What about this for a proposal:
The NT says, "The end of ALL THINGS is at hand"; and
It mentions, "Behold I make ALL THINGS new".
My dad often quoted, "All means all and that's all all means".
There has indeed already come the end of the Old Covenant; the end of the Law; sin and Satan were judged already on the cross;
the New Covenant and Kingdom indeed came already, and we have entered it spiritually already (and the benefits of that effect society around us) -
but there was still to come the resurrection of the body; and there was still to come the end of this world and its rulers - and judgment - salvation was yet to be revealed in that sense, there was to come new heavens and a new earth, the visible kingdom and glory.
There's a time lapse between the two phases - but the time span is not of the essence. Intrinsically the whole Gospel-preaching period is both the end and the beginning.
It's a transition, I guess we could say.
The Gospel brought an end - but in a sense the full end is still at hand.
It made all things new - but in a sense the full restoration of all things is still at hand.
Judgment, salvation, resurrection, Kingdom and glory are each both accomplished already, and in-waiting.
That's the Gospel! It makes no difference intrinsically/ethically/covenantally/prophetically whether the full end is delayed much longer, or whether it had come in the first century AD (which it didn't). Because the time in-between doesn't change anything.
There are clauses in the Olivet discourse which seem to describe things as imminent, indeterminately delayed, or as both - as separate, and yet as the same.
Could it be because He had a sense of both inauguration AND culmination - but COULDN'T SAY how much time would span the two? In a sense it isn't the issue.
Some things that were to end, have now ended already - while some are yet to end; and
Some things which were to be made new, have come already - while some are yet to come.
Both phases can be treated separately, or it can all be discussed as a unit - as a package deal.
So in a sense:
'The end' the 'last times' is both past, and now - and not yet; and
The 'restoration of all things' also is both past, present - and not yet.
The terms "end" "new" "Kingdom" can be used to describe events now past, still future - or both as a unit, a scheme.
Just wondering!
The NT says, "The end of ALL THINGS is at hand"; and
It mentions, "Behold I make ALL THINGS new".
My dad often quoted, "All means all and that's all all means".
There has indeed already come the end of the Old Covenant; the end of the Law; sin and Satan were judged already on the cross;
the New Covenant and Kingdom indeed came already, and we have entered it spiritually already (and the benefits of that effect society around us) -
but there was still to come the resurrection of the body; and there was still to come the end of this world and its rulers - and judgment - salvation was yet to be revealed in that sense, there was to come new heavens and a new earth, the visible kingdom and glory.
There's a time lapse between the two phases - but the time span is not of the essence. Intrinsically the whole Gospel-preaching period is both the end and the beginning.
It's a transition, I guess we could say.
The Gospel brought an end - but in a sense the full end is still at hand.
It made all things new - but in a sense the full restoration of all things is still at hand.
Judgment, salvation, resurrection, Kingdom and glory are each both accomplished already, and in-waiting.
That's the Gospel! It makes no difference intrinsically/ethically/covenantally/prophetically whether the full end is delayed much longer, or whether it had come in the first century AD (which it didn't). Because the time in-between doesn't change anything.
There are clauses in the Olivet discourse which seem to describe things as imminent, indeterminately delayed, or as both - as separate, and yet as the same.
Could it be because He had a sense of both inauguration AND culmination - but COULDN'T SAY how much time would span the two? In a sense it isn't the issue.
Some things that were to end, have now ended already - while some are yet to end; and
Some things which were to be made new, have come already - while some are yet to come.
Both phases can be treated separately, or it can all be discussed as a unit - as a package deal.
So in a sense:
'The end' the 'last times' is both past, and now - and not yet; and
The 'restoration of all things' also is both past, present - and not yet.
The terms "end" "new" "Kingdom" can be used to describe events now past, still future - or both as a unit, a scheme.
Just wondering!
No comments:
Post a Comment