"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

[HankD]

Premillennialism fails because it contradicts explicit theological premises in the Epistles, not the least of which is the end of the temple, priesthood and the offerings.

The Spirit is unequivocal. As long as an earthly temple is standing, the testimony is that Christ did not make Atonement. Talk of your antichrist!

Instead of taking that to Revelation, some will make up answers like that the offerings will be memorials. LOL. Yeah, memorials of sin.

No, not memorials of sin. Memorials of His sacrifice at Calvary, similar to the Lord's Table.

HankD

 

[David Kent]

No, not memorials of sin. Memorials of His sacrifice at Calvary, similar to the Lord's Table.

HankD

There bis nothing like the Lord's Table as it is a command from the Lord Himself,

• Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
• 16For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
• 17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
• 18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
• 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
• 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Nowhere does he say build another temple in remembrance of me.

The church is the temple now, do you not understand that? No need for any future temple.

.

 

[HankD]

There bis nothing like the Lord's Table as it is a command from the Lord Himself,

• Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
• 16For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
• 17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
• 18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
• 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
• 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Nowhere does he say build another temple in remembrance of me.

The church is the temple now, do you not understand that? No need for any future temple.

.

Agreed. Just as the church building is not "the church", the millennial structure of the temple will not be "the temple" of God.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
........
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.​

Read what Peter wrote - one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - was he just crazy? And he wasn't just locked up, he was crucified.

This begs the question. You seem to be saying that Peter was crucified for saying what he did about the day and the 1000 years.

Question: Was Peter talking about a literal 1000 years versus a literal one day? Of course he was, otherwise the whole logical progression is suspect. And just because to God, 1000 years is as a day, does not mean that to us the same thing is true. Just because God, existing outside of the space-time continuum which He Himself created, can look at the whole scope of history at once, does not mean that we can do the same.

I know I have dotted out the examples Peter gives, referring to the flood, & the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. The scoffers are ungodly men who will be judged in the lifetime of this generation i.e. within 35-40 years after the Olivet prophecy. Hebrews 3 gives the same warning. But of course, he's quoting poetry so that needs "interpreting." [that's sarcasm] And Hebrews 4 shows the sword of his mouth about to smite. The forty years is nearing its end - AD 70.

I am not interpreting allegorically, I am interpreting according to the context & the allusion to Olivet comparing with Hebrews who quotes the Psalm 95 & Numbers 14.

The sad thing is that you are interpreting allegorically and don't even know it. (This term does not mean that you interpret everything with an allegory, but that you do not interpret literally, but put a "spiritual" meaning above the literal meaning, according to Origen's method.)

You say you interpret Rev. 20 according to the context. Look again. In the context, the term "a thousand years" occurs no less than six times!! So you are ignoring the context completely when you say, "The day, the thousand years, will amount to 35-40 years." There is no basis whatsoever in the context to say that 1000 = 35-40.

Your reference to "various other authors" has no value in this discussion. And with reference to Rev. 20, the 1,000 years has run for 2,000 years. Does that make God slack concerning His promise?

Look again. I didn't say that. I quoted A. T. Robertson, the greatest Koine Greek scholar of the 20th century, as saying that. He was amillennial, rejecting both the postmil and premil positions. (In spite of that, I highly recommend that you find his Word Pictures in the New Testament and consult it often. It is available for free in e-sword and other software packages, being in the public domain.)

Again, Robertson's point: there are many different interpretations of the 1000 years, if you are amil or postmil. Why is that? Because every interpreter who interprets allegorically/spiritually interprets not from the text but from his own opinion. My point: if you interpret literally, there is only one possible meaning to the 1000 years: 1000 years!!

And of course, with reference to Daniel 9, the 70 weeks ran out around AD 33 after Jesus had finished his saving work & the Jewish leaders had rejected the Apostolic Gospel & been declared uncircumcised. Say that to the average person on the street and he'll see it makes sense. (That's literal understanding.)

Tell the average person on the street that there are hundreds of weeks between week 69 & week 70 and he'll call for you to be locked up. (That's hyperbole.)

Again, you miss the point of my tongue-in-cheek comment. The average person on the street interprets everything literally. He would interpret Daniel's weeks as literal weeks, then try to figure out what in the world Daniel meant (not an easy task). He or she does not look for secondary, "spiritual" meanings on the job, at the store, in the doctor's office, from his family, etc. The very idea is ridiculous.

I've dealt with many dozens of new believers in Japan, America, and other countries. Not a single one ever said to me, "But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?" No, they interpret literally until some Internet dingaling tells them otherwise.

Patient--"Doc, tell it to me straight. Do I have cancer?"
Doctor--"Verily, there is an evil scourge within you. I say unto you, thou must repent and receive succor for thy temple, or face judgment upon thy temple."

 

[John of Japan]

The church is the temple now, do you not understand that? No need for any future temple.

The church (and individual believers) as a temple is in the church age. The 1000 years is a different dispensation, so there are different paradigms, the millennial temple being one of them.

 

[robycop3]

I'll begin with my reply to John -









Roby, perhaps you can tell us what hermeneutical system you have used to give your interpretation of 2 Peter 3 in one short paragraph.

Easy! Scripture says the new heavens/earth will come after the millenuim. I didn't use any hermeneutical system, but merely read Scripture & put 2 and 2 together.

 

[robycop3]

See what I mean?

Yerp! There has to be a temple for the AOD to be committed in, and it was not committed in the two previous ones.

 

[robycop3]

Wow, has this thread strayed from the OP.

You know why - the preterists simply CANNOT provide any EVIDENCE to support their doctrine; therefore they toss out red herrings, hoping the readership will forget that FACT!


OK, then, let's get back on it!

Preterists, can you provide ANY proof that the eschatological events your doctrine SAYS have happened, have REALLY already happened???????????????????????

If not, can you give us any AUTHORITY for your belief?????????????????????????????

 

[Covenanter]

Wow, has this thread strayed from the OP.

You know why - the preterists simply CANNOT provide any EVIDENCE to support their doctrine; therefore they toss out red herrings, hoping the readership will forget that FACT!


OK, then, let's get back on it!

Preterists, can you provide ANY proof that the eschatological events your doctrine SAYS have happened, have REALLY already happened???????????????????????

If not, can you give us any AUTHORITY for your belief?????????????????????????????

Roby the thread title is :
"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

You are obsessed with preterism so you force every thread to stray from its intention. If we all decided to ignore you, we could have more meaningful, on-topic discussions.

 

[John of Japan]

You know why - the preterists simply CANNOT provide any EVIDENCE to support their doctrine; therefore they toss out red herrings, hoping the readership will forget that FACT!

You nailed it.

OK, then, let's get back on it!

Preterists, can you provide ANY proof that the eschatological events your doctrine SAYS have happened, have REALLY already happened???????????????????????

If not, can you give us any AUTHORITY for your belief?????????????????????????????

Ho, hum. I think I'll take an Internet nap while we wait for that answer, which never comes no matter how many times we ask it.

 

[Covenanter]

This begs the question. You seem to be saying that Peter was crucified for saying what he did about the day and the 1000 years.

No - you threatened me with being locked up. Your understanding according to context is limited.

Question: Was Peter talking about a literal 1000 years versus a literal one day? Of course he was, otherwise the whole logical progression is suspect. And just because to God, 1000 years is as a day, does not mean that to us the same thing is true. Just because God, existing outside of the space-time continuum which He Himself created, can look at the whole scope of history at once, does not mean that we can do the same.

The sad thing is that you are interpreting allegorically and don't even know it. (This term does not mean that you interpret everything with an allegory, but that you do not interpret literally, but put a "spiritual" meaning above the literal meaning, according to Origen's method.)

Again you've missed the point of what Peter is writing - the scoffers - who were dismissing Jesus as a false prophet because his Olivet prophecy hadn't happened, & already their fathers were dying. The time period in question was to be a generation - 35-40 years, as explained also by Hebrews. That was a real prophecy of the Lord coming in judgment - exactly as it would happen in the decade Peter was writing. Not to do with Rev. 20 & that thousand years. Though the same principle applies once the destruction has happened & we await the Lord's final coming.

I am not interpreting allegorically, I am interpreting according to the context & the allusion to Olivet comparing with Hebrews who quotes the Psalm 95 & Numbers 14.

Your reference to "various other authors" has no value in this discussion. And with reference to Rev. 20, the 1,000 years has run for 2,000 years. Does that make God slack concerning His promise?

And of course, with reference to Daniel 9, the 70 weeks ran out around AD 33 after Jesus had finished his saving work & the Jewish leaders had rejected the Apostolic Gospel & been declared uncircumcised. Say that to the average person on the street and he'll see it makes sense. (That's literal understanding.)

Tell the average person on the street that there are hundreds of weeks between week 69 & week 70 and he'll call for you to be locked up. (That's hyperbole.)

You say you interpret Rev. 20 according to the context. Look again. In the context, the term "a thousand years" occurs no less than six times!! So you are ignoring the context completely when you say, "The day, the thousand years, will amount to 35-40 years." There is no basis whatsoever in the context to say that 1000 = 35-40.
Look again. I didn't say that. I quoted A. T. Robertson, the greatest Koine Greek scholar of the 20th century, as saying that. He was amillennial, rejecting both the postmil and premil positions. (In spite of that, I highly recommend that you find his Word Pictures in the New Testament and consult it often. It is available for free in e-sword and other software packages, being in the public domain.)

Again, Robertson's point: there are many different interpretations of the 1000 years, if you are amil or postmil. Why is that? Because every interpreter who interprets allegorically/spiritually interprets not from the text but from his own opinion. My point: if you interpret literally, there is only one possible meaning to the 1000 years: 1000 years!!

Again, you miss the point of my tongue-in-cheek comment. The average person on the street interprets everything literally. He would interpret Daniel's weeks as literal weeks, then try to figure out what in the world Daniel meant (not an easy task). He or she does not look for secondary, "spiritual" meanings on the job, at the store, in the doctor's office, from his family, etc. The very idea is ridiculous.

I've dealt with many dozens of new believers in Japan, America, and other countries. Not a single one ever said to me, "But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?" No, they interpret literally until some Internet dingaling tells them otherwise.

Patient--"Doc, tell it to me straight. Do I have cancer?"
Doctor--"Verily, there is an evil scourge within you. I say unto you, thou must repent and receive succor for thy temple, or face judgment upon thy temple."

There's no need to be insulting. I think you mean someone who has sought to understand Old Testament prophecy in the light of the fulfilment in the teaching of Jesus & his Apostles.

 

[robycop3]

Roby the thread title is :
"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

You are obsessed with preterism so you force every thread to stray from its intention. If we all decided to ignore you, we could have more meaningful, on-topic discussions.

"Allegorical" & "spiritual" hermeneutics are two tools used by preterists to attempt to lend some credence to their doctrine, so any discussion of these hermeneutics must necessarily involve preterism.

And "ignore" is a COWARD'S tool, used by those who can't answer questions in a given forum or thread.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1500 Pacific\2300 GMT.

 

[John of Japan]

No - you threatened me with being locked up. Your understanding according to context is limited.

I threatened you? Really? Are you that void of understanding of hyperbole?

Now will you please actually interact with what I have written?

Again, here is just one question out of my points you have not answered: Was Peter talking about a literal 1000 years versus a literal one day? Or something else?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Was Peter talking about a literal 1000 years versus a literal one day? Or something else?

I know you weren't asking me, but I think we're looking at a figure of speech called an antithesis: the use of an opposite to highlight a point. He's contrasting a very long time with a very short time to make the point that God is not bound by time. He could have said, "A year to God is like a second;" he certainly did not intend to be taken literally IMO.

 

[Rhetorician]

Wow, has this thread strayed from the OP.

John,

Email me or PM me and let us talk about help I might be on the John R. bio, when possible please.

rd

 

[agedman]

This thread has been an encouragement to me.

More then once I reflected, “oh, yes, that’s right, I remember that now,” as a Scripture was quoted and proper evidences shown.

 

[John of Japan]

I know you weren't asking me, but I think we're looking at a figure of speech called an antithesis: the use of an opposite to highlight a point. He's contrasting a very long time with a very short time to make the point that God is not bound by time. He could have said, "A year to God is like a second;" he certainly did not intend to be taken literally IMO.

Excellent. Your mother taught you well.

Granted, Peter was making the point that God is not bound by time, and using antithesis to do that. But antithesis must be based on things that actually exist. So I disagree that Peter did not intend to be taken literally. The antithesis he gave could not exist if there were not a real, literal thing as 1000 years, and a real, literal thing called a day. Otherwise, the antithesis has no meaning.

If I were to say, "A ganglof is as a fiple to God," then that would be meaningless because those two items do not exist. I made them up.

 

[prophecy70]

Wow, has this thread strayed from the OP.

Seriously John, I know, Its mostly my fault for derailing it, by responding to Robycop3.
I apologize.

 

[John of Japan]

Seriously John, I know, Its mostly my fault for derailing it, by responding to Robycop3.
I apologize.

Not a problem. We have had a lot of good discussion on this thread.

I am a thread orphan.

I weep for you metaphorically with , but not literally.