Beware Deceivers

by Doug Mason 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

Doug Mason
From your helpful comments, I can see there are areas I need to expand and explain more clearly. I will try to respond to your questions. If I am still not clear, please tell me.
--------------------
My intention is to consider Jesus’ answer as if the reader was one of the disciples sitting at his feet on the Mount of Olives. What did their questions mean to them, what did his answer mean to them? If a person wants to derive a secondary meaning, then when this primary meaning has been determined, any secondary application must directly relate.
The presentation is intended for anyone. A complex presentation hides the critical issues and provides opportunities for digression. I certainly like to stimulate discussion. Each person must live in accordance with their own beliefs, and if we disagree, we can still remain the firmest of friends. Other people’s views help sharpen my own, and help remove the fat from my thinking.
--------------------
It should be enlightening to compare Mark 13 (and other parts of Mark) as sources for Matthew 24.
-------------------------
Key issues I touched on include:
1. Jesus was talking about the temple that they were looking at.
2. The disciples expected that the temple’s destruction would bring about Jesus’ parousia, his glorious arrival as king.
3. Jesus warned his followers that people who pointed to wars, earthquakes, and such were deceivers, and must not be heeded.
4. There is only one gospel, and it was preached to the whole world at the time.
Jesus was asked about the Temple and he answered them about the Temple. To the disciples, the destruction of the Temple meant the end of Judaism, the end of the Jewish “Age”.
They did not know that Jesus was going away – look at their last question just before his ascension – Acts 1: 6-7 (So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”)
The disciples thought that the end of the Jewish Age would finally result in Jesus being openly declared and recognized as the redeeming King that the Jews had longed for. Matthew uses the word “parousia” which was a word that speaks of the grand entry of a leading dignitary, such as a Governor or a King. Their parousias required much preparation of the town they were visiting, even building new roads, and the minting of a special coin. It was a grand event. This is how the disciples envisaged the destruction of the Temple and the ensuing parousia. It was not a prophecy, it was a question in the mouth of the disciples in Matthew’s account.
Another key issue is Jesus’ admonition to “beware of deceivers”, hence the title of the presentation. To me, Jesus’ told his disciples to beware of people who would be spreading stories about wars, earthquakes and such, as if they were the sign which alerted followers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather, said Jesus, watch out for the Roman armies when they encamp about the city.
Jesus said that the destruction would happen within their generation, but they did not know this meant it would take place in another 40 years.
---------------------
If someone wants to make a secondary application, then the parallels require us to still beware of deceivers who make use of wars, earthquakes, and so on. These are not to be believed, even if they do say they are “Christ”, the Anointed.
---------------------
I use PowerPoint 97 to prepare these presentations. Since it’s an old version without password protection, I convert them to PDF files, to prevent people changing and hence misrepresenting me. I’m a retired soldering trainer, who started as a technical trainer (telecommunications, electronics) in 1966. The Japanese love for pictures helped me develop my love for that format.
--------------------
I think that the differences in details between Mark, Matthew and Luke are most interesting and require further thought.
--------------------
So as you can see, I focus on these verses in their application to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. I thought the pictures would indicate this.
Nevertheless, I want to digress into the claims regarding 1947 and the Zionist State of Israel. Since my ancestry is Jewish, I am very aware of the activities during the late 1930s and early 1940s. My mother’s parents were gassed at Chelmno on 10 May 1942 in the back of a “special” truck. My father’s parents were shot dead on 26 May 1942 near Minsk, along with their 26-year old daughter and her 2-year old son.
My parents fled to England, where my father was quickly imprisoned for a while by the stupid English, after having been imprisoned by the Nazis in Dachau.
My father’s sister and her family made Aliyah in 1939. Her eldest son was shot dead while fighting in the War of Independence. There is a memorial to him on the Israeli government’s web site. Many of her family’s descendants still live in Israel, including a noted artist in Jerusalem. I have a cousin who has lived for decades in a Kibbutz near Galilee. I have another cousin in France who is a deeply committed Zionist.
Not one of these Jews has ever raised the notion of the “Son of Man”, of Jesus Christ, of salvation though his sacrifice. Zionism is a political movement, supported by misdirected Christians who read Scripture that was intended to be applied 2000 years ago, not later. There is no other gospel, which I deliberately included in my presentation.
Doug
JosephMalik

My intention is to consider Jesus’ answer as if the reader was one of the disciples sitting at his feet on the Mount of Olives. What did their questions mean to them, what did his answer mean to them? If a person wants to derive a secondary meaning, then when this primary meaning has been determined, any secondary application must directly relate.
Doug,
The problem with this analysis is that the answer was not intended for them. Right up to the time that He was taken up they still did not know and would die without knowing. Jesus had already prophesied concerning Jerusalem’s untimely end and rejection at Matt chapter 23. And Jesus applied Daniel’s prophetic work to what would be a prophetic statement or parable intended for much later in time. We keep hearing Jerusalem, Jerusalem, but look at the other accounts in Matt and Mark and what do we see? We see "holy place" in Matt: and "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not," in Mark And the words in Daniel spoken of here are well beyond their lifetimes. Since a presence and a sign are part of this prophecy, where was the presence in their time? And it is a time that no one knows except for the Father. It is a time still in the future.
Doug said: Jesus was asked about the Temple and he answered them about the Temple. To the disciples, the destruction of the Temple meant the end of Judaism, the end of the Jewish "Age".
The Jewish age ended at Pentecost. The Kingdom was offered to Gentiles some three years later but the Law would no longer serve that purpose anymore. It was finished, gone, over. Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Doug said: The disciples thought that the end of the Jewish Age would finally result in Jesus being openly declared and recognized as the redeeming King that the Jews had longed for. Matthew uses the word "parousia" which was a word that speaks of the grand entry of a leading dignitary, such as a Governor or a King. Their parousias required much preparation of the town they were visiting, even building new roads, and the minting of a special coin. It was a grand event. This is how the disciples envisaged the destruction of the Temple and the ensuing parousia. It was not a prophecy, it was a question in the mouth of the disciples in Matthew’s account.
The problem with this thinking is that the temple was still there so it’s destruction did not have to come first did it since they asked the question? Their hope was real this much was true and this earth would be the place for this Kingdom yes, as this much was not refuted by our Lord. But the sign, the parousia, this time they did not know since our Lord only told it to them in prophecy. The prophecy did not reveal this time to them and they would make no application of it during their lives.
Doug said: Another key issue is Jesus’ admonition to "beware of deceivers", hence the title of the presentation. To me, Jesus’ told his disciples to beware of people who would be spreading stories about wars, earthquakes and such, as if they were the sign which alerted followers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather, said Jesus, watch out for the Roman armies when they encamp about the city.
And this has been going on for nearly two thousand years now. We call it the Gospel age as this is nothing more than an introduction to the sign that also is found in Daniel. The sign starts with the "abomination." But where you say the city, others say "holy place" or "where it ought not" and Jerusalem was no longer a holy place after Pentecost. It would now be the Faith, the message of salvation, the "holy ones" a new Jerusalem since then. Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Doug said: Jesus said that the destruction would happen within their generation, but they did not know this meant it would take place in another 40 years.
Jesus did not say that. Seems like everyone says that and many teach it as well. But what He did say was "this generation" the generation that He was really discussing would result in His presence and coming in the clouds of heaven as stated in all three Gospels. It was an absolute truth, guaranteed in fact 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. but it did not happen 40 years later. We are still waiting for this fulfillment. So "this generation" is still ahead of us if it has not started already. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
But it is your presentation so you can do whatever you like with it. At least you can now see the kind of questions others may ask of you. You need to be prepared to answer them.
Joseph
Doug Mason

Thank you for your considered thoughts on my presentation. I will consider these when I make my update

It seems to me that we – and I include myself – base our ideas on what we think was in the disciples’ minds, such as their understanding of “parousia”.

It cannot be denied that the term “parousia” was in common use at the time to describe the physical arrival of a dignitary to a town, which required great preparations for the coming. Also, the word parousia is used in the NT to describe a person’s physical presence.

I would appreciate comments on the following thoughts about what the disciples had in mind when they asked Jesus about his parousia:

1. Later events show that the disciples did not at that time understand that it would be an invisible presence.

2. They looked for the Messiah to deliver the Jewish nation from bondage to Rome and to display glorious power in doing so. In other words, they looked for him to do at his first presence things he was actually to do at his second presence.

3. They did not appreciate that he would not sit on an earthly throne.

4. They had no idea that Jesus would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens.

5. They therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible.

6. They knew the prophecy of Daniel 7:13, 14 would be fulfilled somehow, but wondered how.

7. So the disciples in effect asked: ‘What are we to look for, so as not to miss out, so as not to be blind, as the Pharisees are to your presence now, even though you are bodily present and still not recognized as the Messiah to them?’

8. Jesus did not answer in so many words that he would be invisibly present.

9. Jesus outlined evidences that would make his presence recognizable, whether visible or invisible.

Doug
JosephMalik

I would appreciate comments on the following thoughts about what the disciples had in mind when they asked Jesus about his parousia:
Doug,
The question was: Matt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And the answer was a history lesson along with an application of the Book of Daniel. This is not what the disciples had in mind as you surmised but it was the correct answer and it was what the Faith needed to know as well so it was now passed on to them in this way. What the disciples wanted to know was: Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? If this somehow involved the temple and its buildings then so be it but the end of the world and the Kingdom to Israel re-established here on earth was clearly on their minds.
Doug said: 1. Later events show that the disciples did not at that time understand that it would be an invisible presence.
It would not be an invisible presence. This is a falsehood preached by many even during such early days of the faith which John eventually identified as antichrist. What the disciples experienced was: 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. This was a physical experience which would some day be repeated like this: 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. So verses that show our Lord coming in the clouds could now be interpreted literally not symbolically as many do. This would clarify the function and purpose of such a return since such additional data would now be available and it would establish the sought for Kingdom to Israel in answer to their question.
Doug said: 2 They looked for the Messiah to deliver the Jewish nation from bondage to Rome and to display glorious power in doing so. In other words, they looked for him to do at his first presence things he was actually to do at his second presence.
Sure, but it did not happen did it? In fact they all died under Roman authority, some even being executed by it. Such an answer would have been wrong and yet the question was answered properly each time. If your Lord answered the way they surmised, the prophecy would have easily been shown to be false and they as well as we would not be still waiting for such a parousia.
Doug said: 3. They did not appreciate that he would not sit on an earthly throne.
This is another false teaching as the Kingdom would indeed be here on earth. Our Lord said to his disciples: Luke 22: 29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Why else would they ask him such questions in the first place? They were after all specifically directed to matters on this earth and their participation in them.
Doug said: 4. They had no idea that Jesus would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens.
Symbolic texts and words such as Kingdom (Jewish for God) and heaven (Jewish for authority) along with other meanings are largely responsible for such thinking. This is common to many denominations and without realizing it, represents far eastern thought that after a period of time here on earth one eventually reaches a state of nirvana. While many no longer think of our Lord as human, the scriptures do and have even said of such a human: 1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. 2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
This Jesus Christ was human, the only human to gain immortality so far. But this same human is now capable to bring such immortality to light for others through the gospel. It took a human seed to die for us and we as human seeds can expect nothing more when resurrected or changed.

Doug said: 5.They therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible.
His appearance to Paul was not as a human. This prevents our taking that event as the second presence or parousia. But our Lords appearance when he returns will indeed be human as promised by the men in white robes. Surely they knew more than we do and their authoritative statement is beyond dispute.
Doug said: 6. They knew the prophecy of Daniel 7:13, 14 would be fulfilled somehow, but wondered how.
The prophecy in Daniel chapter 12 is much closer to what was actually said. Wording does not have to be exact. You should pay closer attention to them. And they include the resurrection. Such future life was what the Law was all about not extending present life which some claim it means. Martha made this clear for us when she said: Joh 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. By making better people the Law made such resurrection possible for the nation of Israel. Daniel was well aware of this and included this resurrection hope in it at such an end. The rest of your questions are pure speculation based on the false teachings of others and were already covered here. Speculation can help us think but what results should be based on what was written for us.
Joseph
Doug Mason

Joseph and JCanon,

Thank you for you responses, as they have crystalized some thoughts for me.

I presented a literal exegesis of these early verses in Matt 24/ Mark 13/ Luke 21, and have applied them to their initial intent -- the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Any eschatological scenario requires different exegetical principles. I reason you are employing pesher exegesis, since an allegory would not work (Whom does the destroyed Jerusalem symbolize? Where are the true believers? etc.)

Since I am applying a literal exegesis and you appear to be using pesher, we are singing from different song sheets. Thank you for showing me.

I have touched up my presentation accordingly, and clarified what "parousia" meant to the disciples.

Doug
Doug Mason

In my recent post, I provided the following itemized list. What would you now say if I told you that the words come from The Watchtower, September 15, 1964 pp. 575-576, “Questions From Readers”?

1. Later events show that the disciples did not at that time understand that it would be an invisible presence.

2. They looked for the Messiah to deliver the Jewish nation from bondage to Rome and to display glorious power in doing so. In other words, they looked for him to do at his first presence things he was actually to do at his second presence.

3. They did not appreciate that he would not sit on an earthly throne.

4. They had no idea that Jesus would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens.

5. They therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible.

6. They knew the prophecy of Daniel 7:13, 14 would be fulfilled somehow, but wondered how.

7. So the disciples in effect asked: ‘What are we to look for, so as not to miss out, so as not to be blind, as the Pharisees are to your presence now, even though you are bodily present and still not recognized as the Messiah to them?’

8. Jesus did not answer in so many words that he would be invisibly present.

9. Jesus outlined evidences that would make his presence recognizable, whether visible or invisible.

Doug
JosephMalik

Doug,
And their appearance in the Watchtower proves what? That the Watchtower does not understand the Kingdom either just like many other denominations. This is one reason why so many are leaving them and fleeing to the mountains. They no longer follow such debased views and are taking the higher ground. As for Pesher? Pesher, smesher what difference does it make if the explanation seems to conform to it? The goal is beware of Deceivers so if an explanation makes the accounts apply in a way they do not, then who is the deceiver? Notice that only one account out of 4 (Daniel included) says Jerusalem. How deceptive is an explanation that ignores that?
Joseph
Doug Mason

In the NIV, Romans 10:4 is translated thus:
“Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”
As any interlinear NT shows, the word for “law” (nomou) in Romans 10:4 does not have an article (“the” or “a”). This strongly suggests that Paul is using the word qualitatively, which might thus allow it to be rendered as something like “legalism”.
The direct context of the word supports this view, giving us the thought that Christ ends legalism as the means for obtaining righteousness, for anyone who believes.
The larger immediate context (10:1 to 10:11) confirms this understanding. Addressing his Jewish brethren in Rome, Paul writes that righteousness comes from God, not through obedience (“law”) but through faith.
Ro 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
Ro 10:2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
Ro 10:3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
Ro 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Ro 10:5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.”
Ro 10:6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ’” (that is, to bring Christ down)
Ro 10:7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
Ro 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:
Ro 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Ro 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Ro 10:11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
There is no article with “law” at all in this passage.
The even larger context (9:30 –33, and 10:12 – 13) confirms this understanding of Romans 10:4.
Jesus ends legalism as the means for obtaining righteousness from God, whether a Jew or a Gentile. Being in a right standing with God emanates from him and is by faith in him. Openly confess the belief in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead, and you are saved.
This is the Gospel, the only gospel. It is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.
That is the message of Romans 10:4.
Doug
JosephMalik

Doug,
This is what I have been saying as well concerning the Law. This is the basis for their need to be born again. Thus the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE would be nothing more than their hearing of wars and reports of wars. This continuing saga was not part of the sign. Jerusalem, the literal city in 70CE with its temples no longer mattered to them and was not what our Lord was talking about when he gave this message to His Disciples. Jesus was talking about a holy place, a place where "the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up," By your own detailed explanation that place was no longer Jerusalem in 70CE. Sounds like you are now using Pesher as well.
Joseph
P.S. The article changes nothing and is not a determining factor in this matter as your own explanation shows. Thus it makes no difference if we translate "law" or "Law" for the Jews spoken to in Romans. Just like it makes no difference if we translate "god" or "God" in John 1:1. Sometimes too much is made of it in such texts. In doing so we sometimes fail to pay attention to the overall context of such verses an the history of those being addressed.
Joseph
Doug Mason

Joseph,

I am enjoying our chat.

I thought I should explain why I believe understanding the differences between Literal and Pesher interpretations is significant. It goes much further than the understanding of the Olivet Discourse, but extends to matters such as the interpretation of the "FDS" Parable. Whereas I use consistent exegesis in the interpretation of Parables, the WTS uses Pesher interpretation, seeing the Parable as a Prophecy, and one that is addressed specifically to it. That is, to my mind, Pesher.

When I wrote that I interpret these verses from Matt/Mark/Luke “literally”, whereas certain others were using “Pesher” interpretation, I was making an objective observation. I was not being critical, simply showing that we are on different tram routes.

Since I employ literal interpretation, I consider that Jesus’ words were specifically addressed to his immediate listeners. When interpreting Scripture, I therefore consider contemporary factors, such as the writer’s background (fisherman, doctor, priest or farmer), his immediate purpose in writing, the local historical, political, cultural and religious factors, and so on.

The people who employ Pesher interpretation believe that the passages were written exclusively for them. In this, they are in the same tradition as the Qumran community.

To better describe features of Pesher interpretation, I have provided a scan from a book that introduces the subject.

It can be found at http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/Pesher_intro.pdf

Doug

Beware Deceivers

Share this