The Coming of Jesus: Our Future Hope - What Now?

Luke Wilson | 03rd February 2016 | Second Coming Series

Welcome to Part Two of the Olivet Discourse! It’s been a while, so we’ll pick up right where we left off with Matthew 24 verse 15 onwards, after a small recap of the chapter so far. The Olivet Discourse begins with the disciples admiring the architecture of the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus responds to this by telling them that it will all be thrown down and destroyed, to the point that not one stone will be left on another. Later on, when they are sat on the Mount of Olives, Jesus’ disciples come to him and ask “when will this happen?” and “what will be the sign” that all of this is about to commence? If we look at the account in Mark’s Gospel, we can see that it was actually only Peter, James, John and Andrew who came to speak with Jesus privately about these things (Mark 13:3), thus making the audience that Jesus was addressing quite specific! What follows is a long prophetic monologue from Jesus detailing what happens in the lead up to the temple being destroyed, what to expect and what to do they see it about to happen. Which is where we pick up this study. From verse 15 we start to see what happens after the initial signs and “birth pangs” are finished – now it’s no longer about looking towards an event; now it’s about the event itself! The main show, as it were: the “desolating sacrilege!” Matthew 24:15-18 So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat.   Now Matthew’s Gospel is traditionally understood to have been written to a Jewish audience due to the writing style and linguistic phrases used that were typical of Jewish thought and understanding. This is important to remember when reading the parenthesis in verse 15 which simply states “let the reader understand” as first century Jews would have been very familiar with Daniel’s prophecy more than Gentiles or Jewish converts, for example. This is where the parallel accounts of this passage in the other Gospel account can help us, as we should always endeavour to let Scripture interpret Scripture where possible, rather than jumping to conclusions or assuming things. So we’ll turn to Luke’s Gospel, which is the account typically understood to have been written to a primarily Gentile (non-Jewish) audience, and so it contains different phrases and wording which can often clarify certain things written in Matthew, for example. Luke 21:20-22 When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it, and those out in the country must not enter it; for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfillment of all that is written.   The “desolating sacrilege” and the “holy place” spoken of in Matthew can be made clearer for us by Luke’s plainer language of the event as being attacking armies (desolating sacrilege) surrounding Jerusalem (the holy place)! It’s also important to note that Luke adds an additional comment in verse 22 which Matthew and Mark omit: that these are the “days of vengeance” which fulfills “all that is written”. Written where? The Old Testament. This is the “great and terrible day of the Lord” which had long been prophesied in the Scriptures, which cannot be another time in history, other than the time in which Jesus is speaking of!   The book of Malachi speaks of the coming of the Lord to his people, and the messenger which he will send first (Mal 3:1), which will lead up to God bringing judgement on the nation (Mal 3:5). The book ends with a prophetic statement about this “Day” which says more explicitly that God will send “Elijah” to his people before the judgement comes. Malachi 4:5...

Luke Wilson | 06th January 2016 | Second Coming Series

This is a sort of ‘addendum’ to the Revelation Fulfilled? article    Yes you read the title correct: WHO (not what) is the New Jerusalem?   To answer this, you must ask yourself: who is the Bride of Christ?   If you answered “the Church” (as in, the body of believers, not buildings) then you’d be correct as they are both one and the same!   Roughly 1500 miles square.   Maybe you’ve always wondered why the Church is called the “bride”? Well, let’s examine some Scriptures and see! 2 Corinthians 11:2I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.   Here is Paul pleading with the Corinthian church to stay pure and true to the Gospel message they received, like a virgin on her wedding day; and also true to Jesus, as he is the husband of the believers. Again, we see Paul use this imagery of marriage in terms of Christ and his Church in the letter to the Ephesians. Paul is teaching them (and us) on how to conduct ourselves within the bonds of marriage with the instruction for husbands and wives to lay down their lives for one another in love; this is also the analogy of how Jesus relates to his Church: Ephesians 5:24-25, 32Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. What has this got to do with the New Jerusalem? Now when it comes to verses on the New Jerusalem, most people read the first two verses of Rev 21 and stop there, assuming that because it is called “the new Jerusalem” and “the holy city” that it must be an actual, brick-and-mortar city.   But the description doesn’t stop there.   Keep reading past Rev 21:1 and see how the Bride is described: Revelation 21:1-2Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:9-10Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And in the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.   Here we see the new heaven and earth, with the “holy city” – the new Jerusalem – coming down out of heaven.   Next we see that the new Jerusalem IS the bride of Christ.   So, if the Church/body of believers is the bride, and the new Jerusalem is also the bride – then they must be one and the same, and therefore symbolic of the physical reality of what the Church is! Unless of course you believe Jesus will be getting married to a literal city...   This vision of the new Heaven and Earth isn’t talking about a doing away with the current, physical realm, no; it’s a beautiful, poetic image of the marriage between God and his people – of the new way of the world now that Christ has accomplished his goal: defeating death and ushering in the New Covenant!   This is God showing that things work differently now. No longer is he only found in a temple, or a specific holy place (a lá John 4:21) – now he lives with us and in us!   This is why everything is new! Heaven will never be the same again, and neither will the Earth! God has set up a new temple where he dwells permanently now: in us, the Church!   Everything is New! If we go back to Paul’s letters for a moment and read 2 Corinthians, we can see that this is what Paul was getting at too. He had grasped this and was desperately trying to get it across to the Corinthian church. Oh, how slow are we on the uptake too? 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 S...

Luke Wilson | 31st December 2015 | Second Coming Series

Don’t let the title put you off, we’re about to go on a mad journey through the annuls of history and the Roman Empire, contrasting what John saw in his vision with what has already played out on the “world’s stage” and what we possibly have to look forward to! First though, let’s look at a little history concerning the book itself before delving into its contents. Why do this? For a couple of reasons really: one, Revelation has some dispute over the year in which it was written, which can impact on the interpretation. Two, at various points in early church history, the book was held in suspicion of being spurious and almost didn’t make it into the Canon of Scripture. We should always endeavour to understand the history and context of a book of Scripture in order to fully understand its intended meaning, and thus, “rightly divide” (2 Tim 2:15) and interpret the Bible properly.   Two Dating Views There are two main views on the dating of Revelation: the “early date” and the “late date”. The early date places John writing Revelation around 64-68 AD, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem and just as the Jewish War was getting underway during the reign of Nero. The late date puts the writing towards the end of the reign of Domitian around 95-96 AD. From John’s own testimony, we know that he was suffering persecution at the time of writing: Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.   Both of these Roman Emperors persecuted the Christians, though none quite so severely as Nero did. There’s varying accounts of when Revelation was penned by John. I won’t spend too much time on this as many, many others have wrote books on the topic of dating, so I’ll just give a brief overview of both sides of the argument.   One of the earliest accounts mentioning a possible early date for Revelation is from the “Muratorian Fragment” which dates back to the around 170-190 AD. This fragment is one of the earliest lists we have of the accepted Canon of Scripture (or books which were approved to be read in the Churches), and in it there is a curious sentence about Paul “following the rule of his predecessor John, [writing] to no more than seven churches by name.” This is interesting because Paul’s letters are widely accepted to be amongst some of the earliest New Testament books we have, as well as historical tradition and writings saying that Paul was martyred under Nero’s reign around 67 or 68 AD, which means if he followed “his predecessor” John, Revelation must have been written before 70 AD! There’s also one other reference which offers some insight (though is quite hard to find many sources on), in which the Syriac Vulgate Bible from the sixth century has an opening title to Revelation as follows: "The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."   The late date theory is mainly due to a single quote by Irenaeus (plus a couple of other historical references about John which indirectly impact the early date), where he somewhat cryptically mentions John and/or his vision as possibly being seen during Domitian’s reign: “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." — Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30:3   What exactly Irenaeus was referring to being seen “almost in [his] day” has been questioned over time due to the cryptic nature of the sentence, and because just a few paragraphs before this statement, he refers to “ancient copies [of the Apocalypse]�...

Luke Wilson | 19th October 2014 | Second Coming Series

Hello again, it's been a while since I've wrote anything, and longer since getting back to this series on the Second Coming of Jesus. This isn't for lack of motivation, but rather because this is such a huge topic that I've been reading and thinking about this next part for a very long time to make sure I know what I'm saying, and am well read enough to do the topic justice. Having said that, there will always be far more to say on this than I can give time for here, but I hope to give enough of an overview to expound this prophecy faithfully without being too technical as to cause confusion! You can also catch up on the previous parts in the series here and here.   Birth Pangs I'm going to do this part of the series in two sections, otherwise it would get too long and wordy! This part will focus on the "birth pangs" Jesus warned about which would lead up to the coming judgement and destruction of the temple. The Olivet discourse is the prophecy given by Jesus in the Gospels of Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21. Most Christians are probably more familiar with the Matthew 24-25 version than the others, though they are all the same prophetic message of impending judgement. If you're at all familiar with any doctrine or teaching on the "Second Coming" or "End Times", then these passages in the Gospels are most often quoted and used to say that Jesus is talking about a terrible time that is coming in the far, far, far off future, usually interpreted to mean within our lifetime (for some reason). I, too, used to believe this as it was what I was taught in the churches I attended and told by the people I met, all with that eager expectation that Jesus could suddenly swoop down from the clouds any day now! What I didn't ever do was investigate these claims properly for myself, except read the parts of Scripture they said meant Jesus was coming in the future and then try to accept that it must be right since our church leaders were obviously more knowledgeable on this than I. Although I did spend a lot of time studying and trying to interpret Revelation as a new Christian (without much success I might add), I couldn't shake the feeling I got that the Apostles and Jesus all seemed to speak and write as though they expected something to happen then and very soon. Back in the early 2000's, searching the internet for theological help generally brought up lots of odd and wacky websites, complete with animated fire GIFs, or forums full of equally as confused believers trying to wrangle the "soon-ness" of the Scriptures with a far-future interpretation. So I did what any good Christian did, and just chalked it up to "God's ways are not our way" or "God's soon/time isn't the same as how we understand it". This is where I wish that the Church would know its history better and have a desire to exegete things well, rather than fob off the confusing/hard passages with catchphrases. Think of it this way: if God was going to give a prophecy and be accurate and precise in all the details, why would he then be obscure about the timing of it? With that said, lets look at the prophecy Jesus gives.   Apocalypse then (not later) Something that seems to go unnoticed, or is overlooked, in discussions about this prophecy, are the "timestamps" that Jesus uses to say when this will be fulfilled. Even in the preceding chapter in Matthew and its parallel in Luke, after Jesus has said all his woes about the Pharisees, he says something quite interesting which I admit, I hadn't really noticed until the other day: Luke 11:49-51 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation. (cf. Matt...

Luke Wilson | 31st December 2016 | Prayer

Warning: Minor spoilers ahead!I say “minor” because there’s no plot points given away here, I’m just discussing an aspect of a character in the film, but I know some people (like me) don’t like to hear too much of anything before they see a film! If you have seen the new Rogue One film though, you will be familiar with a guy called Chirrut Imwe. Whenever he is seen on screen, you will find him repeating a short mantra: “I am one with the Force; the Force is with me” whenever he feels threatened or in times of peril and wants protection. Now, Chirrut is not a Jedi (apparently [actual spoilers in this link]), but is a Force-sensitive “warrior monk” according to his Wiki (even though his skills displayed in the film looking very Jedi-like!). Despite not being in the ‘Jedi club’, this character shows a strong dedication to his faith in The Force and his belief for its protection and power in his life, even in those times where he had good reason to doubt, and was even actively encouraged to do so by his companions! But instead of thinking the Force had failed him, it strengthened his resolve and made him ‘pray’ all the more in faith and trust that everything would be fine and that they’d be safe.   Chirrut Imwe not being a Jedi – via GIPHY I am one with the Force; the Force is with me It was this that prompted me to write this blog. I couldn’t help but see the parallels in his ‘faith’ and ‘prayer’ to how our life as Christians ought to be concerning the work of the Spirit in and through us. I found this encouraging and it reminded me of an ancient Christian mantra-like prayer which is still prayed today in certain places and Church branches. This is the Jesus Prayer:   "Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner"   This prayer is short and repetitive much like the Star Wars Force prayer, and was also first introduced by a monk (though a hermit monk rather than a warrior monk!). From the history of the Jesus Prayer I once read, it was the quest of a young monk who wanted to fully understand Paul’s encouragement to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess 5:15-18) and he came across a hermit who taught him this method. The purpose of this Jesus Prayer, much like Chirrut Imwe’s use of the Force prayer, is to constantly bring to mind, and keep it focussed on, God at all times, hence “without ceasing” until you embody the words and they take a deep effect on you and your mind and keep you humble before God. Jude 1:20But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit   Often people throw out that verse about not praying with “vain repetitions” (Matt 6:7) whenever you mention something like the Jesus Prayer (and sometimes even liturgy!). But is it vain? In this case, ‘vain’ means something that is pointless or futile (as opposed to meaning ‘self centred or narcissistic’, which is the more common understanding these days). If we look a couple of verses earlier, there’s a link with not being like “the hypocrites” who stand in the street making themselves seen when praying (and thus get their reward). With that in mind, I'd argue that liturgy and set prayers are not vain in the slightest because when you are praying to God, and how can that ever be futile? What makes it futile, and the reason Jesus spoke against it, was because they were praying to idols or if they were Jewish, they were being the hypocrites and overlooking the fact God was walking amongst them! (Jn 5:38). Another reason for prayers becoming vain is when it’s not from the heart. Prayer is about connecting with God, knowing and meaning what you say, and praying without becoming discouraged as Jesus tells his disciples in Luke 18:1. But more than just praying and keeping focused on God, we need to be as Jesus said: at one with each other and totally united with the Spirit (John 17:11,22).   So I propose an adaptation to the film quo...

Luke Wilson | 19th December 2016 | Christmas

I had been thinking about what to write this coming Christmas time, when I came across this quote the other day. I thought it sufficient enough, rather than go into a long theological treatise! So without further ado, here is a quote/excerpt by David H. Petersen, author of God With Us: “The Savior is born unto you in Bethlehem, the house of bread, on earth. It is no coincidence that He lacked a crib and was placed instead into a feeding trough. He was born unto you to be bread: bread for beasts, bread for wolves, and bread for sheep. He comes in His body to feed you into life, to slake your thirst, to satisfy your soul. He is put into a manger, not only because He is rejected by men and there is no room for Him in Bethlehem’s inns but also because He gives Himself to you, as food, on earth.” “We do not put a statue of a baby in the manger because we think that Jesus is still in the manger. We put a statue in the manger to remember that Jesus was a baby, that He took up our flesh and our burden. An empty manger just won’t do. The fact that God has a body, was born of a woman, for us, is not a tiny detail in the story or somehow not the important part. It is the essence of the story. In the same way, we do not put a statue of Jesus on the cross because we think that He is not risen. We know and we rejoice that He is risen. But an empty cross just won’t do. The fact that He was crucified in His body is not just a detail or somehow the prelude to the more significant event. It is the essence of the story. We preach Christ crucified.” God With Us book cover It also just occurred to me whilst I was writing this, that the Bread of Life was born in the House of Bread — the literal meaning of Bethlehem! I never saw the connection before.   Also, as a final note, here's an interesting article on the prophetic fulfilment of Bethlehem too, for your spiritual nourishment: Bethlehem: House of Bread. Enjoy!   John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.   Have a good Christmas ...

Luke Wilson | 26th October 2016 | Eschatology

What is the “eighth day” you may ask; surely we know there are only seven days in a week! But in ancient times, Sunday – which was also known as the first day of the week, was also referred to as the eighth day by Christians. This day was considered a holy day from the earliest of times by Christians (despite some weak arguments that Constantine, or the Pope, “changed the Sabbath” some 400 years later), and this was because it was the day on which Christ rose from the dead! I will make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. For that reason, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose again from the dead. Barnabas 15:8-9   Barnabas, in his epistle, makes the first recorded mention of this day as specifically called the “eighth” which is as early as somewhere between 70 - 130 AD. But the concept of an "eighth day" isn't new and is found throughout the Scriptures in the Old Testament, specifically in the last of the great feasts: the feast of booths (Leviticus 23:33 onwards), and circumcision on the eighth day after birth. The priests and Nazirites also had seven days of cleansing before offering sacrifices specifically on the eighth day (Numbers 6, Leviticus 8:33ff). The apostles pick up on these themes, like with the eight people, including Noah, who were “saved through water” (1 Peter 3:20) and how we now have a spiritual circumcision of the heart instead of a physical procedure (Romans 2:29). But if we look back at the gospel in John 7:37-38 and also John 8:12, we can see that during the festival of booths Jesus used the symbols of that festival (water and light) to declare that he himself is the true fulfillment of that! You can read a more in depth explanation of that at jewsforjesus.org. After Barnabas, we find scattered references in other early writings which show understanding of Christ's fulfillment in these things – such as Justin Martyr, who wrote saying that the eighth day “possessed a certain mysterious significance, which the seventh day did not”; and Cyprian who wrote that this was also the fulfilment of the Jewish practice of circumcision on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12) which was a shadow of Christ rising from the dead to give us “the circumcision of the Spirit”. This symbolism and spiritual fulfillment carries on throughout various early authors too, and is also sometimes referred to as the “Lord’s Day”, which is a phrase you might recognise from Revelation 1:10 too. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. Didache 14:1   As early as Acts, we can see the believers all began to gather and teach on a Sunday (the first day): Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight. 1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn, so that collections need not be taken when I come.   Praise and worship was held on Sunday’s because of the resurrection – this day was to be a celebration of what Jesus accomplished and what that now means for the rest of us who are in Christ: being a part of the New Covenant, which makes us a new creation through baptism and through our outworking of the faith, we reconcile the world back to God as co-workers with Jesus (1 Corinthians 3:9)! 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.   Resting with God This is God showing that things work differently now. No longer is he...

Luke Wilson | 20th July 2016 | Eschatology

The importance of context of what's being said, and to whom, in Scripture. I came across this image the other day (in the header above; see larger here) that links together three parts of Matthew’s Gospel to highlight the connection which many often miss, or read as separate events. I like the image because it shows that when Jesus spoke these things, he would have been saying them directly to the disciples and others who were listening to his teaching, and not in some cryptic, ambiguous dictation to a prophetic scribe, devoid of all context and meaning to those around him at the time. Update Feb 2017: I am adding some additional information to this to display some of the counter arguments/alternative interpretations used by dispensationalists, sometimes also called “Futurists” (those who believe these passages refer to a distant future event centred around the “Second Coming” of Jesus, and is typically the most popular and recent interpretive framework taught in churches today) to try and give a more well rounded view and a defense of the non-dispensational interpretation. So let's break it down and look at each quote in a bit more detail to see how these all connect together coherently.   Matt 10:23 Matthew 10:23 Matthew 10 is Jesus telling his disciples about their mission and the persecutions it would entail. He explains to them all the things that would happen to them –  "they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me" (Matt 10:17), which we can see fulfilled in Acts (cf. Acts 8:1; Acts 11:19; Acts 13:50; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23). Jesus rounds this short discussion off by telling them to flee from one town to the next and that they "will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matt 10:23), which gives us a time statement and some parameters about the coming of the Son of Man. On the face of it, this sounds like any other eschatological statement by Jesus in regards to his “coming” at the end of the age, which he mentions a few times using this same or similar terminology (see: Matt 24:27; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 18:8). But the Futurist interpretation would say that this isn’t what Jesus refers to at all, but rather is a convoluted way of him saying “you won’t have travelled far until I catch up with you later” – ie. until Jesus (the Son of Man) comes [back to the apostles]. That conclusion is quite a stretch of the imagination and, like the other dispensationalist interpretation which says that this refers to some far future event, it completely rips it from its direct and immediate context: a message to the apostles. But, as many commentaries point out, the Futurist interpretation was not the common view until recent times, nor the historical position of the Church for millennia. As the Benson commentary (amongst others) puts it: ...until the Son of man shall come — To destroy their capital city, temple, and nation. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus is often called the coming of the Son of man. See Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:44; Luke 18:5. "The son of man comes" or the "coming of the son of man" is a phrase only used in one particular way all the way throughout the Gospels: to mean the judgement of God on a nation. This is seen in many places in the Old Testament, often called the Day of the Lord. The same is true here, Jesus is once again teaching about the impending doom of Jerusalem as punishment. Hence the urgency towards his disciples to flee towns that won't listen and go to where they do accept the Gospel.   Matthew 24:34 Matthew 24:34 Matthew 24 is a similar conversation, but with some more details. Whilst walking by the temple, the disciples point out the magnificence of the building, and Jesus responds by saying "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thr...