Dear Shakita. Firstly, sorry to get your gender confused; feel a bit silly now.
Thanks for an excellent posting. This is really a subject close to my heart. I havn't read Mr Jonsson's books as you've probably guessed by now, but who knows, one of these days I might.
A lot of what you said about Matt 24 makes a lot of sense to me.
As I think I've mentioned before, I do see some real anomalies with the WBTS's current understanding of the timing and nature of Christ's return (and when I say 'the nature', don't get me wrong, I most certainly do not believe he will be physically returning to earth and that 'every eye' will literally see him. Easy to say this has a clear meaning Frank, but I'm 'fraid Revelation isn't quite so easy as that. If you are to take that verse literally may as well go on and say he will float down on a cloud, sitting on a white horse, with a shiney big crown on his head, wearing a white robe with blood on it, and he'll have to have fiery red eyes for everyone to see, and not forgetting the big mean sword he must be carrying. Plus he is said to return with the angels on horses too, so I guess they might have to materialise as well and grow some wings for everyone to 'see' them also. Would be difficult for 'every eye' to see him given that half of them would be asleep on the other side of the globe while he floats down, unless the whole of the world's population decided to make a once in a life-time pilgrimmage to 'see' him, like Muslims do to Mecca, sitting on his throne in Jerusalem I suppose - I guess that would be one way to stop the crazy suicide bombers over there. Do ya think Yasser Arafat would have him around for tea?. Mind you, could buzz a few helicopters up there and film him coming down from the sky, but hmmm I really doubt a lot would just accept TV evidence as enough I'd say. Would watching tv constitute 'ever eye seeing him' anyway, hmmm, another moot point. But I've gone WAY off the subject :-).
As I've mentioned in a previous post of mine, I think the Society do have a kind of 'double' vision in saying that Christ become King in 1914, and sat on a throne back then, yet they say that the throne Jesus is to sit on mentioned at Matt 25:32 is a different type of throne altogether, a 'judgement throne'. Looks suspiciously like dubious interpretation to me.
The way I see it, all the wars, famine, pestilence, lawlessness, etc that Jesus spoke of, are a sign for his followers to know that he is 'near at the door', ie, NOT that he has already returned as taught by the WBTS, and as you've mentioned, but rather for his future followers to know they would be living in the 'season', for his imminent return. He compared it to an autumn season,ie, a definite season or era in time when things would be especially bad, causing more distress than usual. A season has more or less a beginning and an end where there is physical evidence for it; it is not some vague long drawn indeterminate period of time. So I don't really see that he was mentioing wars, famines, and pestilences etc in the context of trying to reassure his followers that these things merely 'indicate that as long as mankind holds sway there will be such disasters indefinitey until his sudden return'. That is far to general an interpretation I feel.
The disciples asked jesus 'what will be THE SIGN of your presence/return, and of the conclusion of the system of things". If there were no clues at all by way of worldwide conditions and events to signify that he is 'near at the doors', and his return is going to be so absolutely unsuspected and out of the blue then what need for a sign? The sign would just be when he returns, which wouldn't be a sign at all really. His presence or returning is not the sign but the reality, the actual event. Ya get me?
As I see it, when Jesus says 'see that you are not terrified, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet' he is not talking about wars and disasters etc spanning centuries of time, which seems to be the interpretation your putting forward. There have always been these things since the dawn of time, so why would Jesus bother mentioning these things now - just to give his apostles some general reassurance. Rather to my way of thinking he was referring to these disasters in a much smaller time context. In the first century this time context was between when he would die until the destruction of the Jewish system of things in 70 AD, which occurred before that 'generation' that was living when Jesus uttered these words 'passed away', ie, within a biblical 40 year generation
Jesus says 'all these things are a beginning of pangs of distress'. If he was referring to general wars and bad conditions and disasters etc spanning many centuries, then they must be the longest darndest pangs imaginable. Rather it seems to be that Jesus was referring to some shorter period of time, when one could pinpoint some sort of 'beginning' of these distressful conditions, leading up to an ending, a climax. These pangs canvass a shorter period of time, similar to the definite 'pangs' suffered by a pregnant woman leading up to when she gives birth.
Please consider this however as an interesting point. The disciples asked for what - A SIGN! right. Matthew 24: 30 says, inter alia, "And then THE SIGN of the son of man will appear in heaven". So could this actually be THE SIGN that Jesus said in answer to his disciples question (compare Revelation 12: 1 "And a great sign was seen in heaven,.."), ie, not some so-called composite sign as the WBTS says, but a sudden and undeniable supernatural phenomenan in the sky, to occur as Jesus commences 'coming on the clouds of heaven (denoting invisibility, just as the clouds hid him from human vision when he ascended in Acts 1:8 - they could only seem him UNTIL he went into the cloud, not while he was in it. And why would there be a need for 'a SIGN of the Son of Man' to appear in heaven if every eye is to literally see him? Any sign wouldn't be needed if we could all see Jesus with our literal eyes. ) with power and great glory' - Matt 24: 30. Food for thought.
Also, how does one harmonize the 4 horseman of of Revelation 6 with jesus words describing world conditions in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. It doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that these 4 horsemen with their wars, famine, and death, ride for many centuries. Rather they ride during a much lesser period of time. There have always been wars, famine, and death since since man's original rebellion, so these riders must ride within some shorter boundary of time then millenniums or long centuries. Their ride indicates the immanence of Christ's return to 'shepherd them with a rod of iron'. The WBTS says that because Revelation portrays Jesus as the first one 'out of the block's on his horse and the other macabre riders follow, this proves that Jesus is enthroned first and then these terrible world conditions happen. I've actually heard another JW (who is still an active JW) propound a different explanation for this. Anyone know what another interpretation of this might be - I'm all ears?
Also, may I ask Shakita what bible version you were quoting from in your post. Certainly the wording is totally different from the NW translation?
cheers
Torn
Edited by - Torn on 14 November 2002 3:31:4
