But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?

The symbols stand for a concrete real thing though!

 

Not really, It is written He will come on a white horse with a vesture dipped in blood wearing many crowns.

No, I mean His dwelling in a temple made with hands would be an abasement. And the statement is in Heb 9:11 and other places.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

The tabernacle in which He dwells is made with "lively stones." Us.

 

And so they're symbols. The locust is a symbol. The white horse is a symbol. The millennium is a symbol.

They are symbols of spiritual realities, and when these realities are revealed, you'll see that you had a very inglorious and small idea of them.

 

Jesus will be coming back literal and real, and the locust represent something causing pain to sinners....

 

In reference to my grandfather??? Reductio ad absurdum, absolutely.

I see. Then you don't know the difference between "temple" and "tabernacle."

Um, that is a reference to 1 Peter 2:5, and the dwelling there is "house," not "tabernacle." Those are quite different metaphors--and they are metaphors, as any literalist knows. These are the kind of exegetical difficulties the interpreter gets into when he doesn't interpret with a grammatical-historical method.

 

I have an observation to make before this thread ends. What we have seen over and over again on this and other threads is that those who do not have a premil position of some kind, end up with criticisms that something cannot be humanly possible, therefore the Bible passage must be interpreted allegorically/spiritually rather than literally. A perfect example of this is the assertion that horses can't breathe in a vacuum, therefore Christ will not ride a white horse.

That is a position of a lack of faith. God can do anything. He can make a horse that can breathe vacuum. He can ride on clouds when He comes if He so desires. He can set up a literal kingdom on earth.

When that which is humanly impossible happens, whether by the miracles or Christ, or answers to prayer, or the literal fulfillment of prophecy, God is glorified. That is the whole theme of dispensationalism: God's glory. When Christ comes back with a literal, physical coming (amil, postmil, premil, this point stands if the 2nd Coming is literal), all of the earth will see Him. That will glorify God, who does what He says He will.

Since all of the prophecies of the first advent, which we are about to celebrate as Christmas, were fulfilled literally, that glorified God. The prophecies of the virgin birth, Bethlehem, the flight to Egypt, and others, all were miracles that only God could do, so they glorified God.

A physical kingdom of 1000 years on earth will glorify Christ. It will show that He is worthy, in contrast to every earthly king who has ever existed. It will glorify God because it will prove that only God's Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, can rule perfectly, though all previous kingdoms of earth have failed or will fail. To God be the glory, great things He will do.

 

Interesting how many refuse to see that figures of speech such as symbols see do have behind them many times a real and concrete event happening!

 

Stars falling from the sky, and Moon turning red, and hailstones crashing upon sinners on earth seem to be literal reality, correct?

 

You would see that all being symbolic?

 

How about if you tell me exactly how a "New Exodus" is taught in Scripture? And while you are at it, tell me how it is a "central truth."

How about if you share with me from the Bible where this is taught, and how Jesus Himself is the "New Exodus"? And then please tell me how that is a "central truth."

My position, clearly stated and obvious in Scripture, is that Moses was a type of Christ. How about if you debunk that?

I would suggest that perhaps your system, which willy nilly invents types and then calls them "central truth," is deeply suspect because it is based on human thought, not exegesis.

I just checked, and the following systematic theologies do not mention this so-called "central truth" of a "New Exodus": Chafer, Berkhof, Erickson, Strong.

 

If you had said "Christ our Passover" I would have immediately agreed. But you didn't. You said that Christ is the "New Exodus," something I still don't find in Scripture. But I'll take a look at your thread.

 

They're statements.

 

Whoever somehow convinced you preterism is correct, whether here or elsewhere.