Laws of Interpretation

Ignore that poster, Brother Pastor Larry. I
didn't know what he was talking about either.

 

Major major faux pas on your part. This prophecy was 700 years before Christ. Therefore, the existence of the prophecy does not demand that the thing prophesied be in existence. In your view, there were 700 years where this prophecy was true and yet not fulfilled. In my view, due the meaning of the prophecy, I have extended that 700 years. The only difference between you and I is 1) time and 2) do we understand what the prophecy actually says? Where is this peace currently that the prophecy talks about? It simply isn't here, and all you need to do is look around at the world. Strange kind of peace.

I don't disagree but that doesn't make your point at all.

Yes, but again, it doesn't make your point at all. Not all prophecies happen back to back. There are quite often large gaps in prophecies such as Isa 61 quoted in Luke 17, or in Zech 12 quoted in John 19. Surely, you know that don't you?

Did you ever compare Dan 7 with Rev 1? If you do, you will see that they are the same and that therefore, it is future, not now.

On what basis did you add the word "spiritual" to that? You just think you can go through adding words to Scripture to support your own doctrine?

It is the reign of heaven, and it is not now. It was at hand and they rejected it. Therefore, it is later promised in Acts 3:19-21 where it is future and based on the repentance of the nation of Israel. (To refute your claim that I haven't used Scripture, I gave that reference several pages ago I believe and you haven't even touched it. Instead, you made false claims against me.)

Several questions: Where is the "throne of his Father David"? Was it a spiritual throne? Not on your life. This verse is a clear refutation of your position. David never ruled from heaven. And therefore Christ's throne cannot be a rule from heaven in the kingdomm. Secondly, who is the "house of Jacob"? That is clearly the descendants of Abraham, the nation of Israel. Taht is the only way that phrase is ever used. Therefore, this verse shows 1) that Christ's kingdom will be earthly as David's was, and 2) it will be over the nation of Isreal. That shows your amill position to be wrong. Premill has to be right, based on your own "proof."

Yes, David's throne, in Jerusalem.

Yes, and it is not now in existence since Israel is not a monarchy.

Um, No ... why would you think Jesus is now on David's throne?
[/list]

Exactly my point. The kingdom wasn't spiritual inside of them. It was outside of them, right in front of them where they could see it. If you read McClain (which you really should) you will see how the aspects of the kingdom were all "in their midst."

• Did you read v. 30? What Christ granted was to sit at a table in his kingdom. Context always helps avoid these mistakes. There is nothign about 13 kingdoms. It is Christ's kingdom in which they, and we, will rule. How do they rule spiritually? That has to be physical and earthly.
  
  
  This verse has been soundly beat up several times. If you read it, what he says is that the prophets "agree." This verse does not say that the kingdom is there now. That would be a contradiction of what the prophets actually said. It speaks of a rebuilding of the tabernacle of David. Whatever you think that is, it was on this earth and to rebuild it must also be on this earth. To rebuild its ruins is clearly not spiritual. Again, the words of the text are all you need to refute your own position.
  
  Simply put, listing these verses has done a lot damage to your own position. Every single one of them supports a literal earthly kingdom when you actually read what they say. You started with a position and read that in, in fact, changing some words when it suited your purpose. That is unacceptable and should be abandoned. The clearest explanation of premillennialism is simply to read the Bible and see what it says. McClain lays it out in a systematic fashion that will help you get started.

 

What pastor here did this? I have yet to see any pastor that I know in this thread do any of these things. Why would you make this up? Or is there a poster I don't know anything about? </font>[/QUOTE]

Perhaps McClain is the reason your doctrine is so messed up?

Every one of those scriptures and comments on them were researched using Gill, Henry, Barnes, Brown, Wesley, Robertson's Word Pictures and Vincents Word Studies to ensure the accuracy of the claim. These are all well respectect Commentators before Darby and Scofied corrupted the church with a secret rapture that is heretical, an earthly kingdom on a sin-cursed earth (Genesis 3) and a 1,000 years that can only be symbolical if taken in the context. And you want people to read McClain to clarify their doctrine? I wouldn't read McClain if I were on an island all by myself and it were the only book on it! It has to be heresy!

 

To whomever,

The Kingdom of Chirst was always intended to be spiritual - not literal. Why would Christ set up an earthly kingdom on a sin-cursed earth that is destined to be burned? This sin-cursed earth was given to Satan. A literal co-earthly kingdom with equal possesion with Satan is a contradiction of the highest degree. When Satan tempted Jesus with power to rule the earth, Jesus did not deny that the power to rule the kingdoms of the world had been delivered to him and that it was his territory.

Luk 4:5 And the Devil, leading Him up into a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Luk 4:6 "And the Devil said to Him, All this power I will give you, and the glory of them; for it has been delivered to me. And I give it to whomever I will."

1)…Isa 9:6-7 – “For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the governmentt shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. There is no end of the increase of His government and peace on the throne of David, and on His kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from now on, even forever.”

</font>

• The Christ child was born. A "government" has a King. A King has a throne. Christ is the King.
  His kingdom rule shall perpetually increase and be unlimited and was fulfilled in Mat 2:2 - "Where is the One having been born King of the Jews?"</font>

2)…Psa 89:29 – “Also I have set his (Christ’s) seed forever, and his throne as the days of the heavens. “
</font>

• This can apply only to the spiritual David - Chirst. The posterity of David are long since extinct. His rule is for an unlimited time, therefore spiritual – not a literal 1,000 years.</font>

3)… Zec 9:9 – “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes to you. He is righteous and victorious, meek and riding on an ass, even on a colt, the son of an ass.”
</font>

• That this is a prophecy of the Messiah and his kingdom is plain from the literal accomplishment of its express application to, Christ's riding in triumph into Jerusalem,
  
  Fulfilled in Mat 21:5 – "Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King comes to you, meek, and sitting on an ass, even a colt the foal of an ass."</font>

4)… Mat 3:1-2 "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
</font>

• "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" refers to the prophecy of Daniel where the reign of Christ among men is expressly foretold.
  
  Fulfilled in Dan 7:13-14 - "I saw in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And dominion and glory was given Him, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages, should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”</font>

5)… Mat 5:10 – “Blessed are they who have been persecuted for righteousness sake! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.”
</font>

• "For theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - A spiritual kingdom as referred to by John the Baptist in Mat 3:2 in the Beatitudes and of which persecution is considered a blessing, not something to escape from by being raptured out of this world.</font>

6)… Mat 10:6-7 - "But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, proclaim, saying, “The kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
</font>

• The kingdom of Heaven - Literally, the “reign” of heaven.</font>

7)… Luk 1:32-33 – "He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end. "
</font>

• God's promise to David was that there should “not fail” a man to sit on his throne, or that his throne should be perpetual. The promise was fulfilled by exalting Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour, and the perpetual King of his people. (1Ki_2:4; 1Ki_8:25; 1Ki_9:5; 2Ch_6:16,)</font>

8)… Luk 17:20-21 - "And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation. Nor shall they say, Lo here! or, behold, there! For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
</font>

• Having just been asked by the Pharisees "when" the kingdom of God would come, Jesus tells them that the kingdom of God is not visible (with observations). He then tells them that the kingdom of God is in their "midst" - or to paraphrase, "The kingdom of God is standing right in front of you but you cannot see it because you are spiritually blind."</font>

9)… Luk 22:29 – "And I appoint a kingdom to you, as My Father has appointed to Me,"
</font>

• “And I appoint unto you a kingdom”,.... Not an earthly one, but a spiritual one, otherwise there would be 13 kingdoms!</font>

10)… Act 15:14 -16 - "Even as Simon has declared how God at the first visited the nations to take out of them a people for His name. And the words of the Prophets agree to this; as it is written, "After this I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen down; and I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up,..."

• Fulfilled in Luk 1:32 "He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David."
  
  "...to this agree the words of the prophets — generally; but those of Amos (Amo_9:11-12) are specified. The point of the passage lies in the predicted purpose of God, under the new economy, that “the heathen” or “Gentiles” should be “called by His name,” or have “His name called upon them.” By the “building again of the fallen tabernacle of David,” or restoring its decayed splendor, is meant that only and glorious recovery which it was to experience under David’s “son and Lord.” (JFB Commentary)

 

Actually, McClain is one of the watershed marks when Scripture began to come together as a whole, rather than just a bunch of parts.

So you hold these men up over the teaching of Scripture? You reject the work of many good scholars in order to hold your position? That is what you accused me of. The reality is that if you are accuratly representing these men, then they are wrong. It doesn't matter how "well respected" someone is. If they do not say what God says, then they are wrong. You blast me for citing McClain, and then turn around and cite others. The truth is I have read them and found all kinds of holes in their thinking on this matter. That doesn't mean that they are not good in other areas. They are, to some extent. But in this area, they were messed up.

My friend, you are way over the top. You have just called the historic position of orthodoxy heresy. The OT was an earhtly kingdom people. That is why the jews in teh first century expected that, and you claim that Jesus had to correct their theology. That is why the disciples expected it (Acts 1; Acts 3 ... you still haven't begun to deal with Scripture), and Jesus did nothing to dispel it, but in fact the Holy Spirit inspired Peter in Acts 3 to prophesy a coming earthly kingdom.

Why would you be scared to read it? Worried you might have to abandon your doctrine? What's intereesting is that I have read your side. I know what they say. That is why I rejected it. I wasn't scared to read them. I wanted to know if I was wrong. So I read them. The fact that you aren't even willing to entertain the idea that there is another interpretation that might make better sense and not distort the Scriptures is telling.

The reason I reference McClain as a starting point is because this forum is not set up to discuss this issue in detail. Every single one of your points makes me laugh because it is so easily refutable. It is amazing to me that anyone holds it. I was reading Isaiah this morning and found myself strengthened by the promise of a faithful God who will restore his people in teh end times just as he promised. I don't have to change those promises to fit into a theological system that is imposed on Scripture. I can accept exactly what Scripture says.

I can make the case that your position makes God out to be a liar. I have done so in the past. I don't think you want to do that. I think you mean well, as did these men. But you, like they, are blinded by a theological presupposition about what must happen and cannot let the text of Scripture stand on its own. But I don't think you think God is a liar. I think you are misguided.

But I would encourage you to soften your contempt for people who disagree on this issue. We are believers who believe in the authority of Scripture as much as you. We are not heretics, and what we believe on the end times is the result of careful and honest exegesis of Scripture. Your contempt for it, and unwillingness to even examine the issue is very troubling, and quite frankly, you need to change your attitude towards us. You don't have to agree with us, but understand that all true believers will inherit the kingdom, no matter when it is and what it is.

 

Originally posted by covenant: "Perhaps McClain is the reason your doctrine is so messed up?"

Alva McClain was also one of the ones that was on the committee to revise the Scofield Reference Bible too! That's the one where they took out the reference that didn't fit their present day theology about the church and Israel. Old Regular posted that but it was deleted - because it had truth in it, I guess.

 

You should not be so quick to judge without any knowledge whatsoever concerning how I did my research on that. The absolute truth is that I did a word search of "kingdom" using e-Sword. Then, based on what scripture was relevant to the topic I wrote it up and then double checked my thoughts with the commentators. I think it is important to be scripturally accurate. If 2, 3, or 4 commentators that have been the stalwarts of expositors and well respected for centuries agree, then to me it is not serious error.

I did not "reject the work of many good scholars." I used "the best" of the time period before Darby and Scofield brought in their new "secret rapture" theory 150 years ago.

Secondly, I still find it incredible that you completely dismiss scripture support, lexicons and respected commentators for such works that originated within a 40 year time frame of when 5-6 cults on the east coast were getting their start - all of which dealt primarily about a "new revelation" suddenly discovered in scripture. McClain, Dallas Thological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute are merely by-products of that era.

Uh, ok? Let's see; in a previous post 2 pages back, you had this to say; "There is no verse that says "It will be an earthly kingdom." Marvelous! You admit that there are no verses to substantiate what you have learned from these other "end times" (I'll be nice here) teachers have to say about that earthly kingdom that has no verses to verify it with???? Uh, I don't think so!

Exactly!

 

Originally posted by covenant: "an earthly kingdom on a sin-cursed earth (Genesis 3) and a 1,000 years that can only be symbolical if taken in the context."

No, I did not call the historic positon of orthodoxy heresy. Dispensationalism is even attributed to Darby and Scofield by Dallas Theological Seminary and many, many websites and book after book.

That would take me another 4 pages to deal with!

I will only say that no where in Acts 3 does Peter prophesy a coming earthly kingdom! P.S. Did you not say that "There are no verses that says it will be an earthly kingdom????" Restoration is not restoring and earthly kingdom. Read verse 19 - it very clearly says that they are to repent so that their "sins" may be blotted out..." It doesn't say anything about an earthly kingdom!

 

Not a book about an earthly kingdom! God warns me to stay away from "new teachings" that I am supposed to be expecting to see in the churchs just prior to His Second Coming.

That sounds more like Eve being tempted in the Garden of Eden.

I won't dignify that by answering it.

 

The earthly kingdom is not new. It goes back to Gen when God gave man dominion over the earth (a kingdom). It continues in Exo 20 when God gave an earthly kingdom to Israel. It continues in 1 Sam when that earthly kingdom got a king. It continues in 2 Sam when that earthly kingdom got another king, along wiht a promise that a descendant of that king would sit on that king's throne. It continued in the prophets, notably when we find out that the promise was for a God man who would sit on that throne. It continued in the gospels when that God man said that the Kingdom of God was at hand. It continued in Acts 1 where the disciples asked about the restoration of the kingdom. It continued in Acts 3 when Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reiterated the promise of a restoration of the earthly kingdom.

I guess that is new if you are an old earth creationist since it is only about 6 or 8 thousand years old. But it certainly isn't "new" in the sense that you tried to use that word. YOu simply don't know history if you think an earthly kingdom is a new idea. It is the oldest eschatological position in church history. Amill and post mill were later developments.

As long as I have been here, I have never seen anyone answer it ... and for obvious reasons. No one likes where it leads them. I don't think you want to call God a liar. But I think you have serious problems. God promises to restore the nation of Israel to the Land. That is the promise of hte NC in Jeremiah 31, as well a host of other passages, too many to list. If you are right, then God lied ... he won't restore Israel to the land that he kicked them out of. That is problemmatic.

God said of Israel, My people die for lack of knowledge. It is a shame that with all the resources we have in the modern age that God's people are willing to continue in a lack of knowledge because their presuppositions about Scripture are stronger than Scripture itself.

 

What happened to the topic?

 

We're still interpreting?

 

Pastor Larry: "YOu simply don't know history if you think an earthly kingdom is a new idea. It is the oldest eschatological position in church history. Amill and post mill were later developments."

Amen, Brother Pastory Larry -- good interpretin' & splain-in'!

 

Let me list a few for you. Let's start with Jeremiah 31 and read what it really says;

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,

Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;

Jer 31:33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, (the cross) says Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.


Jer 31:31 - A new covenant - The Christian dispensation.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (cf. Mk 14:24; Luke 22:20)

1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me."

2Co 3:6 who also has made us able ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be,

Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.

Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

 

It has changed into a debate about endtime scenarios. Another thread should be started for that for those of you who get into that. This thread, which was to discuss the principles of hermeneutics, has been hijacked.

 

Actually, there are many active eschatological topics:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2817/3.html
Saved During The Great Tribulation (Page 3)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2820/8.html
Scripture Supporting a Pretrib Removal of the Church (Page 8)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2810/3.html
Earthly Messianic Kingdom (Page 3)


http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2814.html
Poll: What did John Nelson Darby start? (Page 1)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2818/2.html
How Are People Saved During the Millennial Reign (Page 2)

If you will read those topics, you will find i spake in favor
of posting posts ON TOPIC (to be fair, even i got confused
from time to time ???).
There is actually NO RULE that says we have to post on topic.
There are eight moderators and administrators standing by
waiting for you to hit "Report Post". But without a rule, there
probably isn't much hope. All i know one can do is to
only post on topic and give a good example.

 

Marcia,

I'd say that this is about where the thread got "hijacked." I don't like it either when a thread I start gets "hijacked" either, but that unfortunately seems to happen if moderators allow it to happen.

I am not making excuses for taking off on the statement made by Pastor Larry because I believe that it merited addressing immediately as it was based on an untruth.

 

Ed,

Are you not speaking with forked-tongue here Ed? Were you not posting "off-topic" in this just above?

 

To conclude this off-topic thought, I would still be interested in Pastor Larrys respone to the scriptures below where Jeremiah 31 obviously does not "promise to restore the nation of Israel to the Land," but that the New Covenant with the House of Israel was to be obviously spiritual in nature because it was to be written "on the hearts" of all mankind and that it was to be for the remission of sins - Jews and Gentiles alike!

Let me list a few for you. Let's start with Jeremiah 31 and read what it really says;

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,

Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;

Jer 31:33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, (the cross) says Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.


Jer 31:31 - A NEW COVENANT = THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION COMPOSED OF JEWS AND GENTILES ALIKE

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (cf. Mk 14:24; Luke 22:20)

1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me."

2Co 3:6 who also has made us able ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be,

Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.

Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Why did you not repeat the whole new covenant passage? You stopped in a very comfortable spot for you, and as a result missed the teaching of God. That passage continues. Here is the whole passage including the part that you omitted.

Jeremiah 31:31 - 32:1 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." 35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: 36 "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also will cease From being a nation before Me forever." 37 Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD. 38 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when the city will be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 "The measuring line will go out farther straight ahead to the hill Gareb; then it will turn to Goah. 40 "And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD; it will not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever."

Where do you think that is? That is in the land, and it is a clear reference to the restoration of the house of Israel nad the house of Jacob to the land to dwell in the peaceful city. INteresting, Isa 9:6ff, talk of the king bein the "Prince of Peace." When he rules on the throne of his father David (something that can only be on earth since David never ruled from anywhere else), there will be peace in the land.

Secondly, look at vv. 35-37. In those verses, he specifically says that he will not cast off the nation of Israel for what they have done. THat specifically refutes the claim that the NT church is the recipient of hte promises that the nation lost in their disobedience.

With respect to Hebrews, AH stopped where you did because of his point about forgiveness. Being in the church age, he was focused on the forgiveness of the NC, not the rest of it.

When you stop half way throuh a passage, you do great injustice to it and end up with a distorted view of the Scripture.

Lastly, you indicated I made some kind of untrue statement, but then you didn't tell us what that statement was. If you think I made an untrue statement, then show me where. I would like to defend it.