Plain Sense Syllogisms from Acts 2

I'm not convinced that "he shall bruise your head" refers to death. I'm aware that Romans 16:20 uses similar language, but I think this may refer to binding Satan, not destroying him. And, I do believe that Satan is already restrained (see Matthew 12:29, Luke 10:17-18, John 12:31-32). Other passages reveal that Satan still has influence, but I don't think either set of passages cancels out the other. Satan has been cast out, defeated and bound, but he's still scheming.

Now, I realize you probably don't think Satan is bound, but that's why this isn't that good of an example to demonstrate split fulfillment of prophecy. One basically has to assume the futurist timetable in order to see the need to divide the prophecy over a huge time period. As such, it's only convincing to those already convinced.

Because the last half of that verse wasn't fulfilled that day, but rather a few decades later.

Not really. The original prophecy has two times: "the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God". I don't see it as a problem that some prophecies refer to a time period greater than a literal day.

The objection is in taking a prophecy about a certain time period or a certain army and then splitting it between that army and another, or that time period and one far distant. In this case, the entire Isaiah 61:2 prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus and witnessed by the same generation. No multi-millennia gap. No partial fulfillment by one person followed by a partial fulfillment by another person.

But the whole prophecy doesn't get fulfilled in the spiritual realm. The prophecy reveals both the physical and the spiritual, and this way the people can know when they see the physical fulfillment that the events also have spiritual import.

That's more than I claimed. I was only pointing out the danger in expecting prophecy to be fulfilled on our terms.

 

Mercury.

(My) quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you suppose that Jesus left off the rest of Isa. 61:2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(your reply) Because the last half of that verse wasn't fulfilled that day, but rather a few decades later.

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

So what's the difference if it's a few decades later or a few thousand years later? It's still a prophecy with a dual time table for fulfillment.

You complained:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objection is in taking a prophecy about a certain time period or a certain army and then splitting it between that army and another, or that time period and one far distant. In this case, the entire Isaiah 61:2 prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus and witnessed by the same generation. No multi-millennia gap. No partial fulfillment by one person followed by a partial fulfillment by another person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But God has used allegories before as Paul explains in Gal. 4:22-24. The reason that we look to a future fulfillment is because some of the prophecy in Isa. 13 was not fulfilled when the Medes invaded Babylon in 539 BC. So then we can conclude that either Isaih was a false prophet as defined in Deut. 18, or we can look for a future fulfillment of all of the prophesies in Isa. 13. such as verses 9,11,15-20.

And BTW, Scripture says that when Satan is bound that he will "deceive the nation no more". That is not fulfilled in this day I can assure you. Just look at the number of false cults that have arisen, just as Jesus said they would in Mt. 24 as a sign of the end times. (Mormons, Muslins, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. not to mention Catholicism, his greatest deception of all that he started the earliest)

 

My post that you were responding to already answered that question (prophecies do not need to be constrained to a single day in order to say they have a single fulfillment), but there's one thing I should add. This isn't really a case where the fulfillment stretches over a few decades, even though I'd have no problem if that were the case. Isaiah 61:2 is about proclaiming the year of the Lord's favour and the day of vengeance of our God. Jesus did indeed proclaim both these things during his earthly ministry (see Matthew 23-24 for the latter). What Jesus proclaimed did indeed come to pass on the generation he spoke to.

So, to build a case for split fulfillment, this particular example isn't all that strong.

Exactly. And speaking of the luminaries falling or being darkened may be an allegory for the spiritual significance of an event.

Or, we allow prophecies to speak on their own terms instead of our terms, and we realize that, as you said a sentence earlier, "God has used allegories before", and also other non-literal language, and literal language that can be misinterpreted such as the word "world". There's no reason to exclude these things now in a desire to make a prophecy false or unfulfilled. I think your comment above leads nicely back to the opening post that started this thread. We've come full circle!

 

Grasshopper, I believe we have reached the point of diminishing returns. It's a matter of interpretation and when it comes to prophecy "it's a jungle out there".

The slippery slope: Many would say that you have slid down this slope yourself with the preterist view. I won't say that.

I don't "deny" but allow folks their view when it comes to prophecy. I'm willing to listen (but not for too long).

My interpretation of Acts 2/Joel 2 are posted.

When it's all said and done we will have perfect understanding, and it won't matter then anyway.

I won't belittle you or call you names (except maybe "brother").


HankD

 

Brother JackRUS - No, that is not my point, and it isn't a riddle. The point is that "literal" fulfillment
may be literal in the physical realm OR literal in the spiritual realm. "Spiritualizing" a word of prophecy is not taking away the literal truth of that prophecy, or Jesus could not have used that expression in Mt. 4, nor could He be properly called "the Light of the world." For God is [by His very nature] Spirit, yet quite literal though not physical. The physical, or
"temporal" realm is limited by time and space; the spiritual realm is far more "literal" because it is not so limited. Again, I commend Paul Lee Tan's "The Interpretation of Prophecy" (BMH Books) to answer most of the above questions.

Sorry to be so long in response; I realize no one may pick up on a reply this late, but we've been gone. Best to all - Charles - Ro. 8:28