Featured Who Gave the Right to Interpret "Spiritually"?

Even opponents of premillennialism have taught that the Messianic, Davidic Kingdom is to be distinguished from the general and universal Sovereignty of God. And we have an "abundant array of proof" of this:

"It is but justice to say that many of our opponents (as e.g. Thompson, etc.) and others (as e.g. Van Oosterzee, etc.) justly discriminate between this Kingdom and God’s Sovereignty, telling us that we must not make this [Messianic, Davidic] Kingdom denote the Supremacy of God as manifested in Creation and Providence, in His 'Universal Government over this and other worlds.' They correctly inform us that the promised Kingdom is a special divine organization with Christ as its Head, and with believing subjects, etc., while the other is the sustaining, guiding, controlling, directing disposition, mediate and immediate, of the Universe under the Divine Headship. They teach us that the one is given by covenant promise, and that the other ever existed, even before this special Kingdom was promised to man. They properly direct us to the language of Christ and of His disciples in preaching that the Kingdom 'is at hand,' as justly implying that something which did not then exist was to be set up in the future. And they happily direct us to two passages, given by the same writer, as illustrative of the two, viz.: Daniel 6:26; Daniel 7:13-14.
Indeed, if we were to gather the fragmentary evidences thus presented to us by various writers, we should have an abundant array of proof, much of it derived from those who have no sympathy with us. Those who constitute the Church a Kingdom are forced by simple consistency into this attitude. Hence Kurtz (His. Old Cov., vol.2, p. 97) remarks: 'It is essentially necessary to make a twofold distinction in the process of divine revelation; that is to say, it is necessary to distinguish the preservation and government of the world in general, from the more special operations connected with the introduction and working out of the plan of salvation,' etc. The sovereignty of 'the Absolute,' which figures so largely in many religious books, etc., and upon which so much stress is laid as 'the Kingdom,' is simply a decided removal from covenant and promise. The reader will compare Dr. Storrs’ excellent remark, see Prop. 37, Obs. 7, as well as Kurtz’s, Prop. 26, Obs. 3. Dr. McCosh presents the Universal Sovereignty ably in his 'Methods of the Divine Government, Physical and Moral,' so also Butler, Paley, Chalmers, the Duke of Argyll, and others; but this is only the source or foundation of this special manifestation of government. Dr. Craven (Lange’s Com., Rev., p. 97), in his 'Excursus on the Basileia,' properly distinguishes between the two; and this is characteristic of numerous able Chiliasts" (George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 79, Obs. 1).
​

Revelation 3:21 also clearly makes a distinction between the Father's throne, that Christ is now on, and the Messianic, Davidic throne.

 

Duh (you like that don't you, you say it often), there's a myriad of other scripture that we've been through a kazillion times that supports a 'coming' that's other than a visible physical one.

Dare to think outside of your box and expand your horizons:

Acts 1:11:

"Clearly the point of comparison in this passage is between the manner of His going and the manner of His coming again, and not between His being seen going and His being seen coming again: “This same Jesus . . . shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,” Hence this passage treats of the manner of our Lord’s Return. And from the manner in which He went we can learn certain things respecting the manner of His Return: (1) He went secretly so far as the world was concerned, none but His disciples knowing of it at the time; so He comes again secretly (“as a thief in the night”) so far as the world is concerned, none but His faithful followers knowing of it in its first stages. (2) He went away quietly and unostentatiously, without startling the world with a literal trumpet, riding on a literal cloud, shining with a natural dazzling light and blasting the universe into atoms; hence He returns quietly and unostentatiously, without startling the world with a literal trumpet, riding on a literal cloud, shining with a natural dazzling light and blasting the universe into atoms. (3) He went away blessing those whom He left; hence He returns, blessing first His waiting Church and later the world of mankind. (4) As respects His Divine body He was invisible to the physical eyes of human beings in His going away, though manifest to His disciples as going by suitable accompanying works; hence on returning His is invisible to the physical eyes of mankind, though He is manifested as present by suitable accompanying works—His works of gathering His elect in the Gospel-Age Harvest, gradually overthrowing Satan’s empire in the great Time of Trouble, returning favor to natural Israel, etc. ’70-31"...."

 

I find it hard to believe the apostles would have understood the words of the two men recorded in Ac. 1.11 in this way, especially since they use language in their own writings that describe the coming of the Lord as anything but secret and invisible.

 

John of Japan,

Hello JOJ...

Are you restricting this to the incarnation only, or all the events described by the apostles in the book of Acts?

Perhaps Jesus Himself?
Jn
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

mt11;
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.


jn4;
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


jn6;
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

jn7;
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

jn14;
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.


(

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


There are, of course, many other Scriptures, but this one will do to start.[/QUOTE]

 

What is spiritual interpretation? How does it contrast with carnal/literal/fleshly interpretation?
There is a whole invisible spiritual realm that natural man is only dimly aware of. This is the true eternal realm of prayer, spiritual warfare and our whole relationship with our Saviour God.
The natural sense sees the physical as the ephemeral reality. Literal takes prophecy in its physical sense. It's not interpretation. Literal interpretation is oxymoronic.
Hebrews explains all this, contrasting the carnal expectation of the Jews, centering on physical Jerusalem and the temple with a true spiritual interpretation centred on Christ.

 

Amazing how the subconscious solves mysteries during deep sleep. I 'understand', now, why you drew this out of thin air.

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but, as long as men of God are more interested in the scholars interpretation, how is it that you'll be able to understand the spiritual aspect when that aspect is of less value than the scholars viewpoint? The study of God's Word should never be a science because then we're leaning to our own understanding instead of the actual intended meaning of our Lord.

Wasn't it Origen who wrote he didn't really believe God meant what the Apostles and disciples wrote in the New Testament because they were just too ignorant? And if we're approaching the scriptures with man's understanding instead of a Spiritual, isn't this where we're coming up with the diversity of beliefs in our own faith?

So is the Bible the inspired (spiritual) Word or is it simply prose literature?

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.

 

Alan Solomon explains:
When I am asleep, there are no inputs or outputs, my subconscious mind is devoted 100% to the problem in hand.
I may have my head down on my desk, but be assured I am working harder than when awake and conscious of distractions.

 

After discussing the shortage of good baptism hymns, I woke up at 5 am with the words of -
A new baptism hymn, "Repent and be baptized."
I had to get up and had four verses outlined before going back to bed at 6.
Q.V.

I usually wake up with music, never dreams or night mares.

 

We all interpret the scriptures literally to some extent except Preterists who spiritualize the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead. Would this discussion be more fruitful if we could start by finding common ground?