Eschatology Spasm
Posted By MSH on January 1, 2011
I wanted to post this before year’s end, but things didn’t work out. I plan to append this post to the eschatology archived threads. Came across three articles that (again) point out certain aspects of eschatology that all-too-often assumed rather than thoughtfully considered. Here they are:
Who Will be Left Behind: Rethinking the Meaning of Matthew 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-35
- The author dares consider these two NT passages against Old Testament motifs!
Covenant Conditionality and a Future for Israel
- Expands on our discussion about the covenants
Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9
- We didn’t get to rapturist “postponement” theology; this will introduce you to it and why it also cannot be assumed.
Comments
7 Responses to “Eschatology Spasm”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
I read the articles by Pierce on Daniel 9 and the other on Israel.
The article on Daniel 9 is interesting. I think I’ve read about 10 different opinions on Daniel 9 in the last couple years, but this sort of “literal” historical view was new to me. Though I’ve seen it referenced in other places, this is the first time I’ve read a paper advocating it. The jury is still out for me…
Here is a question for you Mike (since I don’t know Hebrew). Pierce makes a case for the fact that the grammar of 9:25 demands that “the anointed one” comes at the end of seven weeks rather than sixty-nine. He bases it off a certain rendering of the MT. If that point can be clearly shown, it effectively rules out a Messianic interpretation, right? What about the LXX? What is your take on the MT rendering and the implications of it?
I think I’m in agreement with Pierce about the “left behind”… It makes perfect sense over against the OT texts. But, I lose him with his treatment of Romans 9-11. I’m more convinced that Paul envisions a “polemically redefined” or “reconstituted Israel” in Romans 11, rather than some sort of future (end-time) restoration/jewish revival.
Peter Gentry’s article also commented on the anointed one’s grammar, so I refer you to that (in my eschatology series). See pp. 32 ff. in that article. Gentry argues his view on this from literary grounds, not just grammar.
As I noted in one of those posts, “If we go with the Masoretic accenting (see the post prior to this one), then the anointed one immediately follows those 49 years. The identity of the anointed one is obvious: Cyrus himself. Why? We need an anointed “prince” [ruler] from Daniel 9:25, and Cyrus is called by God “my anointed” in Isaiah 45:1. It is he who would deliver the exiled nation (and he did). It’s quite explicit.” This isn’t grammar, but the Masoretic accenting denotes Hebrew syntax (i.e., it is grammatical – it indicates how the scribes saw clause structures). But as Gentry points out (citing Beckwith) Masoretic accenting choices tend to be anti-messianic.
Thanks for the papers !
read all three and in particular enjoyed the Covenant Conditionality and a Future for Israel, i tried to search for some more on this but to no avail is it part of a larger body of work that i can get a hold of ? It was fascinating.
just discussions in general of how covenants come with conditions.
I read the “Who will be left behind” article, and his point of view is interesting, however I am not sure how this individual is not using pre-supposition in order to filter scripture through his own interpretation. He only vaguely touched on the actual stories of Lot and Noah, and seemed to only use the portions of the story that benefited his conclusions. For example…Noah, in the Ark, was actually “lifted” above the wrath. A pre-tribber will see that as evidence of being “taken” up rather than being “left behind.”
The other thing that was frustrating about the article was that he fails to give an explanation at all about what Thessalonians means when it talks about us all being caught up to be with him. He basically says, and I am paraphrasing, “you can’t use Thessalonians to understand the ‘Olivet’ discourses.” Once making this statement, he never gives you an inkling about what the Thessalonians passage even means.
Do not get me wrong, I personally tend to not be much of a student of eschatology, however, I just thought I would throw some of those things out there for consideration.
where does the Noah story have “lifted up” terminology, as opposed to simply deliverance? Noah was quite literally, left on earth – ? Your other criticism is more substantive. But all this comes down to (again), are you a splitter or a joiner, and how would you know which one you’re *supposed* to be? (If that language is unfamiliar to you, see my archived eschatology posts).
It is not that there is a terminology that says “lifted up” per se, it is simple inductive deduction that as the rains came down, Noah’s Ark was obviously lifted above the ground level of judgment. Thus one could argue that he was not “left behind” as the article concludes, but was whisked away and placed back down on a whole new world once the judgment subsided.
As to the splitter or joiner thing, I guess I would need to be more educated to those terms. I will find and read over those before commenting on eschatology posts again.