3 in above?
5. What does this mean, “this age and the age about to come”? What is the difference?
6. Did Christ’s ruling (kingdom) last for 40 years and then brought all things to his Father?
7. Was the kingdom of heaven/God last for a duration or permanence?
8. Is there a difference between Christ’s ruling (AD 30-70) and God’s kingdom (post-Parousia)?
9. At the Parousia, all saints received “eternal” (age-during) life, does this mean "permenant, irreversible, complete" life?
1. Correct. However, they are used over 400 times in scripture and never require the meaning of "eternal" (i.e. without beginning or end).
2. Correct. It can be a duration of time, or it can be a permenant effect or irreversible state.
3. Correct. First, the plural or double use of "age(s)" is one of the proofs that the word doesn't mean "eternal." There is no such thing as multiple "eternal" durations. I think the idiomatic express "age of the ages" means "consumation of the ages" (1 Corinthians 10:11) in the sense that there is a particular "age" that is the goal (or summation) of all of the ones leading up to it. This is what the apostles meant by "the last days" (Acts 2:17).
4. Yes, but "end of the age" would be specifically referring to the "end" of the last of the ages.
5. "This age" refers to the order of evil things present during the inauguration of the Christ's rule. The "age-coming" refers to the consummation of all the ages at the Parousia.
6. No. Christ ruled for "1,000 years" as a descendant of David (2 Samuel 7:13). He was manifested during the "last days" in order to "confirm the promises to the fathers" (Romans 15:8; Romans 9:5). It was about 1,000 years from the time of God's promise of a permenant David Kingdom to the time it was confirmed by Jesus Christ. (10th century BC to 1st century AD).
7. The Kingdom of God existed since the time of Moses (Exodus 19:6) and was restored to the loving rule of God the Father by Jesus Christ at the Parousia (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
8. Yes. The Kingdom was taken to the heavenlies at the Parousia (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) and is no longer present among people on Earth after AD 70.
9. Correct. The duration of time is not the emphasis. Rather, it is the fact that "sting of death" is permenantly removed from the saints and the Kingdom is out of reach of their enemies (1 Corinthians 15:26-28).
Ok, I think I got it. It is indefinite period of time and once it reached its goal, then it is completion, once for all time. The faithful Israelites received their rewards and the rest received nothing but death. It was the time when all the promises and expectations and longings of the saints of all previous ages would be fulfilled.
I always thought that the "age about to come" is right after the end of the age. In other words, this shows that once the "life of the age about to come" (at Parousia), there will be no end to it (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34-36; Eph. 1:21). The resurrection event marks the END of "this age" and the arrival of "that age" (i.e. the age that was about to come). Or is this what you're trying to say? Sounds like you're saying the "age to come" refers to the consummation of all the ages at the Parousia which ended in AD 66.
I made a chart with three views which should be helpful. On the top, "the age to come" last 3 and half years (AD 66-70). In the middle, "the age to come" at the consummation of all the ages at the Parousia in AD 66. The bottom one is popular preterist view. So are you more of in the middle? If you need to modify a little bit, let me know. Maybe you could draw something for me?
P.S. Sorry, I had to re-re-re-edited my chart.
I think the problem with an "age to come" being a future age after the "last days" is that when "age to come" appears in scripture (Matthew 12:30; Ephesians 1:21) it is in the "present-active-participle" form which means it is something that is already happening during the "last days." It is not a "future" tense, nor it there any "future" people in the context of the passages.
Thus, I think it is better understood as meaning something like "the final age that is now happening". Remember, Jesus was born during an existing evil age but his arrival signified that the "age (final) of the ages" had arrived. This why Paul told the Corinthians that everything written beforehand was ultimately intended to have its meaning fulfilled for them during the "last days" since "the consummation of the ages" (i.e. the age that completes the purpose all the previous ones were leading up to) was now transpiring in their generation (1 Corinthians 10:11) when all would be completed (Matthew 24:34).
Thanks Rivers but I would like to look into those passages which seems you haven't explain to me on Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34-36.
From Concordant Literal NT which I have, it says, "...in this era, houses and brothers and sisters and mother and father and children and fields, with persecutions, and in the coming eon, life eonian" (Mark 10:30).
Also in Luke 18:30 says, "...getting back manyfold in this era, and in the coming eon, life eonian."
Lastly, "The sons of this eon are marrying and are taking out in marriage. Yet those deemed worthy to happen upon that eon and the resurrection from among the dead are neither marrying nor taking out in marriage. For neither can they still be dying, for they are equal to messengers, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36).
So, are you saying that right at the consummation of the ages (the Parousia), they received life eonian ("eternal" life in heaven)?
Here's a reply to the passages you cited:
1. Mark 10:30. The "present time" (KAIROS) refers to the "last days" when there would be "perscution." The "age coming" is in a "present-middle-participle" form which means that it was something happening to this same people at that time. This is the same "consummation of the ages" that Paul was referring to (1 Corinthians 10:11).
Remember, the CLT translators are futurists. Mark 10:30 could also be translated this way:
" ... in this time (KAIROS), houses and brethren and sisters and mothers and children and fields (along with persuctions), and with the age (EN AIWN) now-coming-upon-us (ERCHOMAI, present-middle-participle), permenant life (AIWOIS ZWE)"
The idea in these passages of "the age at hand (MELLW) or "the age now-coming" (AIWN ERCHOMAI) is the thought that the final Messianic "age" that had been anticipated (in prophecy) by all of the previous generations (ages) was now coming to pass during the "last days" (i.e final age) in which the apostles and their churches were living. To Daniel and the prophets it was a "future" age ... but, with the appearing of Jesus, that anticipated final "age" had become a present reality for the people of Jesus' day.