No One Knows The Day Or Hour

Unsealed ^ | 8/24/17 | Gary

[amessenger4god]

Satan twists God's message by elevating one Scripture at the expense of all others.  Sadly, many Christians play right along with him.  Interpreting Scripture is not "this and not that", but "line upon line".  In other words, we need to stop shredding Scriptures, ignoring others, and assuming what they mean, and start trusting every Scripture for what they plainly say.  I see many examples of this assumptive Scripture-twisting in the Church and I've argued that it is the primary reason divisions exist within Christianity.  I've written a lot about the need for faithful, comprehensive exegesis in regards to the topics of faith vs. works and the partial-rapture doctrine (see here, here, and here).

What I want to talk about now is the ad infinitum repeat of "no one knows the day or hour" (Matt. 24:36, Mk. 13:32) as an argument against the Revelation 12 Sign.  For those of us watching for Jesus' appearing, what confuses us the most is why so many Christians base their entire theory of eschatology on just two verses when there are literally dozens of other Scriptures that paint a more complete picture.  Even more - over a quarter of the Bible is prophecy.  There are literally dozens and dozens of signs listed in Scripture that indicate the nearness of Jesus' return along with a number of commands to "Watch!" (Matt. 24:42-44, 25:10, 13, Mk. 13:35-37, Lk. 12:37-39, 21:36, Rev. 3:3).

A prime example of how satan twists Scripture can be found in Luke 4:10 during the Temptation of Jesus.  Urging Jesus to throw Himself off the Temple to test God, satan quoted Psalm 91:11: "He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully."  Jesus retorted with Deuteronomy 6:16: "It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.' "  Those who sow discord within the Church use what I'll call the satanic hermeneutic: "this and not that" rather than Jesus' comprehensive hermeneutic: "line upon line" (Is. 28:13).  I think many Christians are using the wrong hermeneutic when it comes to "no one knows".

Firstly, "knows" (οἶδεν in the Greek) is in the perfect tense in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.  The perfect tense describes something that was true or completed in the past and is still presently true, but not necessarily true in the future.  In other words, no one knew the day or hour, Jesus included, before He spoke those words and no one presently knew the day or hour at the time Jesus spoke those words.  However, His statement cannot be taken as a dogmatic statement about whether or not we can know the day or hour in the future.  It's not in the future tense.  It clearly doesn't say "no one will know" or "no one will ever know".  Compare to the future tense of this Greek verb in Hebrews 8:11.  These two verses do not give us enough information to determine whether or not Believers in the 21st century can know.  For the answer to that question we need to look to other Scriptures - line upon line.

Secondly, context is king.  What was Jesus referring to when He uttered the words "no one knows"?  The rapture?  The Abomination of Desolation?  His second coming?  The end of the world?  There are a number of significant prophetic events still to come and blindly applying "no one knows" to just one event (the rapture) seems like a stretch.  The context in the Olivet Discourse could point to any of these events:

1. The rapture.  Some pre-tribulation proponents see Matthew 24:36-51 as applying to the rapture or the general beginning of the Day of the LORD.  This view has fallen out of favor, but if true then the context for "no one knows" might be the rapture.

2. The end of the world.  The verses immediately preceding Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 mention the end of heaven and earth.  This is an event that occurs at the end of Christ's 1,000-year reign (Revelation 21:1).  Or a differing interpretation would say at the time of Christ's return, which is at the end of the seven year Tribulation.

3. The second coming.  This view is the futurist scholarly favorite for several reasons.  First, because the disciples asked Jesus three questions that have little if anything to do with the rapture: "when will this happen [the destruction of the Second Temple], and what will be the sign of your coming [Jesus' return to establish the Kingdom] and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3).  Second, because the signs described in the Olivet Discourse seem to describe events during the Tribulation, some types and shadows of which occurred leading up to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.  Third, because the rapture was not clearly revealed until the Apostle Paul delivered the message to the primarily Gentile Church (1 Cor. 15:51-52, 1 Thess. 4:13-18).

Thirdly, if #1 was the correct context, "no one knows the day or hour" may have been an idiom for the Feast of Trumpets.  Of the seven major feasts of the LORD (Lev. 23), the Feast of Trumpets is the only divine appointment that begins on the new moon.  While the case for this being an actual Jewish idiom is not unquestionably established, the logic behind it is pretty sound.  The first sighting of the waxing crescent of the moon by two witnesses began the Feast of Trumpets.  The sighting cannot be perfectly predicted because of atmospheric conditions and so Yom Teruah (the Feast of Trumpets / Day of Shouting) can begin on either of two days, which is why the Jews celebrate what is supposed to be "the first day of the seventh month" (Lev. 23:23-25) over a two-day period because it is "the day no one knows the day or hour".

Now here is where the story gets more interesting.  If you adhere to the aforementioned satanic hermeneutic ("this and not that") then there are a number of Scriptures that present a real problem for "no one knows" - an apparent contradiction:

Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard--and keep it and repent. If therefore you shall not watch, I will come like a thief, and you shall not know at what hour I will come upon you.

- Revelation 3:3

According to Revelation 3:3 those in the Church who are watching will know when Jesus comes for them.  Not only a general timeframe, but the very hour.  The Greek word for "hour", hóra, is the same word used in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.  Wow, that sounds like a complete reversal!

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

- Revelation 1:1

The glorified Christ delivered the message of Revelation to the Apostle John to show or reveal new knowledge to the Church - specifically the knowledge of what will happen in the future when Jesus returns.  Question: was this revelation given before or after Jesus uttered the words "no one knows"?  I think we both know the answer.

Let us not neglect meeting together, as some have made a habit, but let us encourage one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

- Hebrews 10:25

Hebrews 10:25 tells us that we will see the Day approaching.  The Greek word for "see" means more than just the physical act of seeing with physical eyes.  It can also mean to perceive or understand.

But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.

- 1 Thessalonians 5:4

How many times have you heard that Jesus is coming like a thief in the night?  He certainly is (1 Thess. 5:2-3), but not for us (1 Thess. 5:4).  How much clearer could Paul be in the above Scripture?  We are awake, watching, and walking in the light, so Jesus' appearing will not surprise us like a thief.  We can see the Day approaching.

So how do we reconcile the Scriptures, line upon line?  This is my best understanding:

1. Before Jesus was crucified His disciples asked Him when the Second Temple would be destroyed and when He would return to establish His Kingdom.  It is unlikely that they yet understood the two events were separate.  It is likely that they were unaware of the yet-to-be-fully-revealed pre-tribulational rapture of the Church (though some Old Testament Scriptures pointed to it like Isaiah 26:17-21).  They didn't understand an intervening dispensation of grace would cause a pause in Daniel's 70 weeks of years.  This is further evidenced by the fact the Apostles were still wrestling with these questions well into the book of Acts (Acts 15:1-21; see also Romans 11:1-32).

2. Jesus answers their questions quite literally, describing the events leading up to His second coming - His physical return to earth to establish His Kingdom.  Therefore the context is the events transpiring during the Tribulation.  Some of these events were foreshadowed by events leading up to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, so Jesus' Olivet Discourse effectively answers both questions in one fell swoop.

3. When Jesus was saying "no one knows the day or hour" He was communicating several things.  First, at the time He spoke those words no one presently living (Himself included) could determine the exact day or hour of any of these future events.  Second, the Day of the LORD would come for most (but not all) people like a thief - hence the repeated command to watch.  Third, this statement may have incidentally foreshadowed the timing of the rapture of the Church on a future Feast of Trumpets.

4. Jesus was later crucified for our sins.  He rose from the dead and 40 days later ascended into Heaven.  When He ascended He received back the full glory that He had with God before the incarnation (Jn. 17:5, Eph. 1:20, 4:10, 1 Peter 1:21; see also Jn. 1:1, 8:58, Heb. 10:5).  This would necessarily include omniscience.  Certainly Jesus knew the day and hour of every future event once He was back in Heaven.

5. In His re-glorified state Jesus delivered all previously withheld prophetic knowledge to the Church (Rev. 1:1, 22:10; see also Dan. 12:4), except for the meaning of the "seven thunders" (Rev. 10:3-4).  There is a stark and complete reversal: prophecy sealed (Dan. 12:4) and then prophecy unsealed (Rev. 22:10).  No one can know (Matt. 24:36, Mk. 13:32) and now you better know (Rev. 3:3).  It couldn't be clearer.

Mockers inside and outside the Church are using just a handful of Scriptures at the expense of all others.  They are choosing to be willfully ignorant.  They are also leveling two false accusations, which tells me that their reasoning is not coming from the Holy Spirit, but from a much darker place:

1. The Revelation 12 Sign is astrology.  No Christian proponent of the Revelation 12 Sign is worshiping or bowing down to the stars.  Neither are they divining their life with the horoscope.  The astrology accusation is patently false, a lie of the worst kind, and at complete odds with Scripture (Gen. 1:14, Job 9:9, 38:31-32, Ps. 19:1-2, Amos 5:8, Joel 2:30-31, Lk. 21:11, 25, Rev. 12:1-2).

2. Talking about the Revelation 12 Sign is date setting.  As someone well-acquainted with the teachings of the various proponents of the 9/23 alignment, I can say with confidence that neither they nor I are saying the rapture/second coming/end of the world will definitely happen on September 23rd.  There are a few exceptions - a few people saying the rapture will definitely happen on September 21st or 23rd, but for the most part the only definitive assertion made is that a specific sign described in Revelation 12:1-2 will be fulfilled on September 23rd.  The evidence is crystal clear for that.

I also want to point out that the Great Sign is not happening in a vacuum.  Let's not be so full of doubts and consumed with the cares of this world that we forget the fact that Jesus really is coming back.  And soon.  We've all been very focused on this September sign, but let's not forget the other overwhelming and mounting evidence that the end of the age is upon us:

THE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE

AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH

20 SIGNS WE'VE ARRIVED AT THE END OF THE AGE

10 REASONS JESUS WILL COME BACK IN OUR LIFETIME

19 REASONS THE RAPTURE COULD HAPPEN IN 2017

So if you want to remain blind and ignorant then God will allow you to be.  Let that day come upon you like a thief.  If you want to latch on to two Scriptures at the expense of everything else and in the face of all of God's signs and wonders, then that is your choice, but don't expect those of us watching to join the unscriptural charade.

[SaveFerris]

You are correct about conjugating the verb meaning “to be”.

It is basic in the romantic languages and an early teaching in French. What little French I got, that part was easy.

[FatherofFive]

You are the only person in this thread who has no idea what I am saying here

Then I am the only person who knows the difference between is and am

Explain the difference between "This is my Body" and 'This is my Son"

[SaveFerris]

[The “man of sin” has not yet stood on the mercy seat of the Ark, declaring himself to be “God.”]

That is correct, though I recommend being careful with dates, FRiend.

Did you happen to catch this one particular thread I posted, though? (FWIW). I thought it was kinda interesting but I’m not setting a date. Just really struck me.

International Day of Peace 21 September (Those NWO Folks at the United Nations)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3577476/posts

[Preachin']

The most important difference between those statements that we were told do the one thing in order to remember Him.

[Preachin']

And you explain the difference between “this is my body” and “God is a consuming fire.”

[Just mythoughts]

Legally speaking every US tax payer is a Catholic... check out how much money US tax payers fund Catholic charities.

[metmom]

Depending on the translation, the word ‘Is’ shows 1,891 times. It NEVER means ‘represents’. About 107 time ‘is’ is followed by the word ‘like’, as in “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.” Nobody confuses the kingdom of heaven with a man.

Perhaps you need a refresher course in the English language.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/

A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn’t literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.

Here are the basics:

A metaphor states that one thing is another thing

It equates those two things not because they actually are the same, but for the sake of comparison or symbolism

If you take a metaphor literally, it will probably sound very strange (are there actually any sheep, black or otherwise, in your family?)

Metaphors are used in poetry, literature, and anytime someone wants to add some color to their language

Remember to check your knowledge at the end with our Metaphor vs. Simile Quiz.

Don't forget, Jesus also said He was the bread, the door, and the vine. He didn't say represent.

He said, "I AM the door", "I AM the true vine", "I AM the bread". <

So explain to me how Catholics don't believe that Jesus is made from bread dough, wood, or plant material.

[metmom]

Are you still calling your priests *Father*?

[metmom]

On the contrary, you are the one confused.

After Jesus' whole discourse in John 6 He goes on to say this. He tells us right here that they are not meant literally.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Why don't you believe Him?

[metmom]

No Christ did not say he is the vine "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Well, did He or didn't He? You're contradicting yourself right here.

And you expect to have credibility?

[FatherofFive]

I learned years ago it’s mostly a waste of time to engage these arguments here.

When you don't want to listen to the clear words of Scripture.

[ebb tide]

Legally speaking every US tax payer is a Catholic...

You're really reaching now.

[firebrand]

. . . and others:

Don’t mean to sound more-literary-than-thou, so forgive me if I do, but in literature “is” often a stronger way of saying “is like.” In the age of Shakespeare, people did not get so technical about such things but just read what the author meant them to understand. It’s common sense, is all. As long as the essential meaning is clear, we don’t need to parse everything to death.

Such disputes actually overcomplicate the meaning of what we know to be true and all agree on, and thus divert our attention from the truth we should be paying attention to.

[Iscool]

Christ is the bread of life. Christ is not a loaf of bread. The Bread is (becomes) his body. Perfectly clear.

Jesus never turned bread into his body...He said he 'is' the bread, not that he will become the bread...Your Church added that so you guys would think Jesus changed something and that your priest somehow had the power to do the same thing...Didn't happen...

Jesus dropped some bread on a table and said, 'this is my flesh, eat it'...He didn't turn bread into his flesh...The fact of the matter is the bread wasn't Jesus...Jesus was the bread...If what you hope would have happened, even then no bread turned into flesh...It was flesh that was bread...And not only can no one in your religion turn bread into Jesus' flesh, they certainly can't turn Jesus flesh into bread...

Show me one example where IS does not mean IS. Not 'is like' or Am. Where does Is does not mean Is?

So that's it...'IS' is the clincher...

Joh_10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

While that's true, the same is said about we believers...I have a feeling 'is' is used in a spiritual sense...

Joh_10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

As you can see, John had the same issue...

2Co_11:10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.

And Paul as well...

Exo_9:3 Behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.

Yep...That the physical hand of God...'IS' says so...

2Sa_22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

The Lord is every Christian's rock, but he ain't limestone...

Psa_121:5 The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand.

How many of these will it take to convince you that you are wrong??? I have a feeling that no amount of evidence will sway you...

Psa_84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

God is physically a sun, and a shade...

That's just barely touching the surface of how the word 'is' is not always used literally in the scriptures...So your 'IS' argument holds no water whatsoever...

Really??? You are confusing the physical with the spiritual.

Ya think??? And you're not???

[editor-surveyor]

.
Yeshua set the “date:” The day of which no man knows the day or the our. There is only one day on Yehova’s calendar that matches that condition: Tishri 1. Every feast day but Trumpets is known long in advance, but Trumpets, being on the new moon cannot be known until it happens, yet it is by definition Tishri 1.

Its only a problem for those that want something that is not scriptural.
.

[Iscool]

Did Christ say that he is the branch, or that he is like a branch? No confusion here.

Seems that 'am' doesn't count...But when it's 'IS', that's the game changer...

[ResponseAbility]

I clicked onto this thread hoping to read some intelligent discussions about end times prophecy...and all I got was the meaning of “is”.

[Iscool]

Not Human Flesh. Don't be silly. So when Christ said, "This is my body" he was lying

No...It's just that you and other Catholics are not able to discern language and reality...

When you read that scripture and the few others similar to it by themselves, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that Jesus may have been speaking of physical flesh...But when you read the rest of the New Testament and compare spiritual things with spiritual (yes the bible is a spiritual book) you find that is an impossibility...

[firebrand]

Exactly.

When I was a Catholic, I constructed a justification for the bread being the body and the wine being the blood, and that was that when the priest says he is giving both up for you, in the role of Jesus, he is, in a way, because he has given up his body (his sexual life, his family), and his blood because he is willing to die for the faith. And certainly Jesus did both of those.

Insofar as the priest believes both those things about what he has done and is willing to do, there is a certain mystical truth to the statements. They are not literal physical changes. The Church is full of mysticism, and a mystery is not something that is untrue but something that can be resolved and understood until it is no longer a mystery. My Catholic friends like and accept this idea.

To repeat what I said upthread, we don’t need to argue about these things. Do we repent, and have a firm purpose of amendment, whether Catholic or Protestant? I’d wager that that is what he cares about, whether we confess to a priest or directly to him.

[.45 Long Colt]

Here are some real clear words:

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
—John 3:3

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
—Ephesians 2:8-9

“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
—Hebrews 10:10-14

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
—Romans 11:6

Work through the real clear teaching of those passages, being mindful to compare them to Romanist doctrine.