http://www.simmondses.com/2017/10/21/wh ... urned-yet/.
At the end of the post is a link to seven proposals to explain the delay, or lack thereof...
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
1. I would think my position is similar to (and somewhat influenced by) NT Wrightpsimmond wrote:mattrose, that sounds like N.T. Wright's position. Is your view about the same as his, or is your view more postmillennial? And do you think there's any way to measure the quality and quantity, or are we just left to shoot for an ambiguous goal?
I doubt Adam & Eve (let alone the serpent) would have predicted a 4,000+ year delay in the arrival of the 'offspring' of Eve coming to crush the serpents head. I'd imagine that they imagined it would be Cain or Abel or Seth that would accomplish that victory.psimmond wrote:mattrose, I think Wright's explanation is very strained at points and too easily cries "metaphorical" when passages don't align with his view. The Jews expected the coming of an earthly kingdom, and I see nothing in the Synoptics to suggest Jesus expected the soon-coming kingdom to be anything different. Yes, Jesus mentioned a delay (Mark 4:26-32; Matthew 13:31-42), but I think 2000 years stretches the usefulness of already/not yet to the point that it just comes across as bad apologetics. I'm not saying Wright is wrong, but when an interpretation requires this much exegetical gymnastics, I don't think it should be near the top of the list.
I guess I don't understand your point. I do believe that 'all these things' (things mentioned in Matthew 24:4-31) happened already. Jesus did 'come' in judgment (in addition to 'coming' up to the throne). I think it is a mistake to think that all 'coming' language references the 2nd Coming.psimmond wrote:Hi mattrose,
I think Wright's view is a stretch exegetically because in the Synoptics, the phrase "all these things" which were to take part in their generation included the parousia, not just the judgment on Jerusalem. So the expectation was that Jesus would return while some of them were still living, not at the creation of the new world thousands of years in the future.
My interpretation is christocentric. I believe Christians are taught to read the Old Testament with Christ in mind. All the Scriptures are really about him. So I have no problem accepting that something that wasn't often recognized as Messianic actually is Messianic. And that passage, in particular, seems rather obvious, to me, to be a promise of Christ.Regarding the serpent in Genesis, the idea that the bit about crushing his head was a messianic prophecy is not nearly as popular as it once was. I don't think anyone viewed this as a messianic prophecy until the church fathers used it to elevate the virgin Mary.