Spiritual Interpretation....pt6

[Iconoclast]

"John of Japan

Would you care to show where I have ridiculed anything? I could ridicule Philo (a Jew) and Origen (a "Christian" with bizarre teachings) for their insertion of spiritualizing into Christianity, but I don't recall ridiculing that position here on the BB.

No one said you did. Premill writers do so quite often as we both know however.

This is a false charge. I have not dismissed any passage.

The thing is you have not answered the passages in a strictly literal way. You have not offered on it literally which is the point of these series of threads.

According to Jesus in Matt. 4:4, every word is importan

of course every word is important, no one said otherwise.The thing is this thread as the others is asking about the language of Sun, Moon, and stars....
This thread is available online worldwide....not one premill person answers the verses all together...Not one.
No one offers John MacArthur. or David Jeremiah, or the Dallas seminary guys....nothing is offered.

. I have asked you to interpret the individual words and phrases of Joel 2 as quoted by Peter in Acts 2. Can you do that?

Yes I can...but i keep it very simple
Peter said ;16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Peter says...this IS THAT....he does not say it is like that, or part of that....he says THIS IS THAT>

Looking at Joel 2 Joel warns about another coming day of the Lord...a judgment...so I look at other OT, passages that describe other day of the Lord judgments....What is described , what happens?
Like here in Zeph.1
14 The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
amos5;

18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.

19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

20 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
amos5

I notice the language in 2:10 of Joel;
The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:


The light givers and time keepers are not functioning as they are intended to.This symbolic language is used when the rulers are going to be replaced.
I see that in isa 13, 34, I see it in mt 24
IN Joel 2 the gospel is proclaimed with the results that people are calling upon the Lord

30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.


31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.

32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.

Paul quotes this in Romans speaking of the elect remnant...Peter in Acts 2...The gospel goes to ALL FLESH
So...Old Covenant Israel is being replaced, the theocracy has ended..The Kingdom brought by Jesus has taken over....

The thread is not about you, even though you started it, because you keep putting other people and their opinions up here.

I will post links that provide food for thought....we can discuss them...the issues, not the people.

Surely you have your own position and can defend it without Chilton, Gentry (who I was in college with), et al.

I am still searching it out, so why should i offer incomplete thoughts? If we are interested in truth it is the verses that matter.
Bahnsen shows how Chilton had error in rev7...thats fine. I am asking about rev 6....if you think Chilton is wrong there, show what you think is truth. What I have read from premill persons does not provide a valid answer.

"Not the most proficient" in Greek? That's a huge understatement. Anyway, glad to see you understand that somewhat. Sorry you still think him and his fake degrees to be relevant.

Not everyone who goes to school, gets to the top of the class. Some with PH.D. have become apostate, so by itself is no guarantee.
Show any premill link that answers Isaiah, and Joel....the sun , moon, and starts...

 

[John of Japan]

"John of Japan

No one said you did. Premill writers do so quite often as we both know however.

No, sorry, I don't know that. The serious authors I have on my shelf do not ridicule, they present scholarly positions. My premil grandfather wrote several books on prophecy and never indulged in ridicule. (I was the research assistant for his commentary on Revelation in 1977.) In fact, Chilton has far more ridicule of what he calls "literalist" than I've ever seen in a premil book. (Chilton apparently didn't know the technical term grammatical-historical, because he never mentioned it in his books.)

The thing is you have not answered the passages in a strictly literal way. You have not offered on it literally which is the point of these series of threads.

No, that's not true.

of course every word is important, no one said otherwise.The thing is this thread as the others is asking about the language of Sun, Moon, and stars....
This thread is available online worldwide....not one premill person answers the verses all together...Not one.
No one offers John MacArthur. or David Jeremiah, or the Dallas seminary guys....nothing is offered.

Here's the deal. You post these long, long quotes from books and websites, then you post long, long lists of verses. I really don't care about those long quotes. I want actual positions by you. My reason for my first thread was to get answers out of non-literal interpreters about why they do it that way. I feel that I never got such answers, just "Chilton is unanswerable," which of course is baloney. Then when I do answer something, you oftentimes ignore it. So why should I even participate in thread after thread by you, especially when after I have answered something you then crow, "No premil answered this." It's not worth it to me.

Yes I can...but i keep it very simple
Peter said ;16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Peter says...this IS THAT....he does not say it is like that, or part of that....he says THIS IS THAT>

Looking at Joel 2 Joel warns about another coming day of the Lord...a judgment...so I look at other OT, passages that describe other day of the Lord judgments....What is described , what happens?
Like here in Zeph.1
14 The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
amos5;

18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.

19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

20 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
amos5

See, there you go again--long passages with little commentary. And you've already gotten away from exegeting Acts 2.

I notice the language in 2:10 of Joel;
The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:


The light givers and time keepers are not functioning as they are intended to.This symbolic language is used when the rulers are going to be replaced.
I see that in isa 13, 34, I see it in mt 24

There is nothing in Acts 2 about rulers being replaced. That's a rabbit trail.

IN Joel 2 the gospel is proclaimed with the results that people are calling upon the Lord

30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.


31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.

32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.

So again, you never answered me about the individual words, the very thing you chastised me about for "not answering." So what do the blood, fire, and pillars of smoke mean?

Paul quotes this in Romans speaking of the elect remnant...Peter in Acts 2...The gospel goes to ALL FLESH
So...Old Covenant Israel is being replaced, the theocracy has ended..The Kingdom brought by Jesus has taken over....

None of this is from any exegesis of Acts 2.

I will post links that provide food for thought....we can discuss them...the issues, not the people.

Sorry, I don't want your links to long, long articles which you say cannot be answered (like Chilton).

I am still searching it out, so why should i offer incomplete thoughts? If we are interested in truth it is the verses that matter.
Bahnsen shows how Chilton had error in rev7...thats fine. I am asking about rev 6....if you think Chilton is wrong there, show what you think is truth. What I have read from premill persons does not provide a valid answer.

Here's the thing, Chilton's method or hermeneutics is fatally flawed, and even bizarre. I asked you once if you agree with his " interpretive maximalism," and you didn't answer, remember?

If Chilton's method of hermeneutics is flawed, nothing he wrote is trustworthy. So when you tell me to answer him on Rev. 6, in my opinion you are getting the cart before the horse. Tell me first if his "interpretative maximalism" is valid. To help you do that, tomorrow I will start a thread on Chilton's hermeneutics.

Not everyone who goes to school, gets to the top of the class. Some with PH.D. have become apostate, so by itself is no guarantee.
Show any premill link that answers Isaiah, and Joel....the sun , moon, and starts...

Right. A link on the Internet, though the Internet is full of baloney and ignorance on the subject of prophecy!

 

[Iconoclast]

JOJ

Sorry, I don't want your links to long, long articles which you say cannot be answered (like Chilton).
Here's the thing, Chilton's method or hermeneutics is fatally flawed, and even bizarre. I asked you once if you agree with his " interpretive maximalism," and you didn't answer, remember?

If Chilton's method of hermeneutics is flawed, nothing he wrote is trustworthy. So when you tell me to answer him on Rev. 6, in my opinion you are getting the cart before the horse. Tell me first if his "interpretative maximalism" is valid. To help you do that, tomorrow I will start a thread on Chilton's hermeneutics.

You posted a solid link to Bahnsen being critical of Chilton on revelation 7. I could see the basis of Bahnsen being critical there, so that was good. I believe Chilton tried to force or impose a meaning that was not there.
That link also tells me that Bahnsen did not object to his ideas on Revelation 6 however.

 

[Iconoclast]

"John of Japan,

No, sorry, I don't know that.

Okay...when i see those links I will post them.

The serious authors I have on my shelf do not ridicule, they present scholarly positions

. My premil grandfather wrote several books on prophecy and never indulged in ridicule. (I was the research assistant for his commentary on Revelation in 1977.)

Okay...How did he interpret rev6:12-17?

(Chilton apparently didn't know the technical term grammatical-historical, because he never mentioned it in his books.)

I would not jump to that conclusion

Here's the deal. You post these long, long quotes from books and websites, then you post long, long lists of verses. I really don't care about those long quotes

.
You might not like the links or long lists of verses...others do.Some have not seen the material before and would like to read it first hand.

[QUOTEI want actual positions by you][/QUOTE]
I offered you an example dealing with the phrase .."thorns and briars"... do you agree it always is used to describe apostate persons?

. My reason for my first thread was to get answers out of non-literal interpreters about why they do it that way. I feel that I never got such answers, just "Chilton is unanswerable," which of course is baloney.

You asked why non literal interpreters differ. We have answered you...
I never said Chilton is "unanswerable"....I did say he is not answerable on revelation 6:12-17 {at least I have not seen any premill person attempt to answer}...and you have had 6 threads to attempt to answer what he said on the Sun,Moon , and Stars heaven rolling up like a scroll...you have not done so...your response was not informative.[ THE WORD COULD MEAN METEOR}... it could, but it could mean stars...and it does here.
You have been critical of Chilton, his credentials, his Greek, but you have not got the job done here despite your protesting.
I do not care if Chilton ate Wheaties, had bad breath. had dandruff, kicked his dog,....now you complain about bible quotes and links. I think you cannot answer these sections of scripture. If you could you would have took it on head on and shot it down as you shot down his faulty greek usage.
When i first read these Ideas by non literal interpreters, I could not answer them either....

I could offer a response...but it was weak. It really does not answer to just say to someone....you are spiritualizing the passage away.

Then when I do answer something, you oftentimes ignore it

.
Many days I drive between 700,-875 miles a day....my responses get delayed because of that.

So why should I even participate in thread after thread by you, especially when after I have answered something you then crow, "No premil answered this." It's not worth it to me.

I have liked what you offered, pointing out defects and offering solid teaching...that was good input...but to be honest...you are avoiding this issue like it was the plague... Soon I will have to offer what I read in my premill books if no premill person can step forward..in fact, let me get my old Scofield bible out...

he ignored the language, he ignored verse 16 of acts2

2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

last days

A distinction must be observed between "the last days" when the prediction relates to Israel, and the "last days" when the prediction relates to the church 1 Timothy 4:1-3 ; 2 Timothy 3:1-8 ; Hebrews 1:1 Hebrews 1:2 ; 1 Peter 1:4 1 Peter 1:5 ; 2 Peter 3:1-9 ; 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:19 ; Jude 1:17-19 . Also distinguish the expression the "last days" (plural) from "the last day" (singular); the latter expression referring to the resurrections and last judgment ; John 6:39 John 6:40 John 6:44 John 6:54 ; 11:24 ; 12:48 . The "last days" as related to the church began with the advent of Christ Hebrews 1:2 but have especial reference to the time of declension and apostasy at the end of this age ; 2 Timothy 3:1 ; 4:4 . The "last days" as related to Israel are the days of Israel's exaltation and blessing, and are synonymous with the kingdom-age ; Isaiah 2:2-4 ; Micah 4:1-7 . They are "last" not with reference to this dispensation, but with reference to the whole of Israel's history.

See, there you go again--long passages with little commentary. And you've already gotten away from exegeting Acts 2.
There is nothing in Acts 2 about rulers being replaced. That's a rabbit trail.

So...do you believe the OT. Theocracy is in place? Do you believe the OT ceremonial system is still in effect, with no High Priest?

So again, you never answered me about the individual words, the very thing you chastised me about for "not answering." So what do the blood, fire, and pillars of smoke mean?

I think everyone else understood just fine. The section of Chiltons book offered on it...no one has shown otherwise.

None of this is from any exegesis of Acts 2.
Sorry, I don't want your links to long, long articles which you say cannot be answered (like Chilton).

John....Acts 2 is dealing with Joel 2....16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

I believe that...do you? I have looked at Joel 2...I see what Peter was saying...as he said it..THIS IS THAT...
Does Peter speak about the promise of psalm 16, yes....Does he explain the sign gifts, yes.

Now ...if Sun Moon, and stars , means what it means in all these other passages...it then explains Acts 2 quite nicely.

 

[Iconoclast]

I make no apology for using scripture, and comparing scripture with scripture...here thorns and briars taken from bible gateway speak of apostates....not of gardening tips...it speaks of apostates most times being burned in the fire

Thorns and briars.....

Isaiah 5:6
And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it

Isaiah 7:23
And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns.

Isaiah 7:24
With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns.

Isaiah 7:25
And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

Isaiah 9:18
For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.

Isaiah 10:17
And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;

Isaiah 27:4
Fury is not in me: who would set the briers and thorns against me in battle? I would go through them, I would burn them together.

Isaiah 32:13
Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city:

Isaiah 33:12
And the people shall be as the burnings of lime: as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire.
Isaiah 34:13
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.
Jeremiah 4:3
For thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.
Ezekiel 2:6
And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.
Hebrews 6:8
But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sure....but I want to see a biblical case for it.

Let me try to give my understanding very briefly.
'But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel, "And it shall come to pass in the last days," says God..........'
What this tells us is that the Last Days begin with the coming of the Christ (1 John 2:18). They encompass the whole time between the first and second comings of Christ. So here are two things that are going to happen: firstly, the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the elect of all peoples. This is something that goes on all the time through the age, although IMO the sign gifts were only for their 'launch.' So when we come to look at Acts 2:19-21, we are looking at something else that happens in the Last Days..
Now the references are to Isaiah 13:10-11, which seems to refer to Babylon, but then goes on to speak of the world; and to Ezekiel 32:7 which refers to Egypt. But is this language not figurative, speaking of great and mighty changes in the world order, which happened on a small scale when Egypt and Babylon fell, but really refer to something much greater-- the coming of Christ in judgement upon the world? The world order didn't change at all in AD 70; outside of Israel the world continued under Roman rule exactly as before. I really don't understand the obsession with AD 70. The Lord Jesus predicted it; it happened, but the world goes on and we await the return of the Lord Jesus which is our blessed hope (1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 9:28. Please read through each of these texts and ask yourself whether they are really speaking of the deaths of thousands of people in AD 70).

 

[John of Japan]

"John of Japan,

Okay...when i see those links I will post them.

Not links, books on my shelf by serious premil scholars: Rice, Pentecost, Payne, Walvoord, Biederwolf, Erickson, David Allen & Steve Lemke, etc.

Okay...How did he interpret rev6:12-17?

Literally, with reference to Daniel and a quote from Seiss.

I would not jump to that conclusion

It's either that he didn't know or understand the term, or that he deliberately didn't use it in order to mock "literalists," something he did do.

You might not like the links or long lists of verses...others do.Some have not seen the material before and would like to read it first hand.

This is a debate forum. Interested parties can get such information elsewhere, but when you make such lists part of your debate technique, it is really off-putting to anyone who wants to debate you. So they don't. and then you say in triumph, "No one answered me."

I offered you an example dealing with the phrase .."thorns and briars"... do you agree it always is used to describe apostate persons?

Nope.

You asked why non literal interpreters differ. We have answered you...

No you haven't. I've asked multiple questions which you have not answered.

I never said Chilton is "unanswerable"...

Yes, you did, several times. Here is what you said on "Spiritual Interpretation pt5," post #83 (and you previously made similar statements):

"There may be a few brief disparaging remarks in popular paperback books about the insignificant and temporary revival of full-scale dominion theology. But there will be no successful attempt by scholarly leaders of the various pessimillennial camps to respond to Chilton. There is a reason for this: They cannot effectively respond."

.I did say he is not answerable on revelation 6:12-17 {at least I have not seen any premill person attempt to answer}...and you have had 6 threads to attempt to answer what he said on the Sun,Moon , and Stars heaven rolling up like a scroll...you have not done so...your response was not informative.[ THE WORD COULD MEAN METEOR}... it could, but it could mean stars...and it does here.

You have been critical of Chilton, his credentials, his Greek, but you have not got the job done here despite your protesting.
I do not care if Chilton ate Wheaties, had bad breath. had dandruff, kicked his dog,....now you complain about bible quotes and links. I think you cannot answer these sections of scripture. If you could you would have took it on head on and shot it down as you shot down his faulty greek usage.
When i first read these Ideas by non literal interpreters, I could not answer them either....

I could offer a response...but it was weak. It really does not answer to just say to someone....you are spiritualizing the passage away.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR RABBIT TRAILS. AND FRUSTRATING EVEN TO TRY! If you were to just stick to one particular subject, like one single passage in Revelation, I would enjoy debating you. But your long involved posts with rabbit trail after rabbit trail, followed by the triumphant announcement that nobody answered you, ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER!!!

I have liked what you offered, pointing out defects and offering solid teaching...that was good input...but to be honest...you are avoiding this issue like it was the plague... Soon I will have to offer what I read in my premill books if no premill person can step forward..in fact, let me get my old Scofield bible out...

Thanks for the kind words, but "ignoring the issue"??? I can't even find it, your posts are so convoluted.

Even this post I had to re-edit several times, it was so convoluted. I'm tired of it. It's really frustrating.

 

[Rippon]

Not links, books on my shelf by serious premil scholars: Rice, Pentecost, Payne, Walvoord, Biederwolf, Erickson, David Allen & Steve Lemke, etc

You have acknowledged several times that your grandfather was not a scholar. So JRR doesn't count as one in this field, or any other.

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you accept that it is possible to agree that these phenomena are not to be interpreted strictly literally, and yet still not see that there is any reason to ascribe them to AD 70?

That is good point!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not links, books on my shelf by serious premil scholars: Rice, Pentecost, Payne, Walvoord, Biederwolf, Erickson, David Allen & Steve Lemke, etc.

Literally, with reference to Daniel and a quote from Seiss.

It's either that he didn't know or understand the term, or that he deliberately didn't use it in order to mock "literalists," something he did do.

This is a debate forum. Interested parties can get such information elsewhere, but when you make such lists part of your debate technique, it is really off-putting to anyone who wants to debate you. So they don't. and then you say in triumph, "No one answered me."
Nope.
No you haven't. I've asked multiple questions which you have not answered.
Yes, you did, several times. Here is what you said on "Spiritual Interpretation pt5," post #83 (and you previously made similar statements):

"There may be a few brief disparaging remarks in popular paperback books about the insignificant and temporary revival of full-scale dominion theology. But there will be no successful attempt by scholarly leaders of the various pessimillennial camps to respond to Chilton. There is a reason for this: They cannot effectively respond."



IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR RABBIT TRAILS. AND FRUSTRATING EVEN TO TRY! If you were to just stick to one particular subject, like one single passage in Revelation, I would enjoy debating you. But your long involved posts with rabbit trail after rabbit trail, followed by the triumphant announcement that nobody answered you, ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER!!!
Thanks for the kind words, but "ignoring the issue"??? I can't even find it, your posts are so convoluted.

Even this post I had to re-edit several times, it was so convoluted. I'm tired of it. It's really frustrating.

Would say that one can prove a pre mil well enough to demolish their arguments, without even bringing into this a pre trib Rapture view!

 

[Iconoclast]

Would say that one can prove a pre mil well enough to demolish their arguments, without even bringing into this a pre trib Rapture view!

Would say you cannot begin to do it though.

 

[John of Japan]

I never said Chilton is "unanswerable"....

Another place you pretty much said Chilton was "unanswerable" was in Spiritual Interpretation pt.5, post #83, where you said,

"They do not answer him because they would struggle to do so. If they seek to put down his learning and writing, but cannot answer him...that would be embarrassing ,yes?

Then in that post you said, "I think it is as the preface says.....they cannot do it," and quoted North's arrogant statement from the Publisher's Preface of DOV:

"There may be a few brief disparaging remarks in popular paperback books about the insignificant and temporary revival of full-scale dominion theology. But there will be no successful attempt by scholarly leaders of the various pessimillennial camps to respond to Chilton. There is a reason for this: They cannot effectively respond."

 

[Yeshua1]

Another place you pretty much said Chilton was "unanswerable" was in Spiritual Interpretation pt.5, post #83, where you said,

"They do not answer him because they would struggle to do so. If they seek to put down his learning and writing, but cannot answer him...that would be embarrassing ,yes?

Then in that post you said, "I think it is as the preface says.....they cannot do it," and quoted North's arrogant statement from the Publisher's Preface of DOV:

"There may be a few brief disparaging remarks in popular paperback books about the insignificant and temporary revival of full-scale dominion theology. But there will be no successful attempt by scholarly leaders of the various pessimillennial camps to respond to Chilton. There is a reason for this: They cannot effectively respond."

North wrote the reduction of Christianity, so to him and others of his camp, even acknowledging that times will be really bad before Second Coming is having a defeated attitude!

Interesting bedfellows here, as Chilton and North stress church dominion over culture/society, whule kingdom Now charasmatics giv ethe power to do that!

 

[John of Japan]

North wrote the reduction of Christianity, so to him and others of his camp, even acknowledging that times will be really bad before Second Coming is having a defeated attitude!

Interesting bedfellows here, as Chilton and North stress church dominion over culture/society, whule kingdom Now charasmatics giv ethe power to do that!

To me, the worst part of the North/Chilton/Rushdoony postmillennial eschatology is that it puts the Second Coming of Christ in human hands. Christ can only come back when human Christians have prepared the ground by making society better. Thus, the sovereignty of God in determining the "day and hour" of the 2nd Coming is ignored, which is very ironic considering their Calvinism.

Matt. 24:36--"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

 

[Yeshua1]

To me, the worst part of the North/Chilton/Rushdoony postmillennial eschatology is that it puts the Second Coming of Christ in human hands. Christ can only come back when human Christians have prepared the ground by making society better. Thus, the sovereignty of God in determining the "day and hour" of the 2nd Coming is ignored, which is very ironic considering their Calvinism.

Matt. 24:36--"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

The Great and terrible day of the Lord was not AD 70, as that event will be from and of God Himself, and will affect the entire earth at his Second Coming!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'd like to consider another aspect of this question of 'spiritual interpretation,' namely the 1,000 year Millennium.
Question: When is 1,000 years not 1,000 years?
Answer: When it's in the Bible.
I cannot think of a single place where 1,000 has to be interpreted literally, and a few places where it can't be.

Psalm 50:10-11. 'For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild birds of the field are Mine.' There are considerably more than a thousand hills in the world. Does God own only the cattle on a thousand? Of course not! But even if one were disposed to argue, the parallelism of Hebrew poetry would prevent one. 'Every beast' is paralleled with 'the cattle on a thousand hills.' A thousand here clearly means 'all that there are.'

Psalm 90:4. 'For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past.' If there were 1,001 years, would it not be like yesterday? Of course it would! God is the eternal one; He sits outside of time. A thousand years means all the years that there are.

Psalm 105:9. 'He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded for a thousand generations.' There have not yet been a thousand generations of men, but if there were to be, would God forget His covenant. Again, of course not! 1,000 generations stands for all that there will ever be.

2 Peter 3:8. 'But beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord on day is as 1,000 years, and 1,000 years as a day.' Peter obviously has Psalm 90:4 in mind. Are 1,001 years not like a day? Or does the text mean that God exists in a boundless present, sees the end from the beginning and all the years that there will ever be are like one day to Him?

So when we come to Revelation 20, are we going to insist that the number be taken literally, or are we going to treat it like all the other thousands, and say that it means all the years that there are? I would add that I don't think any of the numbers in Revelation are to be taken literally. Where are the eights, nines, elevens and thirteens? The book is full of fours (the number of the world- north, south east and west), sevens (the number of completeness or perfection), tens (the number of fullness) and twelves (the number of the covenant).

 

[AV]

I think it is necessary to look at how the bible interprets itself. Like reviewing New Testament uses of Old Testament passages. I compiled a list here that is interesting:
conceal a thing
Mostly the passages are interpreted literally- but you can see where there are many that have a dual- non-literal application which I review at the end. Jesus demonstrates both in Matthew 17:10-13 KJV.

 

[Iconoclast]

To me, the worst part of the North/Chilton/Rushdoony postmillennial eschatology is that it puts the Second Coming of Christ in human hands. Christ can only come back when human Christians have prepared the ground by making society better. Thus, the sovereignty of God in determining the "day and hour" of the 2nd Coming is ignored, which is very ironic considering their Calvinism.

Matt. 24:36--"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Sorry.but this is misinformed. ...
I have not seen any postmill writer suggest this. Instead they speak of the effectual working of the gospel by the Spirit of God bringing change. This tells me you have not read these books recently. ..
I would think if I were in such a setting I would be up on it.
Maybe your eager side kick Y1.....will dazzle us with some quotes as he sets out to crush them,lol

 

[John of Japan]

I'd like to consider another aspect of this question of 'spiritual interpretation,' namely the 1,000 year Millennium.
Question: When is 1,000 years not 1,000 years?
Answer: When it's in the Bible.
I cannot think of a single place where 1,000 has to be interpreted literally, and a few places where it can't be.

My PowerBible software tells me there are 397 verses (so well over 400 times) where 1000 appears. Just a quick glance shows that many of those mentions are literal, though perhaps rounded off.

 

[Covenanter]

This topic reads like alternating monologues of the deaf.

BUT – one of you may be right, or possible both have insights to share.

Icon maintains:
that when Jesus prophesied -

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 so likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.​

he was teaching that the events of his prophesy would take place in the lifetime of the people who were rejecting him. He frequently denounced “this generation” meaning the Scribes & Pharisees & other religious authorities who deliberately opposed him throughout his ministry.

He further maintains that a literal reading of the time texts of Revelation & the outline of the events prophesied show a time of writing before AD 70, a fulfilment in the AD 70 destruction.

The “coming” references must therefore be interpreted in terms of the destruction.

----------------
OTOH

JoJ maintains:
As Jesus did not come literally in the way he said:

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory ​

he cannot be referring to AD 70, nor to “this generation” but some yet future second coming, so that “generation (genea)” must be assigned a different meaning. (Possibly the Jewish race or the whole Gospel era?) As he is the Greek scholar, he must have the decisive word.

Revelation can therefore be interpreted by the “historical grammatical” method as literally occurring at a future second coming.

-----------------

BOTH agree that the Olivet prophecy is concerned with the AD 70 destruction, BUT JoJ says it includes prophecy of the yet future second coming.

-------------------