Spiritual Interpretation....part two

[Covenanter]

@Jope,
Why werethe entire ancient church premillennial and expecting a future fulfillment of daniel's 70th week? They were much closer to 70AD than you and I.​

If that is true - & it's not proved - they were wrong! I suspect it was because they expected Jesus to restore the kingdom according to OC prophetic expectation. It didn't happen as they expected so they looked for another interpretation. See 2 Peter 3.

I find it extraordinary that anyone claiming "literal interpretation" should separate week 70 from Daniel's prophecy. 70 weeks (490 years) was prophesied, & all Gabriel's predictions were fulfilled. At the end of the 70 weeks the Jews were denounced as "uncircumcised" (Acts 7:51) and the Gospel opened to the Gentiles without circumcision. All that remained was the prophesied destruction -

Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.” ​

Jesus had confirmed the covenant for the week - 3 years of his ministry & 3 years of the Apostolic Gospel.

Why do they wonder about and talk about what the number of the beast (666), is? They should already know because the beast should have existed in 70AD already!​

Because they did not understand the prophetic focus on rebellious Israel. Note what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians -

2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.​

Do you recognize that prophecy, as evidenced elsewhere in the bible, can have double fulfillment? Partial fulfillment?​

Yes - often immediate fulfilment for his hearers - particularly relating to invasion & exile.

Do you recognize that covenants should guide your interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy and not the other way around?​

That needs a thread, not a one-word answer. The realisation of prophecy as seen in Jesus & the NC Scriptures should guide our understanding of OC promises & prophecy.

Why does future prophecy have to be specially non literal but every other prophecy of the bible has been fulfilled literally? Did you know that Luther said that the literal interpretation of the Word is the only interpretation to die by?​

You are more familiar with Luther that me. He was arguing with the RCs, not with me. All prophecy is thousands of years old. OC prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus - see Luke 24.

As we look at fulfilled prophecy there are usually unfulfilled details. Should we consider these as being fulfilled in some way along with the main prophecy or should separate verses & verse fragments by thousands of years? - eg -

Zech. 9:9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.
10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.’

Can you please explain to us who the two witnesses of revelation 11 were? What was the image of the beast, in 70AD, described in rev 13? Revelation 16:8-9 describes the sun scorching men with great heat. Verse 4 describes the rivers being turned into blood. Rev 17:13-14 describes the beast making war with Jesus Christ and rev 19 describes him coming from heaven with all his saints to destroy this beast. Rev 19:21 can not be reconciled with the idea of Jesus coming in 70AD in a "spiritual" way. When did this occur in 70AD? Do you have any witnesses, any historians to describe any of this?​

The 2 witnesses, from their descriptions resemble Moses & Elijah - the Law & the Prophets, the Word of God. Jesus warned in his parable: -

Luke 16:29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

What does Romans 11:25-29 mean to you? Are Jews reconciled to God because of their covenants?​

Jews are welcome to ALL the covenant promises of God - when they repent & come to Jesus. (11:23) Many thousands were saved during the Acts period. Zechariah suggests 1/3. John says 144,000 from all the tribes were sealed before the destruction. Down the ages countless of Abrahamic ethnicity will have been saved, but like Paul they did not maintain their ethnicity. Ethnicity is now of no consequence - we are children of God -

Gal. 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
​

 

[Covenanter]

Ian - Covenanter said: ↑
In his Olivet prophecy, in 3 Gospels, Jesus makes it clear that the destruction will take place in the lifetime of "this generation." Clearly AD 70 is intended. He proceeds to prophesy the passing of heaven & earth at a time unknown.

@John of Japan,
This is linguistically simplistic. The Greek word genea doesn't always mean "generation," but can also mean "literally, those descended from a common ancestor race, clan, descendants (perhaps AC 8.33); as an ethnic group kind (LU 16.8)" (Friberg's Anlex through BibleWorks).​

Let's look at the way Genea is translated -
The KJV translates Strong's G1074 in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x).

Jesus repeatedly denounces this generation -

e.g. Mat. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.​

The Bible shows that your linguistics is seriously mistaken. Jesus refers to this generation as the generation he lived with, & who rejected him. Other possible renderings do not detract from what Jesus clearly intended.

Mat. 23:31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Rev. 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.”​

 

[Yeshua1]

Ian - Covenanter said: ↑
In his Olivet prophecy, in 3 Gospels, Jesus makes it clear that the destruction will take place in the lifetime of "this generation." Clearly AD 70 is intended. He proceeds to prophesy the passing of heaven & earth at a time unknown.

@John of Japan,
This is linguistically simplistic. The Greek word genea doesn't always mean "generation," but can also mean "literally, those descended from a common ancestor race, clan, descendants (perhaps AC 8.33); as an ethnic group kind (LU 16.8)" (Friberg's Anlex through BibleWorks).​

Let's look at the way Genea is translated -
The KJV translates Strong's G1074 in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x).

Jesus repeatedly denounces this generation -

e.g. Mat. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.​

The Bible shows that your linguistics is seriously mistaken. Jesus refers to this generation as the generation he lived with, & who rejected him. Other possible renderings do not detract from what Jesus clearly intended.

Mat. 23:31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Rev. 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.”​

Jesus spoke to both what was soon to happen, and also to what is yet still to happen!

 

[John of Japan]

Let's look at the way Genea is translated -
The KJV translates Strong's G1074 in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x).

Strong's is the last place you should look. In 2017 it is completely unreliable, and no Greek teacher uses it. (1) It's data is from a 408 year old translation. (2) It was written in 1890, 127 years ago, much before the papyri discoveries beginning in the early 20th century.

Jesus repeatedly denounces this generation -

e.g. Mat. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.​

The Bible shows that your linguistics is seriously mistaken. Jesus refers to this generation as the generation he lived with, & who rejected him. Other possible renderings do not detract from what Jesus clearly intended.

"your linguistics"??? It's not "my linguistics," but almost every single lexicon I have: Friberg (already quoted), Abbot Smith, BAGD, Liddell and Scott, etc. Even Thayer's, almost as out of date as Strong's, allows "race."

Therefore, "race" is a perfectly legitimate translation for genea in this case. It fits the context just as well if not better than "generation." What this means to your interpretation is that it may or may not be right, so you shouldn't insist on the passage as a proof of your point--your position is too weak for that.

 

[John of Japan]

Jope: Why werethe entire ancient church premillennial and expecting a future fulfillment of daniel's 70th week? They were much closer to 70AD than you and I.​

Covenanter: If that is true - & it's not proved - they were wrong! I suspect it was because they expected Jesus to restore the kingdom according to OC prophetic expectation. It didn't happen as they expected so they looked for another interpretation. See 2 Peter 3.

Actually, it is proven. Even opponents of the premil position admit this to be a fact. According to Dwight Pentecost, "It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the centuries immediately following the Apostolic era was the premillennial view of the return of Christ" (Things to Come, p. 373). He then quotes the amil scholar O. T. Allis and the postmil founder Whitby to back up this statement.

Church fathers who were premil:
1st century: Aristio, Papias, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp.
2nd century: Pothinus, Justyn Martyr, Melito, Hegisippus, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus.
3rd century: Cyprian, Commodian, Nepos, Coracion, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius.

Your turn. Find a Christian from the first three centuries who was amil or postmil or preterist.

 

[Yeshua1]

Strong's is the last place you should look. In 2017 it is completely unreliable, and no Greek teacher uses it. (1) It's data is from a 408 year old translation. (2) It was written in 1890, 127 years ago, much before the papyri discoveries beginning in the early 20th century.

Jesus repeatedly denounces this generation -

e.g. Mat. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.​

"your linguistics"??? It's not "my linguistics," but almost every single lexicon I have: Friberg (already quoted), Abbot Smith, BAGD, Liddell and Scott, etc. Even Thayer's, almost as out of date as Strong's, allows "race."

Therefore, "race" is a perfectly legitimate translation for genea in this case. It fits the context just as well if not better than "generation." What this means to your interpretation is that it may or may not be right, so you shouldn't insist on the passage as a proof of your point--your position is too weak for that.

Jesus was making a strong statement that would imply the Jews would remain, and would have their promises fulfilled still!

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, it is proven. Even opponents of the premil position admit this to be a fact. According to Dwight Pentecost, "It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the centuries immediately following the Apostolic era was the premillennial view of the return of Christ" (Things to Come, p. 373). He then quotes the amil scholar O. T. Allis and the postmil founder Whitby to back up this statement.

Church fathers who were premil:
1st century: Aristio, Papias, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp.
2nd century: Pothinus, Justyn Martyr, Melito, Hegisippus, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus.
3rd century: Cyprian, Commodian, Nepos, Coracion, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius.

Your turn. Find a Christian from the first three centuries who was amil or postmil or preterist.

The ECF on a whole were pre mil, so those whose viewpoint is not thatwould be against them in regards to what Jesus and Apostles held with regarding Second Coming!

 

[Covenanter]

John of Japan, post: 2307062,
Strong's is the last place you should look. In 2017 it is completely unreliable, and no Greek teacher uses it. (1) It's data is from a 408 year old translation. (2) It was written in 1890, 127 years ago, much before the papyri discoveries beginning in the early 20th century.

Jesus repeatedly denounces this generation -

e.g. Mat. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.​

"your linguistics"??? It's not "my linguistics," but almost every single lexicon I have: Friberg (already quoted), Abbot Smith, BAGD, Liddell and Scott, etc. Even Thayer's, almost as out of date as Strong's, allows "race."

Therefore, "race" is a perfectly legitimate translation for genea in this case. It fits the context just as well if not better than "generation." What this means to your interpretation is that it may or may not be right, so you shouldn't insist on the passage as a proof of your point--your position is too weak for that.​

Have one of your reliable modern authorities updated Strong's numbering system so that the simple word search throws up your preferred interpretation?

Have you looked at the way modern versions translated from "new" manuscripts? Have you noticed they consistently translate γενεὰ αὕτη as this generation?

I presume you are trying to argue that the Abrahamic race will not pass away until the destruction. If by that you mean AD 70, why should we argue? Once the destruction had occurred, the judgment on those who had rejected their Messiah was concluded. The privileges of Jewishness were superseded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If however you mean the prophesied destruction has not yet occurred, or will occur again in "end times" then you need rather more than quoting semantics. You need Scripture proof.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, paul point was that God was not done with the Jewish people/nation, as they will be delivered and be brought back to God when Jesus returns!

 

[Covenanter]

Actually, it is proven. Even opponents of the premil position admit this to be a fact. According to Dwight Pentecost, "It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the centuries immediately following the Apostolic era was the premillennial view of the return of Christ" (Things to Come, p. 373). He then quotes the amil scholar O. T. Allis and the postmil founder Whitby to back up this statement.

Church fathers who were premil:
1st century: Aristio, Papias, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp.
2nd century: Pothinus, Justyn Martyr, Melito, Hegisippus, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus.
3rd century: Cyprian, Commodian, Nepos, Coracion, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius.

Your turn. Find a Christian from the first three centuries who was amil or postmil or preterist.

Look in the inspired writings:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, 'Hebrews', Jesus.
Possible references to the millennium are in Rev. 20 & 2 Peter 3.

7 And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed.
8 But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as unexpectedly as a thief. Then the heavens will pass away with a terrible noise, and the very elements themselves will disappear in fire, and the earth and everything on it will be found to deserve judgment.
11 Since everything around us is going to be destroyed like this, what holy and godly lives you should live, 12 looking forward to the day of God and hurrying it along. On that day, he will set the heavens on fire, and the elements will melt away in the flames.
13 But we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth he has promised, a world filled with God’s righteousness.
​

Peter carefully explains that we are living in the millennium, & it will end with
the final judgment at the day of the Lord.

 

[John of Japan]

I kindly wish you'd learn to use the quote feature here. It's not hard, and it would make it easier to figure out what you are saying.

Jesus repeatedly denounces this generation -

e.g. Mat. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.​

​

Jesus uses the term genea 11 times in Matthew, and most of those times could easily be translated "race," meaning the Jewish race, instead of "generation."

Have one of your reliable modern authorities updated Strong's numbering system so that the simple word search throws up your preferred interpretation?

I have several Bible software packages that do that easily.

Have you looked at the way modern versions translated from "new" manuscripts? Have you noticed they consistently translate γενεὰ αὕτη as this generation?

Have I looked at them? I translated one of the Japanese ones.

But you are missing my point, which is that "race" is a perfectly good translation for genea, thus weakening your point. If there were no possible meaning for genea other than "generation," your point would be quite strong, but that is not true.

I presume you are trying to argue that the Abrahamic race will not pass away until the destruction. If by that you mean AD 70, why should we argue? Once the destruction had occurred, the judgment on those who had rejected their Messiah was concluded. The privileges of Jewishness were superseded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I dare you to properly exegete Romans 9-11 and then tell me that the race of Abraham is no longer relevant but superceded by the church. You can't do it. Right from the beginning of ch. 9, Paul makes it clear that ethnic Israel is still relevant. Your replacement theology is against a basic understanding of the Bible, and you can only get there by "spiritualizing" plain, literal Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

Look in the inspired writings:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, 'Hebrews', Jesus.
Possible references to the millennium are in Rev. 20 & 2 Peter 3.

7 And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed.
8 But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as unexpectedly as a thief. Then the heavens will pass away with a terrible noise, and the very elements themselves will disappear in fire, and the earth and everything on it will be found to deserve judgment.
11 Since everything around us is going to be destroyed like this, what holy and godly lives you should live, 12 looking forward to the day of God and hurrying it along. On that day, he will set the heavens on fire, and the elements will melt away in the flames.
13 But we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth he has promised, a world filled with God’s righteousness.
​

Peter carefully explains that we are living in the millennium, & it will end with
the final judgment at the day of the Lord.

The Bible ends with John and the Holy Spirit awaiting fro the Second Coming, for it is at that time the Millinium starts!

 

[John of Japan]

Look in the inspired writings:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, 'Hebrews', Jesus.
Possible references to the millennium are in Rev. 20 & 2 Peter 3.

Are you actually suggesting that I haven't done that? How supercilious.

7 And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed.
8 But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as unexpectedly as a thief. Then the heavens will pass away with a terrible noise, and the very elements themselves will disappear in fire, and the earth and everything on it will be found to deserve judgment.
11 Since everything around us is going to be destroyed like this, what holy and godly lives you should live, 12 looking forward to the day of God and hurrying it along. On that day, he will set the heavens on fire, and the elements will melt away in the flames.
13 But we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth he has promised, a world filled with God’s righteousness.
​

Peter carefully explains that we are living in the millennium, & it will end with
the final judgment at the day of the Lord.

No, Peter explained no such thing. What you are missing is any mention that Peter is referring to John's discussion of the Millennial reign of Christ, since Peter wrote long before John did. Furthermore, John was not trying to communicate with God in Rev. 20. God was using John to communicate with us. Now when God communicates with us in the Bible, He uses normal, intelligible language. Any tribal Christian reading Rev. 20 for the first time would not spiritualize, but immediately think, "Oh, Jesus is going to reign on earth for 1000 years." It's not natural communication to spiritualize, but something that is man-invented.

As to those being the only two places where the Millennial reign of Christ is mentioned, that shows ignorance of the premillennial position. I suggest you actually study our position before disagreeing with it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you actually suggesting that I haven't done that? How supercilious.

No, Peter explained no such thing. What you are missing is any mention that Peter is referring to John's discussion of the Millennial reign of Christ, since Peter wrote long before John did. Furthermore, John was not trying to communicate with God in Rev. 20. God was using John to communicate with us. Now when God communicates with us in the Bible, He uses normal, intelligible language. Any tribal Christian reading Rev. 20 for the first time would not spiritualize, but immediately think, "Oh, Jesus is going to reign on earth for 1000 years." It's not natural communication to spiritualize, but something that is man-invented.

As to those being the only two places where the Millennial reign of Christ is mentioned, that shows ignorance of the premillennial position. I suggest you actually study our position before disagreeing with it.

The Messianic Age has to be when the King is here, as at that time all of his enemies will be under his feet, and there will be a time of paradise reborn!

 

[Covenanter]

I kindly wish you'd learn to use the quote feature here. It's not hard, and it would make it easier to figure out what you are saying.

​

​

When replying to multiple points I considered it would be easier to deal with the points in loc so I quoted & removed the quote markers & posted in red.

So you think Jesus condemned the whole Jewish race whenever he referred to this generation. Not at all - he confirmed the covenant with many, both during his ministry & by the Apostolic Gospel. But he very specifically condemned those of this generation who despised & rejected him, yet he opened the Gospel for them, & held it open for 40 years.

 

[Yeshua1]

​

When replying to multiple points I considered it would be easier to deal with the points in loc so I quoted & removed the quote markers & posted in red.

So you think Jesus condemned the whole Jewish race whenever he referred to this generation. Not at all - he confirmed the covenant with many, both during his ministry & by the Apostolic Gospel. But he very specifically condemned those of this generation who despised & rejected him, yet he opened the Gospel for them, & held it open for 40 years.

Per Romans though, God ALWAYS has held out Grace towards the jews, as he kept saving out a faithful remamnt in History after AD 70!

 

[Jope]

@Covenanter Ian, the word "generation" can have multiple interpretations. Why not deal with why you're choosing one interpretation out of four, to claim that the covenants of God should be broken?

Genesis 2:4 uses "generation" to refer to the generation of heaven and earth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 PM Pacific.