Amos 9:15

I usually just read these posts-and have not put my two cents worth in. Yet, here I feel the urge- and it is to say- That first and foremost, You do not need John Gill, Henry Matthew or D L Moody, or any of these good men to intrepret the bible for you. Listen! The bible intreprets itself-and some of the remarks above have alluded to this by quoting scripture to validate the remarks. I ask the person who labels God as a Premillienist to consider this- Scripture tells us God changes not. He is the same yesterday,today and forever- He is all in all- He is the I AM== So,whatever conditions he brings about doesn't warrant giving Him a label-NO offense intended-- However, in view of all the above, I would challenge each of you to read Zech 14th Chapter- and re-read it especially the first few verses. Obviously the Lord is speaking of a future time. Then when you get to vs 8 He speaks of "shall be in that day" (future tense)
What do you think on these verses, (the whole Chapter?) It does appear to be a literal future occurence- Can you see this as part of the 1000 year millenium?

 

What would be the fun in that?


I appreciate people who will debate these issues. It constantly makes me go to the Word to prove my beliefs and at the same helps me learn more.

Then what is the context of James 5:8,9 that leads you to believe it was not a time statement.

8You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near . 9Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door !

What did I tell you Hank? Larry it is not a side issue as you would like to believe. It is at the heart of how you interpret apocalytic language in the OT as well as the NT. If the OT prophets used this type of language as fugurative then the prophets of the NT did so as well. If the NT writers followed the pattern of the OT writers then your literalism of the Olivet Discourse, Revelation and other NT passages is fataly flawed. This is why many will not deal with these short passages. The OT is full of this judgement language.

So now you agree with me. The Kingdom was to be established during the Roman Empire. However your view says it failed.

Where is that found?
Once again is this the end times that Peter said was at hand in 4:7?
If it was to be established in some revived Roman Empire then why isn't there a fifth Kingdom found in the Dan 2 passage?

44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world, it was a spiritual Kingdom. Daniel says earlier it is a stone not made with hands:

34Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

"Without hands" also indicates spiritual.

Daniel says it will never be destroyed and shall stand forever. Don't you hold to the view it only lasts a 1000 years and will be destoyed at the end of the 1000 years with a New Heaven and New Earth?

I'm not sure it is speaking in the physical realm but the spiritual. If it is speaking in the physical then it wasn't too happen immediately:

Dan 7:12"As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.

Issue was the Son of Man coming into His Kingdom. As the text clearly says.

It didn't happen? Then Jesus was wrong. No way around it is there? Unless you wish to put a 2000 year gap between verse 27 and 28. It is no problem for my position.

Perhaps you should take the view of partial preterist and say the AD70 events were "a" coming, but not "the" coming. But I'm sure you see the problem with that view as do I.

Once again, not a problem for me. You're starting to go haywire on me. Are you now saying that when Jesus speaks of: seeing the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the father and coming on the clouds of heaven, he was speaking of His coming exaltation? Do you say the same thing of Matthew 24:30? Or is this a different coming on clouds?

Spiritual Israel is dwelling safely in the New Jerusalem where Christ will reign forever. We live in an unshakeable Kingdom and Of the increase of His government there will be no end.

 

It's quite plain that the Scriptures are referring to LITERAL ISRAEL. Proof? Easy. God has established Judah again as a sovereign nation against all human odds, and made her into the military pound-for-pound world champ.

As for other specific prophecies concerning the Jews-Read Zechariah, bearing in mind that the Philistines me mentions are today's Palestinians.

# Zechariah 9:6 "A mixed race shall settle in Ashdod, And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines."

The city of Ashdod was once one of the five Philistine major cities. Since modern Israel became a sovereign nation, the Jews have taken over Ashdod, driving out many of the Palestinians until today it's totally under jewish control, and is the fastest-growing city in Israel. To the Palestinian, a mixed race (or "bastard" race, KJV) now inhabits Ashdod, and they have no hope of recovering it for themselves. And, given the whole Palestinian situation, their pride has indeed been cut off.

Then there's the undeniable growth of travel and knowledge as prophesied to Daniel.

The well-known agnostic of a century ago, Robt. Ingersoll, denied the veracity of the Bible because of the prophecies concerning the Jews. In his day, the Jew was downtrodden, wasn't welcome hardly anywhere, and a Jewish sovereign state seemed as impossible as landing on the moon.


When one searches for fulfillment of prophecy, one indeed finds it's LITERAL.

 

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

On the other hand many folks have dealt with these and every prophetic passage in the Scriptures from every possible point of view and one could fill an auditorium with the books thereof. Most of them equally adamant as either you or Pastor Larry.

FWIW: A Google of "Bible prophecy" results in 1,640,000 hits.

Amos 9:15 alone results in 87,800 hits.

Lots of busy folks.

There are IMO as many problems/difficulties in allegorizing prophetic statements as taking them at face value. In my youth, I was an allegorist. Now I'm primarily a literalist wherever possible. But that's just me.

Amos 9
14 I will restore My people Israel.
They shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine;
They shall till gardens and eat their fruits.
15 And I will plant them upon their soil,
Nevermore to be uprooted
From the soil I have given them

The Tanakh JPS


HankD

 

So your context is based on the fact that He didn't come in a physical manner therefore near doesn't mean time. If there were any unfulfilled prophecies still to come after James wrote this then His coming wasn't imminent. Therefore near can't mean imminent.

So are you now saying that language like this can be figurative in nature?

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.

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.

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.

Of course not, His coming was after the writing of the NT. They just indicated its nearness.

Agree. But who is Israel?

That is not what Daniel says. He says it will be established during the fourth Kingdom.

Once again Dan.7:12.

I'm not a Post-Mill so I agree the Kingdom does not come gradually.

Which passage in Rev. describes a Revived Roman Empire.

Where does the Bible speak of the end of the world?

Impressive Larry, your the only Dispie I've seen that understands that. But try to tell fellow Dispies that concerning this verse:

Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee willI give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Is this the same New Heaven and New Earth of Is 65 and 66? Is heaven eventually going to be on Earth? How does the Kingdom continue to grow in your view after this?

yes it is.

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 .

Then there are some awfully old men walking around.
Well if there is no gap then verse 27 and 28 are connected. You say verse 28 happened 6 days later. So how does verse 27 not be fulfilled as well, especially since Jesus said they would see it before they died. If they did not see it before they died then Jesus was wrong.

Or once again perhaps the NT writers were using the exact language the OT writers used.

Isaiah 19:1 - The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt ; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Psalm 18:912 - He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub and flew ; and He sped upon the wings of the wind.

Physical and Literal?

I'm not sure what you mean by exaltation. Do you mean His second coming or something during His life ministry?

The Old Jerusalem was destroyed and the New Jerusalem is the Church/Kingdom. As you should know since you take a literal view of Revelation. Rev 21:9-10.

Which OT passage are you referring too? When will they be restored in your view, is it when "all Israel is saved". Is that at the second coming?

 

Perhaps you should do the same and think independently of what your Bible college drilled into you. Try reading others besides Ryrie, Scofield, Pentecost and Walvoord.

Funny, I don't think you've acknowledged one figurative passage yet.

However if Is 13:10 can be figurative why cant Matt.24:29?

Is. 13: 10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.

Matt. 24: 29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

If Is 34:4-5 can be figurative why cant Rev 6:14?

Is. 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 fade away, as the leaf fadeth from off the vine, and as a fading leaf from the fig-tree.
5 For my sword hath drunk its fill in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Edom, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

Rev. 6:14 And the heaven was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

I just react to the understanding I get from dispies on this board. I was a long time dispie so I understand it better than some on this board.

Let the NT interpret the OT:

Gal 3:7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

 

GH,

Just butting in for a moment. Have you actually read Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Chafer, McClain, Ice, Demy, et al? AND, have you read them at length in context? Or only sections that have been quoted by their detractors?

Just curious.

 

GH,

One small note of correction, John MacArthur is a great Bible teacher, but he is not a great dispy. In his own words he is a "leaky dispensationalist". There are numerous areas where he fails to distinguish between passages addressed to Israel and relating PRIMARILY (but not exclusively) to the kingdom and those addressed to and relating primarily to the church. The whole Lordship controversy has as its foundation the failure to make appropriate distinctions in the Gospels. I say this as I am getting ready to go out there for my third S. Conference.

 

I wish you would have acknowledged that a few days ago, Would have saved us a both a lot of time. So you take figurative language of the OT and force it into literal in the NT.

Doesn’t say revived though does it? Seems God could have said so if He wanted since He named the other Kingdoms. Your pre-supposition forces you to believe it didn’t happen. Is this your method of Bible interpretation,… if it didn’t happen the way I think it should then it just didn’t happen?

Yes, so the Beast John sees is the same Beast Daniel saw.

No, past theologians understood the metaphoric language that has been lost among dispies:


John Owen (1721)
'It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.
' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state
'First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly."Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11, Works, folio, 1721.


C.H. Spurgeon (1865)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).


What does it do to your view if this Hebrew idiom is indeed what Spurgeon and Owen say it is?

You mean like “earth” in Ecc 1:4? You mean like “some of you will not taste of death till you see the son of man coming on the clouds? Are these examples of what you are referring too?

Ecc 1:4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Ps 148: 4Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. 5Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. 6He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.

Gen 8: 21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

You used Gen 15 as your proof text, if you wish to use another provide it, but don’t pull the bait and switch on me.

The New Heavens and New Earth of Is. 65 and 66 are quite clear. They are not speaking of eternity.

You say they saw verse 28 fulfilled, though you use words not in the passage:


They saw his coming in the glory of his kingdom and loved it so muhc they wanted to stay.

You also said there is no gap between 27 & 28:


No, you are wrong. It didn't happen yet. That doesn't mean it won't happen. It will. And there doesn't need to be a gap.

Yet you say verse 27 didn’t happen:

The truth is that that same issue is a problem for you as well. It just didn't happen .

How can verse 28 have happened if it is connected to verse 27 which you say didn’t happen? Jesus told them they would see these events before they died, you say they didn’t. It is quite clear you have no answer that I can deal with.

It is you who makes Jesus the liar and God impotent to do His will in establishing His Kingdom. See I can use extreme statements also.

The problem lies with your view, you have a group of people who no longer exist seeing something in the future.

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .
"Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).


Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they five" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).

No, the same group that pierced His saw His coming.

Matt 23:29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Jesus put the blame and the judgement on those Jews, not some other group of people.

When does Matt 23 get fulfilled in your view?

Are you saying this didn't happen?

If Jesus came to establish a physical Kingdom and if the Jews wanted to make Him King, then why didn't He establish the kingdom?

John 6:15When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

There was Jesus' chance to establish the physical Kingdom and He said: No Thanks! Why did He refuse it if this is what He came to do? It wasn't until He rejected their physical Kingdom that they rejected Him.

Jesus wasn't going to let rejection stop Him from establishing the Kingdom:

Luke 10:10But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Jesus tell the disciples they will reject Him but it doesn't matter, the Kingdom is still near.

Ps. 2 makes it clear that no-one will thwart the will of God and His establishment of His Kingdom:

Psalm 2
1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh : the LORD shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

God will laugh at their rejection, not postpone His will.

 

Being from Oklahoma and living in Texas most of the churches I have attended were pastored by graduates from D.T.S. as well as the staffs. If they were not graduates of DTS then they were highly influenced by those men. The pre-mill view was all I was ever exposed too, all beit indirectly through those men. I have not read extensively of their works, although I have read notes out of Ryrie's Study Bible.
I would not put Thomas Ice in the same catagory as Walvoord and Pentecost. Ice is full of contradictions from what I have read of him.

If you could recommend one of their books, preferrably Pentecost or Walvoord, which book would you recommend I get?

 

J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, massive and thorough, but not as up to date as...

Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded, still a classic from the dispy perspective. Not a bad read either, no where near as expansive as Things to Come.

John Walvoord, The Rapture Question. - Very thorough look at four views.
John Walvoord, The Church In Prophecy - Do not have this book, but have read BibSac articles by him which I am sure form the basis for the book.


What are some contradictions you have found from Ice? I have not read him as extensively as some of the others, but have not found him to be self-contradictory. I do have a fairly thorough collection of most of his articles, but have not read them all yet. I am working on them though. Would like to look specifically at some alleged contradictions.

 

In the publication 'Midnight Call' Ice had an article entitled 'the age to come" in it he states this:

The Jewish perspective of Bible prophecy views history as consisting of two ages. The first was 'this present age,' the age in which Israel was waiting for the coming Messiah. The second was the 'age to come' the age in which all promises and covenants would be fulfilled and Israel would enter her promised blessing as a result of Messiah's coming"

Ice goes on to say concerning Matt 13:39,

" Jesus continued to speak within the contemporary Jewish framework."

Well, this means Jesus was speaking of the then present Age of Israel.

Matthew 13 quotes from Daniel 12 concerning the end of the age. However neither Ice nor other millinnialist believe the Chuch or the Church Age is predicted anywhere in the OT. If the OT does not speak of the Church Age then it certainly doesn't speak of the end of the Church Age. Yet Ice says Matt 13 is about the end of the Church Age in his book Prophecy.

Ice also says this:

"I believe that 'this present age' refers to the current Church Age that began almost 2000 years ago on the day of Pentecost when the Church was founded."

This means Ice believes Israel's "this age" was postponed at Pentecost and that another 'this age' replaced it. Sounds like Replacement Theology.

Ice goes on to say,
"Paul continued to use the phrases 'this age' and 'age to come' in the way Christ used them"

So Ice believes the Church Age is the "present distress" of I Cor 7:26. Paul says that because of the distress it is better not to marry. Is this what Ice believes as well?

Now if 'this age' refers to the Church Age, then Jewish leaders are the rulers of this age:

6However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age , nor of the rulers of this age , who are coming to nothing. 7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Is it your belief that Jewish leaders are the rulers of the Church Age?

Is it also your belief that Christ died to deliver us from the Church Age?

3Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

Remember,Ice says 'this present age' is the Church Age.

On speaking of the Mystery of the Church Ice says this from his book Fast Facts on Bible Prophecy:

"The Church was an unrevealed mystery, which is why it began suddenly,without warning, and why this age will end suddenly and mysteriously at the rapture."

However in his book with LaHaye, Charting the End Times, Ice says this regarding Is. 61(Luke:4:18):

" That is a reference to the Church Age, often called the age of grace."

So does Ice believe the OT taught the Church Age or not? I guess it depends on what point he wishes to make at the time.

Why did Jesus come according to Ice? From "Charting the End Times":

"The purpose of His first coming was to announce the period of grace and salvation we are living in, not the time of judgemant that is yet to come."

Yet in his debate with Kenneth Gentry he said Jesus came to establish the Kingdom, but Jewish rejection prevented it from happening.

Acts 20:28Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood .

If Christs suffering was to purchase the Church and if the OT predicted His suffering(Ps. 22, Is 53) then the OT predicted the church.

Did Jesus come to die on a cross or to establish the Kingdom? Was the Cross an obstacle to the Kingdom, as dispies believe, or the gateway to the Kingdom?

Would Jesus have ever died had the jews accepted this physical Kingdom? Does the OT each 2 separate possible outcomes at Christ's first advent? Either establish the Kingdom or establish the Church?

 

This week, I will discuss on Amos 9:15. By the way, I agree with Grasshopper about Amos 9:15.

Amos 9:15 says nothing about 'a thousand years'.

Later, I will discuss about this.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Grasshopper,

I have been otherwise occupied for about a week and a half. Briefly, these are not contradictions in Ice's theology. They are terms that you twist and interpret in ways that are contrary to the context in which they were used! I should not be surprised by this though. You evidence a total failure to understand Ice's theology, I am not saying this because you disagree with it, but because you do not even seem to understand it!

I disagree with CT, but I do at least understand it! Will post detailed response later (Deo volente).


DPT,

I agree that no passage but Rev 20 speaks of the duration of the kingdom as being 1000 years. BUT, many other passages speak of a literal earthly theocratic kingdom. Deal with that issue rather than sidetracking back to Rev 20.