Amos 9:15

I disagree brother grasshopper. My view is that Matthew 24 although includes the destruction of the temple by Titus, focuses in on the literal/physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ to a re-established Nation and a re-built Temple of Israel rather than a detailed focus of the destruction of the temple by Titus.

Over 40 years ago when I became aware of the prophetic nature of the Scriptures, I found that none of the major views concerning the Second Coming were without problem(s).

So, I, as you, have made resolution in the theater of the heart and mind concerning these matters.

Personally, I agree with Pastor Larry that Israel is still on the agenda list of God to deal with as His "chosen people" as a literal nation at a future time and that the Church and the nation of Israel are two distinct entities on that agenda list.

As Israel was re-established in 1947, I believe the Temple will be rebuilt (probably within the next ten years or sooner).

However, I am certainly not a dyed-in-the-wool dispensationalist and I don't claim any more or less spirituality because of my views as being over and above yours.

I admire your meekness with the brethren.

I respect and am interested in all views (but also choose to disagree when appropriate) with my non-contentious brethren concerning the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

I needed to say that

Peace.

HankD

 

But here is the problem, when does Jesus shift focus from the destruction in AD70 to the future events? Especially when you combine Luke 17 with the Luke 21, Matt 24 and Mark 13. Read Mathew Henry's commentary on Matt. 24 sometime. He does a pretty good job.

Agree totally.

 

What meaning does “near” and “at hand” mean to a dispie? What does “near” mean in Luke 21:8?

8And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

What did Peter mean when he said this:

7But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

Jesus said false prophets would say the time is near, yet Peter says the end is at hand. Is Peter a false prophet? Does Walvoord say “near” does not mean “at hand”?

But why does he use a verse dealing with the rebuilding a physical Temple? You seem to be saying the Prophets agree that Gentiles would be included in the Church and Peter uses a prophetic passage about a re-built physical Temple centuries into the future to prove it. It makes no sense.

Mathew Henry, John Gill, the Reformers, James Burton Coffman all see it describing the Church Age.

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old…
This is alleged to mean that God will reproduce in the history of Israel another period reflecting the same kind of pride and glory that characterized the old Davidic and Solomonic empire; but this is definitely not the thing to be rebuilt. The tabernacle stands for the time when God's communion with his people had been established upon an intimate and continual communication, in short, for their fellowship with God. It was that fellowship which had been destroyed by the sins and wickedness of the people; and it was preeminently the broken fellowship with God, which would be restored in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which, alone, is foretold in this promise to rebuild, as in the days of old. It was the great error of Israel, during our Lord's ministry, that led them to identify the blessed Messiah himself as one who would recreate their old Solomonic empire, which, in reality, was the scandal of forty generations, and the very last thing on earth that God would have promised to rebuild. Christian interpreters today ought not to fall into the same error that was fatal to Israel.

Here is a good explanation of Acts 15: J. W. McGarvey's Original Commentary on Acts

http://www.studylight.org/com/oca/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=015

So God has given the dispies the authority to decide which verses are literal and which are figurative.

I don't want to get into a discussion of dueling commentaries. Besides, I think I would win that contest.

Why? Peter says this is that , you say no it is not. Once again why is Peter quoting this at pentecost if Joel has nothing to do with pentecost?

Not according to Peter. He said it was that.

Where does Peter say in the text it is much like Joel?

I thought you said figurative can be literal. Why did Peter use the "moon to blood" language here? Since Acts records the events (outpouring of Spirit, visions, dreams, prophesying, etc.) then you must have a gap of 2000 years in this verse just as you do in Daniel. Correct?

Once again you ignore OT usage of that language. Is Is.13:10 figurative or not? Yes or no will do.

What is troubling is you(Walvoord) seem to be the authority on what is figurative and what is not. Amazingly most of the great theologians pre-Scofield must have just been dopes.

Can you show me the verse that speaks of a conditional Kingdom in Dt.?
So the Kingdom of Daniel 2 was conditional? If it was conditional the first time why can't it be conditional the 2nd time?

By the way, by your own view you would agree those living in the land of modern Israel are not entitled to it according to Duet.?

I guess I could say the same to you. You treat scripture like an old rag, if it doesn't match with Scofield it is wrong. But since I am a recovering dispie I won't say that.

What does "in a meaningful sense" mean? Are you acknowledging He did come back on the clouds but it wasn't meaningful?

Here is what John Gill says:
and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven,
The Arabic version reads it, "ye shall see", as is expressed by Christ, in Matthew 26:64 . Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them: and when they felt the power of his arm, might, if not blind and stupid to the last degree, see the glory of his person, that he was more than a mere man, and no other than the Son of God, whom they had despised, rejected, and crucified; and who came to set up his kingdom and glory in a more visible and peculiar manner, among the Gentiles.

I guess you believe Gill did not hold scripture in high esteem, unlike say....Jack Van Impe.

The reason you don't get it is because it isn't true. I do in fact believe Christ's parousia was a promise from God. Doesn't it bother you that you deny He did what He said He would do and when He said He would do it?

Matt 16:27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


You say I don’t take scripture in high regard, then you must feel the same way of the Reformers, Mathew Henry, John Gill and probably most of our Baptist brethern pre-1900. I guess Truth finally arrived with the birth of Scofield, Walvoord, and D. Pentecost. How did the Disciples ever make it without them?

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing, that one just got a laugh.

 

I believe that Amos 9:15 speaks of the future that to date has not been realized. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman wrote on pages 81 - 82 of their introduction in their commentary on the Hebrew text of Amos,

It is my personal opinion that Andersen and Freedman did an excellent job of stating the situation that we have here in Amos and I heartily recommend their 979 page commentary on the Hebrew text of Amos which includes their own translation of the text.

 

Larry, you are the best tap dancer in the world. There's no rational way to read James as saying anything other than that Amos prophesied the events related by Peter. If you want to be a Premillennialist that bad, then you deserve to be one.

 

Yes this distinction is problematic in Matthew 24. IMO, Jesus was being elusive as was His manner often times when speaking with the Apostles and disciples.

Trying to blend the Synoptics leads to even more difficulties no matter what view one holds.
We can't even be absolutely sure these major passages you mention were parts of the same dissertation with internal evidence that they were not.

Why? Perhaps so that we can't figure out the day or the hour?

Another observation is that a study of prophecy forces an intense searching of the Scriptures and that can't hurt anyone.

Perhaps after the smoke clears we will all be asking "why couldn't we see the whole picture?".

Revelation 22:20.

HankD

 

What I cannot seem to understand is how amils and preterists are willing to acknowledge that the truth of justification by faith was buried in Roman Catholicism for a millennium or longer, but cannot seem to recognize that they (amils) have swallowed RCC eschatology (and allegorical interp) hook line and sinker!

If something as central to our faith was almost "lost" for over 1000 years, why is it so difficult to accept that the majority opinion on future events since Origen may have been wrong as well?

The relative antiquity or relative newness of a position is not the determining factor. Scripture is. Yet again, as has been clearly noted on so many threads, in the early church writings...

there is clear evidence of belief in a literal coming of Christ in the air for His saints
there is clear evidence that the early church expected this return to happen at any moment
there is clear evidence that the early church believed in a literal 1000 year reign
there is clear evidence that Origen popularized a hermeneutic that rejected the plain literal (CLGH) sense of the words of Scripture.

How many times does this have to be said for the net effect to sink in? This has been repeated over and over and over ad infinitum ad nauseum.

 

John 6: 4Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near.

So it wasn’t near in time?
When God says something is not near then it means it won’t happen?

So Numbers 24:17 is not a time statement?
17"I see Him, but not now;
I behold Him, but not near;
A Star shall come out of Jacob;
A Scepter shall rise out of Israel,
And batter the brow of Moab,
And destroy all the sons of tumult

So “at hand” and “near” doesn’t mean near in time?

Zeph.1: 7Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.

14The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

It came to pass in 40 years.

How about shortly? Another fuzzy meaning word?

Ez 7: 8Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations.

These poor guy probably read Walvoord:

11: 2Then said he unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city:

3Which say, It is not near; let us build houses: this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh.

No, I think when God said shortly and near He meant it:

12: 22Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth?
23Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the effect of every vision.

What does that make Peter and James?

I Peter 4: 7The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and selfcontrolled so that you can pray.

James5:8Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

Aren’t Peter and James doing just what you said false prophets would do? Ooops, it does make my point.

That is not what dispies taught me. Besides, Matthew says otherwise:

24:32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Lets see, you said near means things to come not time statements correct? What does “even at the door” mean, its really,really going to come?

Once again, there are dispies on this board who say the last days began in 1948. You have rendered the term last days as meaningless.
The OT speaks of the last days, yet we live in the Church Age which dispies say the OT is silent about. So how could the last days be the Church Age?

You didn’t deal with the words of Gill and the others. You just basically said they ere eschatological ignorant.

Why don’t you just get a black marker and cross out the words “this is that” and write in “this is similar to that”. Then you can make your case its biblical. Ignore this if you already have done it.

Did God speak through Peter?
I Peter 1: 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Besides those events did happen. Read Acts.

This is the meat of our disagreement. You nor rjprince really want to deal with this language in the OT. I understand why. Let us see how consistent you are when it comes to preaching context.

1The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

Pretty clear who the judgement is on isn’t it?

17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it

Pretty clear who God will use to carry out His judgement isn’t it?

18Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Pretty clear the weaponry that will be used isn’t it? How is your context coming along on this?

10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

This is how these events are being described. You still insist on literalism? You see, if you ever allow it to be figurative language in the OT, then insist that when the language is used in the NT it is literal it makes one look rather inconsistent.

Lets look at another:

Nahum 1

1The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.

Are we clear on the context? Ninevah.

4He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth.
5The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.

Still insist on literal interpretation?

More? OK

Ez 32: 2Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.

Context clear?

4Then will I leave thee upon the land, I will cast thee forth upon the open field, and will cause all the fowls of the heaven to remain upon thee, and I will fill the beasts of the whole earth with thee.

5And I will lay thy flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with thy height.

7And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

8All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.

Sound familiar? God using heavenly bodies to represent Kingdoms, Kings and peoples.


11For thus saith the Lord GOD; The sword of the king of Babylon shall come upon thee.

31Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.

32For I have caused my terror in the land of the living: and he shall be laid in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that are slain with the sword, even Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord GOD.

Any doubt about the context? All that literal?

God didn’t change His promises.

Dan 2 predicted the coming Kingdom during the days of the Roman Empire. According to you that prophecy never came to pass.

Then Matthew 26:64 was a false statement by Jesus. Remember context.

I don’t blame you for not commenting on Matt 16:27-28.

 

Matthew 16
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Actually This is a problem passage for all schools of prophetic thought which subscribe to a literal fulfilment of the Acts Chapter 1 promise:

Acts 1
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The only apparent but exceedingly unlikely solution is that there are mortal folks from this group (men of Galilee) who have been preserved from death and who will not die until the promise of Acts 1 is fullfilled ("shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven").

On the other hand the solution that says that this promise of His return is not a literal and physical return then nullifies this Scripture (shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven) which BTW, is the JW solution.

Like I said previously, no matter what we do with our interpretation we will have problems as is evident from the massive writings these 2000 years concerning His return.

Personally, I like the one passage (among others) in the context of His return which I can obey without a solution to any of the difficulties:

Matthew 13:34
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

HankD

 

Not one answer.

 

Are you know saying "near" can be a time statement? That is not what you said earlier:

Can they refer to time? Yes or No.

Has nothing to do with "last days" but, if Jesus is the son of man in the OT who is the son of man in the NT?

So the context of Is 13, Ez 32 and Nahum 1 is future events? There is no context of a prior event. (Babylon, Medes, Pharoah, Egypt, and Ninevah) All the language used is literal/physical not figurative?

Which of those I gave are not figures of speech? Lets see if I get an answer Hank.

What is the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2?

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Three simple questions:

1. Why did Jesus say "some" will not taste death till the see this event instead of "most" or "all"? The transfiguration occured 6 days later. Did many die before that event?

2. Did Jesus come into His Kingdom 6 days later? Doesn't say it is a foretaste nor a type, it says His Kingdom. Are you perhaps not leaving your pre-suppositions at the door?

3. Verse 27 is your real problem isn't it? Did Jesus come with angels at the Transfiguration? Did He render Judgement to every man at the Transfiguration?


I'm sure you learned all these answers in your basic Bible class. Probably 1st semester. But please educate a poor moron such as I.

64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you , Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

To whom is Jesus speakingContext)?

57And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

So Jesus wasn't really speaking to those in the room, He was speaking to people 2000 years into the future who will probably never read this passage? What context am I suppose to see?

Certainly not by you.

Resources? So your conclusions come from books not the Bible? Is this what you are saying? Would those resources be Scofield, Pentecost, Ryrie, and Woolvard? I guess dispies are the only learned people. Pride Pride Pride.

Which Bible scholars? Certainly not Gill, Owen, Spurgeon, etc........But of course we all know they are not "genuine".

So there it is. If its taught at Bible college it must be true.

Good thing you were born when you were or you would have a hard time being a dispie:

John A. Broadus
(1827-1895)
Postmillennialist | Professor of New Testament
Interpretation and Homiletics Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-1895

On Matthew 24:30 cloud-coming. Nature of Christ's Return

"Six months earlier (in 16:27 f.) he had declared that would come again in the glory of his Father, as the sovereign Judge of mankind; and that some of them then present would live to see him 'coming in his kingdom.' We there found it necessary to understand that the particular coming to which this last phrase especially refers took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, which made Christianity completely and manifestly distinct from Judaism, and established the Messianic kingdom in its permanent present state. The prediction then briefly made by our Lord is now (as a result of Matthew 24:30) more fully unfolded} (vol 1, Matthew, p. 479).

"It is practically impossible to suppose that v. 30f. relates simply to the destruction of Jerusalem. As the latter part of the discourse (25:31-36) clearly refers to the second coming of our Lord, it seems unavoidable to suppose a similar reference here; see also the corresponding passage, 13:41. But v. 34 will presently declare that "all" the foregoing matter will occur during the existing generation. Then we cannot believe (with Meyer and others) that the Saviour mistakenly expected his parousia to be within that generation, it follows that v. 29-31 must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem." (vol. 1, p. 491)

But perhaps he really didn't study as much as you. Thats how he came to this faulty position.

No, the difference is I believe He kept them while you are still waiting.

 

Why not leave it at that?

HankD