RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
"A text out of context is a pretext for a subtext." Oops. Well, it wasn't original with me.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics
- Thread starter asterisktom
- Start date
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
An inescapable fact to keep in mind.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Classically partial truth.
Sometimes they failed to understand precisely because they did not take him literally:
Mar 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
Mar 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
Rising from the dead meant exactly that: literally rising from the dead.
The Sadducees were wrong on a couple of Bible doctrines, like the resurrection and angels, precisely because they metaphorized them.
When the Bible is to be taken spiritually, as opposed to literally, it'll tell you.
Otherwise, you get the Greek mindset of Plato expounding the text. See Origen and the Roman Catholic church for exhibits.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
It is not as if their upbringing fully prepared them. In fact, their preconceived ideas of what and who Messiah would be kept them from understanding. This is something we all must deal with, just as *T has already mentioned.
I agree with much of what you wrote. Until that sentence. This is just not the case. If Jesus did not always give His disciples a heads up when He was speaking figuratively - and He didn't - then that should be a clue for us as well.
A better way to discern the literal from the figurative is a thorough grounding in the entire Bible. Example: If the stars already "fell" figuratively in the the OT then that should teach us about their falling being figurative in Revelation.
We should then be better able to discern Apocalyptic genre in Revelation and in the Olivet Discourse.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The problem is, Jesus, blinded the Pharisees from understanding scripture by giving them this rule. If you want to know the meaning of a passage, ask how the NT understands it.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Stars fell (exclusively?) figuratively in the O.T.?
Actually it would be to take the intended and literal meaning of the words!
What? Are you arguing that they did not fall figuratively?
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
What passage do you have in mind?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
the Reformed/Calvinist are gulity of this, with their perversions of Scriptures like John 3:16, where they corrupt the Teaching of Jesus Christ, to their own theological nonsense!
For starters Isaiah 34, a chapter describing the fall of the ancient kingdom of Edom.
"…3Their slain will be left unburied, and the stench of their corpses will rise; the mountains will flow with their blood. 4All the stars of heaven will be dissolved. The skies will be rolled up like a scroll, and all their stars will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like foliage from the fig tree. 5When My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens, then it will come down upon Edom, upon the people I have devoted to destruction.…"
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Ok, thanks, at least now I know what you're referring to. So:
Isa 34:3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
Isa 34:5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.
1) The passage is broader in application than only Idumea sith v.2 says:
the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies
Not even historically did that occur.
2) The passage is yet future because:
a) Even though v.2's verbs are in the past tense: hath...destroyed; hath delivered; the rest of the verbs are future: shall be cast out (v.3), shall come up (v.3), shall be melted (v.3), shall be dissolved (v.4), shall be rolled together (v.4), shall fall down (v.4); etc.
And of course, as Bible readers, we know well that a partial historical application is only that, a partial application, sith the word of God is sharper than any twoedged sword (Heb.4:12) and the future application is often the fuller one of the two applications, historical and future. Those things mentioned in Isaiah 34 are only thought of as figurative because they clearly did not occur literally in the past. So the preterist is forced, by the very nature of his theological outlook, to spiritualize such passages to explain them. See #1 in my signature.
b) The revelation of Jesus Christ given to John places Isaiah 34 in the future:
Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Indeed, Revelation 6 is introduced under the section of Revelation which our Lord Jesus Christ himself calls the things which must be hereafter (Rev.4:1).
Of course, the stars falling and the heaven departing as a scroll is further in line with Isaiah's prophecy and Peter's quote placing the destruction of the heavens out in the future, on the day of the Lord, as preceding the news heavens and earth:
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
So yes, I am arguing that they did not fall figuratively. They will fall literally.
Now if you wish to argue that stars cannot possibly literally fall to the earth, we can do that, but for now, my argument is that, as far as the scriptures, Isaiah 34 is future and literal.
Last edited:
Thank you for the answer.
1. You offer as proof of a global scope the phrases "all nations" and "all armies".
2. You make a point about the different "tenses" in the Hebrew, implying that verses 3 and 4 are still in the future - our future.
But the problem is that your two proofs conflict. And I noticed that the exact phrase that shows this conflict was not quoted.
"2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies; He hath utterly destroyed them; He hath delivered them to the slaughter."
He hath utterly destroyed them.
Do you see the problem? You argue that "all nations" and "all their armies" are still future in verse 3. Yet you already have them killed off in verse 2. You yourself called the time of death - in the past.
There is more that needs to be said but I wanted this to be dealt with first.
It is your futurist bent that assumes "all nations" must refer to "ALL nations". There is no indication here, or in the entire book of Isaiah, that the scope of this judgment was worldwide (USA, Tanzania, etc.) It is your futurist mindset that forces you to cast this as a global prophecy.
By taking the course you did, George, you are either proving too much or too little.
1. You offer as proof of a global scope the phrases "all nations" and "all armies".
2. You make a point about the different "tenses" in the Hebrew, implying that verses 3 and 4 are still in the future - our future.
But the problem is that your two proofs conflict. And I noticed that the exact phrase that shows this conflict was not quoted.
"2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies; He hath utterly destroyed them; He hath delivered them to the slaughter."
He hath utterly destroyed them.
Do you see the problem? You argue that "all nations" and "all their armies" are still future in verse 3. Yet you already have them killed off in verse 2. You yourself called the time of death - in the past.
There is more that needs to be said but I wanted this to be dealt with first.
Last edited:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
You're welcome.
"all" is a word describing quantity, not chronology.
You could say that my futurist bent (ironic criticism given that the Bible is a book of prophecy and that in Isaiah God literally challenges other gods and nations to prophesy the future like he does in Isaiah) is the reason I see a future application, but to connect "all" with "future"...well I don't the sense at all. And if you counter that "all" points to the future, well, that's a confession that the futurist application is valid (you know, Armageddon).
But I mentioned that:
As for:
I addressed that when I said:
That twoedged sword, that double application, is so often what "gets" the preterist. It's designed to do that.
"all" is a word describing quantity, not chronology.
You could say that my futurist bent (ironic criticism given that the Bible is a book of prophecy and that in Isaiah God literally challenges other gods and nations to prophesy the future like he does in Isaiah) is the reason I see a future application, but to connect "all" with "future"...well I don't the sense at all. And if you counter that "all" points to the future, well, that's a confession that the futurist application is valid (you know, Armageddon).
But I mentioned that:
As for:
I addressed that when I said:
That twoedged sword, that double application, is so often what "gets" the preterist. It's designed to do that.
Disappointing response. Well, I tried. You totally missed the points concerning "all" and tenses, how you are skewing the text to safeguard your pretext.
And it seems you have no idea what Preterists believe. Most do acknowledge double application. But what you are defending is doublethink. You cannot just wave a wand over inconvenient passages and blink it away as double application. You are bending logic and Scripture to hold on to your system.
If we use such extreme hermeneutical desperation to sacred Scripture we can make it say anything and everything. Which is to say nothing.
Like I told Robycop I know the futurist mindset fairly well. I had been in it for over twenty years. I taught it. I preached it. You, on the other hand, judging by your comments, know very little about Preterism.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Isaiah 34 isn't even partially applicable historically, since, clearly, the stars did not fall nor did the heaven depart circa 750 B.C.
There is nothing to discuss here.
See #1 in signature.
I assume you are fairly young. I can hope that at some time in the future you will understand better a proper perspective on the sacred Scriptures.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
You did not assume. You looked at the picture.
May God save me from ever confounding "unbelieving" (however politely disguised as a metaphoric interpretation) with "better".
There is such a thing as figurative interpretation, and even such a thing as allegory in the Bible (Galatians 4:24).
However, the Bible is not a wax nose to be punched into any shape one wishes.
One cannot legitimately declare that Scripture means the opposite of what it says.
One cannot pretend that 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' really means, 'My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me.'
Nor can one pretend that 'This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same manner as you saw Him go into heaven' really means, 'He will return in an entirely different manner than you saw Him go into heaven.'
However, the Bible is not a wax nose to be punched into any shape one wishes.
One cannot legitimately declare that Scripture means the opposite of what it says.
One cannot pretend that 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' really means, 'My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me.'
Nor can one pretend that 'This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same manner as you saw Him go into heaven' really means, 'He will return in an entirely different manner than you saw Him go into heaven.'