"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

[Covenanter]

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 you just said. "The day, the thousand years, will amount to 35-40 years." That's just crazy. Say that to the average person on the street and he'll call for you to be locked up. (That's hyperbole.)

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.

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.

Your problem with that is that various other authors will interpret the 1000 years quite differently from you with allegorical interpretation. For example, Amil A. T. Robertson says in his Word Pictures of the Greek NT about Rev. 20:2, "Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one." But if you interpret literally it is quite plain: 1000 years is 1000 years!

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.)

 

[Rhetorician]

David Kent is British. He has something the Brits use as a sense of humor, which we Americans are incapable of fully understanding or even recognizing it is there.

What most of us do is give him the benefit of our colonial doubt and assume he was being what the Brits think is funny. (Think Rowan Atkinson, Benny Hill, and the Monty Python bunch.)

Thanks for the insight.

rd

 

[robycop3]

Bro. Did you mean Mars, or the rogue planet.

Rouge means red. Glad he's figured out a color.

Shows how clueless a certain poster is I HEVE NEVER said the "rogue planet" theory is set in stone. I said it's a POSSIBILITY, and THAT cannot be disproven until/unless the events occur by another source.

 

[robycop3]

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.

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.

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 still have one big prob, Captain - THOSE EVENTS HAVEN'T YET OCCURRED!

 

[Iconoclast]

robycop3

And Daniel, Paul, & Jesus(in the Revelation) have prophesied about a coming world ruler who will be the most-evil man who will ever live, and who will commit the "abomination of desolation".

I do not think...it is"committed."....
\
.I think the abomination is that the temple is no longer the holy place...it is left desolate..in the first century........those in judea who observed the seventh day Sabbath were to flee out

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

 

[David Kent]

Dear Brother,

I have not been frequenting the BB much later. So I know not how to take your comment. Push back? Slur? Sarcasm? LOL? or what?

I do not think JoJ is my "boss." And I am sure that he does not think he is my "boss."But he is an old friend in whom I have the utmost confidence! I only ask his opinion because he is one whom I know will "cut it straight." And he is one of the few here that I would trust to ask to help me come to a census on a particular reading of an obscure text or other issue I might have. I was going to say something cutty and snarky here but it seems the Holy Spirit has caught me and withholds my comments. So have a very, very blest rest of the day.

rd

David Kent is British. He has something the Brits use as a sense of humor, which we Americans are incapable of fully understanding or even recognizing it is there.

What most of us do is give him the benefit of our colonial doubt and assume he was being what the Brits think is funny. (Think Rowan Atkinson, Benny Hill, and the Monty Python bunch.)

I apologise brother,

Yes TC, thanks. I would have thought it amusing if someone had said that about one of my posts in a similar vein ,
I don't watch Atkinson as my wife cannot stand him and Benny hill, not much of him most of which were in while on holiday in France on their TV, I suppose they like it because the humour is mostly visual.
Not watched much Python. Th funniest thing I aw about them was an English journalist being interviewed on French TV. She was asked what the thought of montipiton? She looked blank until someone whispered in her ear, and she said "Oh Monty Python."

 

[John of Japan]

"Behold, the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

"Lamb of God is a metaphor. You missed my point entirely.

 

[John of Japan]

It teaches another gospel, that if you are left behind you have another chance.

That's not another Gospel if you know 1 Cor. 15:1-8.

 

[John of Japan]

My mother was an English and elocution teacher. I had anacolutha, litotes, onomatopoeia and whatnot pushed down my throat at an early age.

That's heavy, as we American kids used to say in the '60's.

 

[John of Japan]

More accurately, God wants us to grow. The Spirit states explicitly there are many things hard to be uttered because of the immaturity of the believer. (And, interestingly enough that was stated about Paul's desire to elaborate on the allegorical significance of Melchizedek.)

Maturity isn't elitism. I can handle a 50 pound bag of dogfood much more easily than an 8-year-old can handle one. But a 50 pound bag of dogfood isn't on the shelf with the 8-year-old in mind, and many things in the Scriptures are not tailored for the immature, nor directed to the unbeliever. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." In that sense I would agree that God wants us to "easily understand," but God doesn't want to speak in three-word sentences.

I would agree maturity is not prerequisite to translation, but it is for understanding.

This really doesn't answer anything I said about God communicating with us. That God wants us to be mature is a no-brainer. But that occurs through understanding the Scriptures.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Speaking of publishers, do you have one yet?

By the by your post said Southeastern, did you mean Southwestern?

Advise when possible.

rd

My pastor is recommending the publisher connected with West Coast Baptist College, a real up and coming in fundamentalism. I'm open to other outfits though.

And right, the JRR Papers are at Southwestern.

 

[John of Japan]

To all who might have an interest:

Grammatical has to do with the words of the Bible we have in hand that have had been written. If we had them, the originals, it would have to do with the "autographa," or what Paul or Peter et al actually handled and sent to the churches. We would look at them in the "common sense" method or genre reading that has always made sense. "When the plain sense makes good sense you do not look for any other sense." You look at history as history, you consider poetry as poetry, chronicles as when someone wants to make a record of events, etc. Where the problem or rub may come in is when you have a "specialized genre" like a Gospel or Acts. They are somewhat hybrid genres that must have their own hermenuetical or interpretational issues. Now this is way yonder simplified and in no way intended to patronize or talk down to anyone. One simply deals with what the words mean as the words are written.

Historical has to do with the cultural milieu, historical setting, cultural practices of the people who were the receptors and / or senders of the message. Basically, what we are doing as Bible interpreters is "eaves-dropping" on the text. This is called "authorial intent," what the original author intended for the original hearers to hear and understand. Where the rub for us comes is how to interpret it for out time and make application to our setting. We are trying to overhear what the original writer was saying and meaning to the original hearers in their own time, language, and historical setting. Sometimes that is easy to do. Sometimes not so much. As with the Gospel of John it was written that "ye might believe." But for the Song of Solomon then you must do much historical study to know how it has been interpreted and then the "Why" which is much, much harder. We want to treat it as Christ and the Church. But we dare not dismiss out of hand the plethora of Jewish interpretations. Remember it is a Jewish writing with which we are dealing. And when we dismiss a Jewish understanding of the Scripture we may miss a major understanding for our own Christian context. So, we need to be slow to interpret and let these principles be used and developed over a lifetime to get at some of the deeper things in the Bible.

John of Japan, have I cut it straight?

Correction needed John and appreciated. I if I am a "historian" as you have called me then I appreciate the confidence. I am not a linguist, you are. Come behind me and correct me if you will kind sir.

John, did you see my two posts in Baptist History sections where I posted two rhetorical readings of two great preachers you might want to read? Advise when possible.

FTR (For the Record), I am really trained in Classical Rhetoric, Aristotelian Rhetoric, and Communication Theory and the History of Christian Thought.

rd

This is an excellent approach to grammatical historical interpretation, especially about the Bible being Jewish. I hope everyone on the thread pays attention to it.

Rhet, I'll get back to this Monday. I'm at MacDonald's with the wife, and just took a look in on the thread and in the Baptist History forum.

 

[Rhetorician]

JoJ,

Thanks for the further endorsement. We must form a mutual admiration society. LOL!!! I will defer to you as the first president.

rd

 

[Covenanter]

You still have one big prob, Captain - THOSE EVENTS HAVEN'T YET OCCURRED!

So the scoffers Peter referred to were vindicated IYO - Jesus didn't keep his promise of his coming. The scoffers died still denying his coming.

All your posts are negative. Give your understanding of 2 Peter 3.

 

[robycop3]

robycop3


I do not think...it is"committed."....
\
.I think the abomination is that the temple is no longer the holy place...it is left desolate..in the first century........those in judea who observed the seventh day Sabbath were to flee out

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Sorry, Sir, but SCRIPTURE & HISTORY prove otherwise about the AOD - Daniel 9:27.
.27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

The "he" in V 27 is the coming prince of V 26.

Referring to this, Jesus said, in Matt. 24:15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

Yes, Jesus said, "Let the reader understand", as He knew His words would be recorded. So, we understand the AOD will be the "man of sin" setting up his statue in the temple, and proclaiming himself to be God, & demanding to be worshipped. Such an event has simply not happened since Jesus was here.



And the Jews had plenty of time, some eight months, to flee Jerusalem between the Roman sieges of Vespasian, then, Titus. So, the need for quick flight is still a coming event

 

[robycop3]

So the scoffers Peter referred to were vindicated IYO - Jesus didn't keep his promise of his coming. The scoffers died still denying his coming.

All your posts are negative. Give your understanding of 2 Peter 3.

No, Jesus has NOT yet returned, which is an obvious a fact as there is!

As for 2 Peter 3, those scoffers are here now, denying that Jesus will return. And they'll continue to come til Jesus does return. As for the "day of the Lord " Peter mentione, it'll be after Jesus has returned & the millenium is over.

 

[prophecy70]

And the Jews had plenty of time, some eight months, to flee Jerusalem between the Roman sieges of Vespasian, then, Titus. So, the need for quick flight is still a coming event

Must of not been quick enough, 1.1 million Jews died. I think you need to rethink a little.

 

[prophecy70]

The "he" in V 27 is the coming prince of V 26.

The prince was never the subject, how can the He be the prince?

 

[prophecy70]

No, Jesus has NOT yet returned, which is an obvious a fact as there is!

As for 2 Peter 3, those scoffers are here now, denying that Jesus will return. And they'll continue to come til Jesus does return. As for the "day of the Lord " Peter mentione, it'll be after Jesus has returned & the millenium is over.

Now is that after the rogue planet comes to earth to cause plagues?

On his white horse, or when he touches down on the mount of olives?

 

[prophecy70]

Bro. Did you mean Mars, or the rogue planet.

My fault, I type to quick sometimes. Maybe the rouge planet will be the rogue planet.