Amos 9:15

[HankD]

Matthew, as well as Luke 21,uses the same type of language to describe the Fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple.

Matt 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun 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:

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
What pre-supposition, that James was inspired?

The presupposition that the text did not mean what it said.

Why did James use that OT passage to say that the prophets agreed with the position of the council?

Because it did. James is pointing out that the OT prophets agreed with what was going on. He was not changing their meaning, nor denying its plain meaning.

It is you who have the pre-supposition that the OT passage MUST be physical. But James says no.

James said nothing of the kind. And the presumption with language is always that language means what it says. It is the only way we can communicate.

I don't remember what your reasoning was for changing the meaning of "near" and "at hand", but I suppose you "spiritualized" the words.

I didn't change the meaning of "near" and "at hand." I pointed out that you assigned a wrong meaning to it.

Correct, James did not change the meaning you did. He applied the passage to the Church age. Therefore the meaning of the OT passage was figurative in nature to begin with. Unless James is confused.

James and I are saying the same thing. You are the one who is differeing here. James did not apply the passage to the church age. He did not give a figurative meaning. He was not confused. He merely said that the prophets agreed with the position of the church.

My persuasion? You've got to be kidding. Preterist understand the use of metaphoric/figurative language in the OT and NT. Preterist are the ones accused of "spiritualizing" the Bible. It is your view point that took the very passage we are dealing with and is trying to make it physical. I wish more dispies understood that literal can be metaphoric.

I don't know of any who don't. That is a charge often made, but usually not supported. Preterists do spiritualize the text. They take literal passages and make the spiritual. Dispensationalists take figurative passages and understand them figuratively. They simply refuse to do that to literal passages.

Why would that verse apply to Hebrews? Other than of course the fulfillment of it? The rebuilding of a physical Temple has nothing to do with Acts 15: 13-17.

The context of the passage deals, then, with Israel’s judgment. After this period, which is the period of Gentile opportunity, God will raise up the tabernacle of David, give Israel supremacy over Edom and the nations, bless their crops, regather Israel, restore their cities, and assure them that they will never again be dispersed. The entire passage confirms that the “tabernacle of David” is an expression referring to the whole nation of Israel, and that in contrast to the Gentile nations. By no possible stretch of the plain meaning of this passage can the “tabernacle of David” be made to be an equivalent of the New Testament church. The prophecy concerns the rebuilding of that which was fallen down. The “ruins” are to be rebuilt “as in the days of old.” The nature of the blessings are earthly, territorial, and national, and have nothing to do with a spiritual church to which none of these blessings has been promised.
What then is the meaning of the quotation of James? What relation does it have to the problem faced by the council at Jerusalem? The question considered by the council was one of Gentile participation in the church. It apparently was difficult for the apostles to adjust themselves to equality with Gentiles in the gospel. The evident blessing of God upon the Gentiles, their salvation, and spiritual gifts were indisputable evidence that a change in approach to the Gentiles was necessary. They must face the fact that both Jew and Gentile were saved by grace in exactly the same manner. How was this to be reconciled with the promises of God to Israel? It is this which James answers.
He states, in effect, that it was God’s purpose to bless the Gentiles as well as Israel, but in their order. God was to visit the Gentiles first, “to take out of them a people for his name.” James goes on to say that this is entirely in keeping with the prophets, for they had stated that the period of Jewish blessing and triumph should be after the Gentile period: “After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen.” Instead of
BSac 110:438 (Apr 53) p. 109
identifying the period of Gentile conversion with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, it is carefully distinguisned by the first (referring to Gentile blessing), and after this (referring to Israel’s coming glory). The passage, instead of identifying God’s purpose for the church and for the nation Israel, established a specific time order. Israel’s blessing will not come until “I return,” apparently reference to the second coming of Christ. That it could not refer either to the incarnation or to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is evident in that neither is a “return.” The passage under consideration constitutes, then, an important guide in determining the purpose of God. God will first conclude His work for the Gentiles in the period of Israel’s dispersion; then He will return to bring in the promised blessings for Israel. It is needless to say that this confirms the interpretation that Christ is not now on the throne of David bringing blessing to Israel as the prophets predicted, but He is rather on His Father’s throne waiting for the coming earthly kingdom and interceding for His own who form the church.
It is highly significant that as late as Acts 15 the disciples still needed instruction on the distinctions between the kingdom promises and the church. They had been encouraged throughout the earthly ministry of Christ to expect a literal fulfillment of the kingdom promises. As discussed in the previous treatment of the restoration of Israel,6 the promise given to Mary and Luke was embraced by the disciples as well. They expected the promise of the Davidic kingdom to be fulfilled immediately. They had been promised thrones from which they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). The aspiring mother of James and John while rebuked in her hope that her sons would sit on either side of Christ in His kingdom was told that the place was for others—a confirmation of the fundamental kingdom hope. The disciples were promised a place at the King’s table in the kingdom as a reward for their sufferings in this life (Luke 22:30). As
BSac 110:438 (Apr 53) p. 110
late as Acts 1:6, the disciples were still looking for a literal kingdom. While refused revelation concerning the “time” of the kingdom, their hope is not denied, spiritualized, or transferred to the church. The kingdom hope is postponed and the new age of which they never dreamed was interposed, but the promises continued undimmed. Israel’s day of glory is yet to come and the Christ will reign on earth.

Walvoord (BSac v 100 #438 Apr-Jun 1953) p. 108.

You have taken this passage and turned it on its head. When it talks about a "restoration" that by necessity means something they had before. That cannot apply to the church.

Joel gave a prophecy that Peter quotes in Acts 2:...Now Peter didn't say it was a type or partial fulfillment he says THIS IS THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET JOEL.

It is clearty analogical. You can read Joel and read ACts and figure out that they are not the same thing. It is common in communication to use analogies or to borrow language from another. The word "pleroo" is a very wide word and many people don't understand that because they just believe what they are told without studying it.

Why did he quote Joel here at pentecost?

Because it was very much like what Joel said.

Because that is what Joel's prophecy was about. Not some event 2000 years in the future.

REally??? You walked right into a trap that reveals a major flaw in your hermeneutic. You take some of those things literal (outpouring of Spirit, visions, dreams, prophesying, etc.) and some of the figurative (moon to blood, etc.). Yet there is not one indication from teh text for such dichotomy. And that is precisely why it is clear that Peter's use was analogical ... The prophecy wasn't fulfilled. If that prophecy can be so plastic to fit into virtually anything, then what about God's other promises, such as the resurrection, his sovereign power, his unchanging love, etc. Are they are also subject to the same kind of treatment that you give these promises? What is his unchanging love has a spiritual meaning that changed ... Now his unchanging love means he will send pizza once a week. I can make a case for that as good as you can make a case for your position. And you would rightly blast me for my case; but you will not apply the same standard to your own. I find that troubling.

Where does the Bible speak of the Kingdom being conditional on Jewish acceptance?

It speaks of the inheritance in teh land under the king being conditional. THat is all through the OT beginning at Deut 30 right on through.

The rest of your post seems pretty disjointed ... I am not sure what to make of it. Simply put, you are not taking the words of Scripture in high enough esteem. You are changing them around to fit your system. You take Matthew 24 as already being fulfilled, but Christ never came back on clouds of glory, at least in any meaningful sense. Doesn't that trouble the bejeebers out of you? It should. You have just written the coming of the Lord write out of the promises of God. I don't get that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Everyone has presuppositions. The question is do the presuppositions fit the text?

I agree. The dispensationalists presupposition is that the text means what it says. It is the consistent use of a literal grammatical historical interpretation, and that is what sets us apart from the other side. They are inconsistent in that use, and this text is a prime example of it. They will not use the literal grammatical historical interpretation here because it doesn't reach their predetermined conclusions.

]What am I missing? James said point blank that the Prophets foretold the events related by Peter.

You are missing evidence for the sentence that follows the question. James did not say that the prophets "foretold" those events. He said they "agreed" with them. Furthermore, he did not say that the words of the prophets now meant something else. IN other words, James does not even address the issue you are trying to make him address.

The council hadn't yet arrived at any conclusions,

Really??? So you think there was a big break between vv. 18 and 19? I find that hard to justify. I think James knew very well what they were about to do.

I just cannot accept that God said something he didn't mean. Language means something. If he never meant to rebuild what they previously had and restore them to the land that they were kicked out of, then why did he say that? Doesn't that equal a lie?

 

[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.

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.

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).

Agree totally.

 

[Grasshopper]

I didn't change the meaning of "near" and "at hand." I pointed out that you assigned a wrong meaning to it.

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”?

He merely said that the prophets agreed with the position of the church.

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

Preterists do spiritualize the text. They take literal passages and make the spiritual. Dispensationalists take figurative passages and understand them figuratively. They simply refuse to do that to literal passages.

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

Walvoord (BSac v 100 #438 Apr-Jun 1953) p. 108.
You have taken this passage and turned it on its head. When it talks about a "restoration" that by necessity means something they had before. That cannot apply to the church.

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

You can read Joel and read ACts and figure out that they are not the same thing.

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?

quote:
Why did he quote Joel here at pentecost?
Because it was very much like what Joel said.

Not according to Peter. He said it was that.

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

REally??? You walked right into a trap that reveals a major flaw in your hermeneutic. You take some of those things literal (outpouring of Spirit, visions, dreams, prophesying, etc.) and some of the figurative (moon to blood, etc.).

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?

And that is precisely why it is clear that Peter's use was analogical ... The prophecy wasn't fulfilled.

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

Now his unchanging love means he will send pizza once a week. I can make a case for that as good as you can make a case for your position. And you would rightly blast me for my case; but you will not apply the same standard to your own. I find that troubling.

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.

Where does the Bible speak of the Kingdom being conditional on Jewish acceptance?
It speaks of the inheritance in teh land under the king being conditional. THat is all through the OT beginning at Deut 30 right on through.

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.?

Simply put, you are not taking the words of Scripture in high enough esteem. You are changing them around to fit your system.

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.

You take Matthew 24 as already being fulfilled, but Christ never came back on clouds of glory, at least in any meaningful sense.

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.

. Doesn't that trouble the bejeebers out of you? It should. You have just written the coming of the Lord write out of the promises of God. I don't get that.

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?

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

This is clearly a premillennial verse that shows God is a premillennialist.

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

 

[Craigbythesea]

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 our view that in spite of wide variations in the weight given to the different elements in the picture, and despite obvious differences in evaluation of a particular situation at a certain time, the great prophets were all agreed that the bond between God and Israel did not exempt Israel from possible judgment, and that in fact Israel would be held to a stricter accounting than other nations precisely because of its privileged position. Ultimately the result would be the dissolution of the relationship when it turned out that Israel was really like the other nations and unable to live up to the standards of the covenant. The holy God of Israel would not hesitate, finally, to pronounce judgment and execute it on his own people.

That judgment, however, did not necessarily mean the end of the story. The same prophets believed that beyond judgment, destruction, and exile there were also redemption and renewal, based entirely on the faithfulness of God and his commitment to himself and to the fathers. From the beginning it had been so. He was known to the world as the God of Israel, and would always be known that way. It is always possible that a prophet here or there did not believe in this fourth phase, and it is possible to isolate some of the minor prophets who spoke briefly and only to a single concern or to a limited number under special circumstances.

But the great message, with all its variety and differences in imagery and details, includes that essential last point, that God will not finally abandon his people, even if he is responsible for judging and destroying them, even if that action is necessary and there is no way to escape it. Covenant violations are punishable by death, and the nation as a whole cannot be treated differently. The prophets insist on this point against all other claims. Without repentance there is no possibility of forgiveness. But beyond execution there is the possibility of resurrection. It was the prophet Ezekiel who presented the case in its most radical terms: the criminal tried and convicted in the divine court must be executed, the nation must die. But the God who created the nation and committed himself to being the God of Israel throughout history will re-create the people as his own—not for their sake, but for his own. In that way the prophet Ezekiel resolved the paradox of election and judgment. In the Primary History it is expressed by the twin covenants of Abraham (divine commitment and promise) and Moses (human obligation and performance). Both function in history, with the former guaranteeing permanent divine commitment to his people and the latter insisting that Israel will always be held to the strictest standards of justice. An ultimate resolution is eschatological: in the new age the two covenants will become one because with a new heart and spirit the people will live up to the required standards (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 11:19, 36:26), and by fulfilling the law and being righteous they will enable God to fulfill his promises of permanent possession of the land and prosperity and security forever.

Neither Ezekiel nor Jeremiah invented these ideas. Neither in our opinion did the great prophets of the eighth century; but they shared them and clarified them, acknowledging a basic paradox in the covenant relationships but insisting that both applied and were valid. God could not be indifferent to covenant repudiation by his people, but he also could not finally give them up. After execution there would be revival and restoration: this message was delivered by all of the great prophets, and we find no reason to suppose that it is a creation of exilic or postexilic scribes who carefully put it into the books of prophets who had never thought of the matter. Each prophet in his own words and thoughts articulated it, with differences in emphasis and coloration. But they shared a common vision and hope, and their message was carried on by their successors, refined and expanded but essentially the same. Amos was the first of this group, and his book has the same elements as the others. . . .

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.

 

[Aaron]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

Aren't you the one who just said "re"-building and "re"-storing doesn't actually mean that waht is being rebuilt and restored previously existed? Surely you didn't think carefully before answering that. The truth is, and if you have studied you know this, there are explanations of Acts 15 that do not require your conclusion. They are not tap dancing in the the least. It always humors me when people don't know something like that. I am a premillennialist because of verses like Amos 9 and a host of others. If there is no millennium coming, then I see no possible way around the fact that God lied. I can't accept that, and I don't believe you can. But your position is very inconsistent with it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
What meaning does “near” and “at hand” mean to a dispie?

[The same thing it should mean to anyone else. THey are terms that refer to things coming. They are not time statements. We hae been through this many times and you were given many source that you could study to learn what we believe and how we come to that position. YOu don't have to agree, but at least study to find out.

What does “near” mean in Luke 21:8?

IT is interesting that you bring this up. Did you see who was saying "The time is near"? It is the false prophets and Christ says don't go after them. Oops ... that doesn't exactly make your point does it?

Jesus said false prophets would say the time is near, yet Peter says the end is at hand. Is Peter a false prophet?

Why would you ask if Peter is a false prophet? Do you seriously need an answer to that question? Context is always key. When you ignore it, it hurts. The point is simple: The coming of the Lord can happen at any time. God did not give us the time frame. We have been living int he last days according to Scripture.

Does Walvoord say “near” does not mean “at hand”?

Don't know exactly, but I would presume he studies the context rather than the concordance to figure this out. That is what you should do.

But why does he use a verse dealing with the rebuilding a physical Temple?

Because the verse begins with "after these things." It sppears very clearly that James is talking of a time when the Gentiles will be saved, and then after these things the temple will be rebuilt. Therefore, the Jews should not be looking for restoration of the kingdom at that time; something else has to happen first. But after these things, the words of the prophets will be fulfilled. It makes perfect sense when you think about what is actually being said.

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

So?

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

No, he gave the text the authority to decide that. REad the text.

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

I noticer you don't deal with what Walvoord said. You just want to claim victory. Why not deal with the words of the text. Why presume that James practiced bad exegesis?

Once again why is Peter quoting this at pentecost if Joel has nothing to do with pentecost?

Because it had some similarities. The events were not the work of drunk men as some alleged. In fact, God had already said that things like this would happen so it shouldn't be a surprise. Of course, again, that comes from knowing the context of Acts 2 rather than picking out a verse or two.

]I thought you said figurative can be literal.

Um, no. What I said was that literal interpretation uses figures of speech.

Why did Peter use the "moon to blood" language here?

Because he is quoting the verse from the OT. The question you should be asking is why was some of that literal and some not, when they are right beside each other with no indication of a change.

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?

No gap necessary since I believe all those things will happen at the end times when God said they would.

Once again you ignore OT usage of that language.

No I don't. I am the one who has been insisting on teh OT use of the language. When it comes to Amos 9 and a multitude of others, you want to completely ditch the OT use.

Is Is.13:10 figurative or not? Yes or no will do.

There is no reason to see it as figurative. The disturbance of the light of the celestial bodies is well attested in prophetic writing dealing with the end times. Some people see a historical fulfillment and it is quite possible that it could have been fulfilled in that way, but I lean towards an eschatological fulfillment..

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.

I can't help but notice you skipped right over the point og God's changing promises. Why? Why not deal with the obvious problem you face if you just decide to rewrite God's promises?

I don't think those commentators were dopes. I think they were products of the system of their teaching and they overlooked some things.

Can you show me the verse that speaks of a conditional Kingdom in Dt.?

I didn't say that the kingdom was conditional. I said the inheritance or possession of the land was conditional. When they sinned, they were evicted, but God promised to bring them back.

So the Kingdom of Daniel 2 was conditional?

No.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If it was conditional the first time why can't it be conditional the 2nd time?

It wasn't conditional the first time. The possession of hte land was conditional. The second one willb e based on the new covenant in which the hearts of all will be changed and never again will they reject God (Jer 31:31-40).

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.?

Yes, in fact that was the subject of my Sunday night message last week. Modern Israel may have a political claim, but not a biblical one.

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.

You would be incorrect. I am not a big fan of Schofield. We are way past him.

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

He didn't come back on the clouds as that passage promises.

I guess you believe Gill did not hold scripture in high esteem,

I think Gill had a number of problems in this area, but was good in other areas (like most).

unlike say....Jack Van Impe.

No one should listen to Van Impe. Turn the guy off.

Doesn't it bother you that you deny He did what He said He would do and when He said He would do it?

I do no such thing. Christ has not yet returned, but one day he will.

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 think they had their blindspots in this area coming out of the dark times of the middle ages when eschatology was not a subject of great discussion.

I guess Truth finally arrived with the birth of Scofield, Walvoord, and D. Pentecost. How did the Disciples ever make it without them?

No, modern dispensationalism was a return to what the disciples believed and taught, as we can tell from Scripture. The church, aroudn 300AD, turned away from the ancient teaching, most likely because of your position ... they didn't understand how all these things could not have been fulfilled yet. So they figured they must have misunderstood them. It was unfortunate that they decided to do that and it took almost 1500 years for the recovery of biblical doctrine to become more mainstream.

But even with our differences, we can at least agree that Christ will return in the future to redeem us from this earth. What he does with the rest of his promises will be finally revealed then.

And with that, I will end these long posts.

 

[rjprince]

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.

 

[Grasshopper]

THey are terms that refer to things coming. They are not time statements.

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.

. Did you see who was saying "The time is near"? It is the false prophets and Christ says don't go after them. Oops ... that doesn't exactly make your point does it?

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.

The coming of the Lord can happen at any time. God did not give us the time frame.

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?

We have been living int he last days according to Scripture.

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?

I noticer you don't deal with what Walvoord said. You just want to claim victory. Why not deal with the words of the text.

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

Because it had some similarities. The events were not the work of drunk men as some alleged. In fact, God had already said that things like this would happen so it shouldn't be a surprise. Of course, again, that comes from knowing the context of Acts 2 rather than picking out a verse or two.

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.

No gap necessary since I believe all those things will happen at the end times when God said they would.

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.

quote:

Is Is.13:10 figurative or not? Yes or no will do.

There is no reason to see it as figurative. The disturbance of the light of the celestial bodies is well attested in prophetic writing dealing with the end times. Some people see a historical fulfillment and it is quite possible that it could have been fulfilled in that way, but I lean towards an eschatological fulfillment..

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?

I can't help but notice you skipped right over the point og God's changing promises. Why? Why not deal with the obvious problem you face if you just decide to rewrite God's promises?

God didn’t change His promises.

quote:

So the Kingdom of Daniel 2 was conditional?

No.

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

He didn't come back on the clouds as that passage promises.

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

quote:

Doesn't it bother you that you deny He did what He said He would do and when He said He would do it?

I do no such thing. Christ has not yet returned, but one day he will.

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

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

Hello, GH ... Context man ... context. REad in context. You pick and choose, and then in some of those you ignore context. I don't have time to deal with all your passages. Suffice it to say that your understanding depends on your presupposition. I don't share your presupposition so I don't share your understanding. There is a better way.

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?

Another illustration of how you want to ignore context. The OT talks about the son of man and the NT does as well ... but they are different people in view. You have a bad hermeneutic and you are ending up putting yourself in a bad place. Study in context and leave your presuppositions at the door.

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.

NO, the meat of our diesagreemeent in on hermeneutics. How should hte text be handled. You are willling to take liberties with God's word that my conscience will not allow. I think when God said something he meant what he said. There is no doubt that there are figures of speech involved. But they are not all figures of speech.

God didn’t change His promises.

There is no way that your position can reconcile with this. You say the right things here, but your whole approach to Scripture denies it. God said he would restore his people to the land and rebuild it. You say he won't. Therefore, you must believe that he changed his promises, or even worse, just outright lied.

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

No it didn't. You need to go back and study Daniel.

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

No it wasn't. You misunderstand the context. It hasn't happened yet.

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

I have commented on that long ago. That was true. And if you read Matthew 17 (remember context) you see it. They saw his coming in the glory of his kingdom and loved it so muhc they wanted to stay.

GH, This stuff has long been asnwered conclusively. You may not be aware of it since you probably don't get a lot of time to study and probably don't have the resources to find it all. Suffice it to say that the preterist position is not taken seriously by genuine biblical scholars. It simply has no legs. Your explanation of these various passages is fraught with problems that would be exposed in any basic level Bible college class. I hope you will take some time study the issue out.

 

[Grasshopper]

Not one answer.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Many answers. You simply don't like them. You changed the meaning of the text and then accused me of it. That simply doesn't work. God made promises. I think he will fulfill them. You apparently don't. That is a huge difference.

 

[Grasshopper]

Hello, GH ... Context man ... context. REad in context. You pick and choose, and then in some of those you ignore context.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
What meaning does “near” and “at hand” mean to a dispie?

[The same thing it should mean to anyone else. THey are terms that refer to things coming. They are not time statements.

Can they refer to time? Yes or No.

Another illustration of how you want to ignore context. The OT talks about the son of man and the NT does as well ... but they are different people in view.

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?

NO, the meat of our diesagreemeent in on hermeneutics. How should hte text be handled. You are willling to take liberties with God's word that my conscience will not allow.

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?

There is no doubt that there are figures of speech involved. But they are not all figures of speech.

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

quote:

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

No it didn't. You need to go back and study Daniel.

What is the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2?

quote:

I don’t blame you for not commenting on Matt 16:27-28.
I have commented on that long ago. That was true. And if you read Matthew 17 (remember context) you see it. They saw his coming in the glory of his kingdom and loved it so muhc they wanted to stay.

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.

quote:

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

No it wasn't. You misunderstand the context. It hasn't happened yet.

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?

GH, This stuff has long been asnwered conclusively.

Certainly not by you.

You may not be aware of it since you probably don't get a lot of time to study and probably don't have the resources to find it all.

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.

Suffice it to say that the preterist position is not taken seriously by genuine biblical scholars.

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

Your explanation of these various passages is fraught with problems that would be exposed in any basic level Bible college class.

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.

God made promises. I think he will fulfill them. You apparently don't. That is a huge difference.

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

 

[HankD]

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

Why not leave it at that?

HankD