Laws of Interpretation

Strongs definiton of "nation" as used in verse 36
H1471 -goy
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

I know you accept the doctrines of Darby and Scofield as being legitimate but I stand firm on the fact that it is "new" and even most dispensationalist will attribute the "secret rapture" to their origins. Therefore, I continue to examine and rely only on those prior to the 1830's as worthy of review.

Jer 31:36 - a nation — Israel’s national polity has been broken up by the Romans. But their preservation as a distinct people amidst violent persecutions, though scattered among all nations for eighteen centuries, unamalgamated, whereas all other peoples under such circumstances have become incorporated with the nations in which they have been dispersed, is a perpetual standing miracle (compare Jer_33:20; Psa_148:6; Isa_54:9, Isa_54:10) (JFB Commentary)

Jer 31:36 - "If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord,...." Of the sun, moon, and stars; should these leave their proper course, and not perform their several functions, or do the service appointed for them; should they desert their master, or disobey his orders, turn away from him, and pay no regard to the laws and rules he has set them:

"then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before me for ever;" but, as the former is impossible, so is the latter, The Jews ceased not from being a nation through their captivity in Babylon, nor through their destruction by the Romans; they continue a distinct nation and people to this day, though scattered throughout the nations of the world: though this rather refers to the spiritual Israel, the holy nation and peculiar people; Christ will have a seed to serve him as long as the sun and moon endure; his church shall continue to the end of the world; it is built on a rock; and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. (John Gill's Exp. Entire Bible)

Jer 31:36 - "If those ordinances.." - As sure as the sun shall give light to the day, and the moon to the night, so surely shall the Jews continue to be a distinct people. The same thing is expressed in other words in the next verse. Hitherto this prophecy has been literally fulfilled; the Jews are still a distinct people from all the dwellers upon earth. Every attempt that has been made in any country to naturalize and unite them with the people of that country, has proved abortive. The well-circumstanced attempt made this year (1830) in England, when the strongest interest was excited in their behalf, has also utterly failed. And why? Because of God’s purpose expressed in Jer_31:35-37 of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. (Clarke)

Jer 31:36 - "If those -" If these. From the uniformity of God’s operations in the material world, the prophet deduces the certainty of a similar uniformity in God’s dealings with man in things spiritual.
"A nation..." - A people. Israel has long ceased to be a nation, but it still exists as a numerous, influential, and distinct people. In Mat_28:19-20 Jeremiah’s prophecy receives its Christian application, and Israel becomes the Church, with the promise of perpetual existence. It has no national existence, but its members ought to be a strongly marked people, refusing to be merged in the world, while everywhere they pervade and influence it. (Actually, they became a "nation" of Jews again in 1948) (Barnes)

 

This is exactly the type of illegitimate interpretation that should be immediately seen and rejected. He says that since the former (sun, moon, etc) is impossible, so is the latter (Israel stop being a nation before God). He admits that it is talking about a genetic seed of Abraham. Then without any argumentation whatsoever, he makes a huge jump to "this rather refers to Spiritual Israel." Does not that make you laugh and cry at the same time? What contextual reason does he have to say that? The text says exactly the opposite. He has no biblical reason to say that. He says it because he predetermined conclusion demands it.

Here is someone, respected as a Bible commentator, who doesn't bother to pay attention to what the text says. Why is he respected on this issue? I am sure Gill said some things that were worthy in other areas. But when someon says what the text means, and then turns around in the next sentence and says it means something else, why do you listen?

The whole point is that the people in v 36 who won't be cast off are the people in vv. 31ff who are given a new heart. That cannoot be the church inasmuch as our fathers didn't come out of Egypt and break the Mosaic covenant. (We are given a new heart in the church, but this passage is talking about a certain group of people, and it is not the church.) This whole NC passage is a statement of God's faithfulness, that even though Israel was unfaithful, God will not forget his promise made to Abraham and repeated in Moses, but like Deut 30 says, He will bring them back. This promised is repeated for 1000 years in the OT, from the time of Moses till the close of the prophets.

Howevewr, I notice that you completely ignored, yet again, the whole prophecy. Where do you think the things in vv. 38 and following are? And why do you keep ignoring the whole prophecy?

You can't buy into this method that treats the text this way. God used specific words on purpose ... because they meant something. And he did not authorize John Gill, or Adam Clarke, or OT Allis, or anyone else to say he really meant something else. Surely you can see through that can't you?

When you read this passage without those guys, there is no way you come to the conclusion you did. Taken at face value, the passage prophesies a national revival in Israel and a restoration to the Land because God has not cut them off.

 

History proves you wrong. But I point out yet again that the important thing is not history. If you knew church history you would know that doctrinal development over time is a recognized part of it. There is every reason to think that about eschatology. The task of us today is not to exegete history, but the Bible. John Gill or Adam Clarke cannot be your authority. You have ceded to them instead of following the Scriptures on this matter.

 

HISTORY OF THE "SECRET RAPTURE" THEORY; (JUST THE FACTS)

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Pretrib4.htm

THOMAS ICE ON THE ORIGINS OF THE SECRET RAPTURE:

 

"The Hope of Christ's Second Coming", 1864
by Samuel P. Tregelles.

Tregelles was a member of the Brethren Movement and makes an interesting comment in his book. He says that belief in the secret pre-tribulation rapture originated about the year 1832 and in a footnote on the same page wrote:

 

Larry,
I answered the above with a list of scriptural support for the NC being spiritual in nature rather than being an earthly kingdom of 1,000 years, however it was inappropriate of you to then post this;

There are 40 verses in Jeremiah 31! You did not say “which” verses in Jeremiah 31 you were referring to. Therefore, I chose only those that were obviously speaking of that ”spiritual kingdom” because of the context referring to “writing it upon the hearts of men” which is the very basis of the NC doctrine. As a matter of fact, the NT quite often will base a fulfillment of a prophecy on one verse alone! That’s not unusual at all to use the specific verse the thought was relating to even if there are others in the context. Once again you jump to erroneous conclusions and accuse me of things that have not even entered my mind. You shouldn’t have made it seem as though my response to the above statement was being deliberately evasive or as though the other verses taught something contrary to my “preferred” beliefs and so therefore “judiciously” omitted them.

Next is this statement of yours;

All you had to do was look at the post I made concerning the turning point of this topic becoming “off topic.” I’ll post it again so you won’t have to scroll up to see it.

1) Amillenialism does not base it’s beliefs on emotions but on “scriptural support.”
2) I decided to stand firmly against being falsely accused of deliberately mistreating God’s Word of which I take great care not to do.

When people are dealing with symbolic language there are bound to be “differences of opinion because there are various interpretations – especially of the symbolism of Revelation.

At times though, people do noticeably mistreat clear and simple, non-symbolic language, in what is obviously an interpretation of a preferred and taught doctrine that originated with one man’s twisting scripture and has developed followers as a result of it. When it is pointed out and it becomes so clear that “pride” and “fear” is really what is motivating the individual to tenaciously hold onto erroneous doctrine then strong words may be merited, but that was not the case in my post so there is no apology necessary, on my part at least.

It is from my observations however, that what seems to generate the most heated responses to an individuals post is when symbolic language is the basis of a thought to the exclusion almost of clear and precise scripture, as seen especially in the gospels and the epistles.

This is the major fault of Darby’s interpretation of a “secret rapture.” He started out with symbolism rather than the clear teaching of the gospels and the epistles. And I might add, it is the root cause of other erroneous teachings that were developed concerning the “end times” that arose out of the Darby era on the east coast of the USA within a 40-70 year time frame.

Having said all this, in order to show you that I was not deliberately neglecting scripture I will deal with verse 38 shortly.

 

Your "answer" was inadequate in that it dealt only with passages or parts of passages that were sympathetic, while ignoring the ones that contradicted you.

There are 40 verses in Jeremiah 31! You did not say “which” verses in Jeremiah 31 you were referring to.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes I did. I used the exact terms that Jeremiah used, and specifically asked you where these things were. You just ignored it.

But in so doing, you ignored the "whole counsel of God" from that passage. You can't choose only the parts you like. You have to deal with all of it, and when you do, your "spiritual kingdom" falls apart as inadequate for the whole revelation of Scripture.

But in so doing, they do not contradict the rest of hte passage, which is what you have done, unwittingly to be sure, but true nonetheless. When Jer 31 makes specific reference to the rebuilding and inhabitance of hte land, you can't just ignore it, or make it spiritual.

To be honest, I can think of no other reason why you would avoid it. Why not just talk about the whole passage? Even after I pointed out to you that you omitted part of it, you still did it. Why?

1) Amillenialism does not base it’s beliefs on emotions but on “scriptural support.”</font>[/QUOTE]As you can see from what you quoted, I said nothing about emotions. I don't think it is about emotions. I think it is about preconceived positions that you now have to support.

But in ignoring or avoiding the passages that talk about the earthly nature of hte coming kingdom, how have you not done that? I cannot see how you reconcile your apparent appraoch revealed by your position with your avowed statement about your method here. They don't add up. It you stand against the mistreatment of Scripture, then you have to quit ignoring or avoiding (for whatever reason) the passages that refute you. If you stand against the mistreatment of Scriputre, then you must reject Gill, Clarke, and others who do just that to arrive at their preconceived positions.

I agree. But I am not referring to anything symbolic. The last three verses of Jer 31 that you have yet to deal with (unless it is later in this post) are not symbolic. They are real. You can go and look at the things talked about.

I agree and disagree. Gill and others have "noticeably mistreat(ed) clear and simple, non-symbolic language, in what is obviously an interpretation of a preferred and taught doctrine that originated with one man’s twisting scripture and has developed followers as a result of it." I can't see how we can consider them serious contributors to this discussion. I have already pointed out flaws in their method, such as unjustified jumps and unsupported assertions.

I think this can be clearly refuted with ease. The pre trib rapture is easily supportable. You don't have to agree with the conclusions, but it is impossible to honestly and knowingly deny that the support is there. I find a lot of arguments used for pretrib less than convincing, and I am a pretribber. But I don't jettison the idea just because some have wrongly defended it. I think there is ample evidence to conclude that a pretrib rapture was the apostolic doctrine. I don't think that evidence is clear enough to question the salvation or commitment of those who find another position more convincing.

Vv. 39-40 would also be appropriate.

 

Larry,

I noticed you did not respond to this post on the previous page - especially what Thomas Ice had to say about dispensational roots.

Originally posted by covenant:
HISTORY OF THE "SECRET RAPTURE" THEORY; (JUST THE FACTS)

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Pretrib4.htm

THOMAS ICE ON THE ORIGINS OF THE SECRET RAPTURE:

 

NOR DID YOU RESPOND TO WHAT TREGELLES WROTE IN A BOOK CONCERNING THE EVENTS OF 1830 AND THE "NEW RAPTURE THEORY"

Originally posted by covenant:
"The Hope of Christ's Second Coming", 1864
by Samuel P. Tregelles.

Tregelles was a member of the Brethren Movement and makes an interesting comment in his book. He says that belief in the secret pre-tribulation rapture originated about the year 1832 and in a footnote on the same page wrote:

It can't be more clear that those during the period of Darby, understood that it was a "new teaching."

 

Dear Brother covenant:

It is rude to put your off topic quotations
here.

I am extrememly interested in YOUR BELIEFS
about eschatology. But it must be in a
topic about eschatology. This topic is about
How we understand the Scripute, how to study
the scripture. I appeal to your Humanity
(you are human and not a machine, yes?),
I appeal to your Christianity (you are
saved, yes!), I appeal to your love of
Jesus. Please talk about YOUR eschatology
in the eschatology topics; please talk about
the "laws of Interpretation" you use
here. Thank you.

Does anybody have any more good hints for
Bible study and principles of
understanding of Scripture?

 

#1 - Bartimaeus was the originator of this topic.
#2 - You are not the moderator.
#3 - You have posted off topic also - take the log out of your own eye first.
#3 - I stated earlier that Larry made a statement that necessitated a response.
#4 - I also stated that it is not a good thing to post off topic, however, at this point it is almost completed.

 

Covenant, I did not respond because 1) I don't care, and 2) it isn't relevant. The primary question about doctrine cannot be "is it new?" It is rather "Is it what the Bible teaches?" Quite frankly I don't really care what those writers have to say about historicity.

It is well known that in church history different doctrines have undergone development at different times. For instance, the doctrine of Christ was "codified" in a sense during the middle part of hte first millennia AD when it was under attack. Soteriology underwent a similar process of systematization during the middle to latter part of the second millennia. There is every reason to think that eschatology is now undergoign a similar phenomenon. We should not assume that every period of church history had the same clarity and accuracy on every doctrine. History reveals to us differently.

Our primary concern is not what history says. Nor is our primary concern that someone can show a doctrine to be new. Truth be told, if you go back to about 500AD, the doctrine of amillennialism was "new," being only about 100 years old. Therefore, you have to reject amillennialism on the same basis that you reject pretribulationism. Chances are that you don't like that method of argumentation when it is used that way. And I don't blame you. Which is why I reject your use of it now.

The primary question is, and always must be, What does Scripture teach? Judged by that standard, the answer is "pretribulation rapture."

 

I should add that the "new" argument is not entirely accurate. The pretrib idea has been traced back earlier than Darby, though not clearly systematized and worked through.

 

I give you scripture - you just say "I don't agree."

I give you dictionaries definitions of "words" - you just say "I don't agree."

I give you lexicons - you just say "I don't agree."

I give you pre-Darby Commentaries witten by scholars - you just say "I don't agree."

I give you contemporary writers of Darby's era - you just say "I don't agree."

I give you Thomas Ice of contemporary dispensational thought - you just say "I don't agree."

I give you the words of Christ in Matt. 26:28 "For this is My blood of the NEW COVENANT, which is shed for many for the REMISSION OF SINS. - you just say "I don't agree."

I give you the words in Hebrews : {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 - and you just say "I don't agree."

IT IS OBVIOUS AT THIS POINT THAT YOUR HEART IS HARDENED AND THERE IS NO POINT IN HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH SOMEONE LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT IS A WASTE OF MY VALUABLE TIME. JUST AS CHRIST KNEW THAT IT WAS A WASTE OF HIS TIME TO TRY AND CONVINCE THE PHARISEES THAT THE KINDGDOM OF GOD WAS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM AND THAT IT WAS TO BE SPIRITUAL IN NATURE - IT WOULD BE WISER FOR ME TO CONVERSE WITH THOSE THAT HAVE THE EARS TO HEAR.

THIS CONVERSATION {?} IS ENDED.

[ March 19, 2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: covenant ]

 

God is still alive and miracles still happen.

Proverbs 10:17 (HCSB):
The one who follows instruction is on the
path to life, but the one who rejects correction goes astray.

 

Exactly. And Darby's ideas
matured between the start of his ministry
in 1830 and along toward the end of his ministry
about 1875.

My pastor says we even need to differenciate
between the first 7 of Paul's books
and the last 7 books (obviously he counts
Hebrews as being by Paul).

 

Actually, I didn't "just say" I didn't agree, I gave you reasons why I didn't agree. I supported those reasons with proof from other resources to counter yours, with evidence from theology, and from teh correlation of Scripture. What else do you want?

This is actually the first time you have brought this up I believe. But even at that, so what? It is irrelevant to the point because I agree with this. But this is only part of hte New Covenant. It is not the whole thing.

Having just preached through Hebrews 8, I feel well qualified to say that once again this is irrelevant because it is not the whole NC. AH cited the part that was relevant for his point, that in Christ alone was forgiveness of sins, and it involved a new heart. He did not annul the rest of the NC (which you won't even deal with).

This is precisely why your understanding of teh NC is wrong. There is only one group of people in human history who can be described as ones whose fathers did the above ... national Israel. And God makes the NC with the people whose fathers did what is described above. Therefore, he did not make the NC with the church. This is a simple matter of exegesis. And it isn't difficult. Just ask yourself, who does this describe? The answer is clear and simple: national Israel.

Really? Let's review. I have answered every single passage of Scripture you have put forth with solid evidence. I have been mroe than willing to answer some things two and three times. And because you won't interact with what I have said, I am the one with the hard heart? I have pointed out where your view has difficulty with Scripture and you won't even deal with it. You said above you would get to v. 38, and now you have fled. It is interesting that I have never had an amill or postmill willing to get past v. 34 in the NC with any meaningful discussion. It tells me you don't know what to make of it. It tells me that you have no answer for it. Of course, I know you have no answer for it because if you dealt with teh passage accurately and fairly, you wouldn't be an amillennialist. There is no way to be.

I also have to question why you are questioning my salvation because I don't agree with you on this topic. Why would you do that? You think you know everything? You really think you are qualified to question my spiritual condition because I disagree with you? That is especially confusing given that I have answered everything you have said with Scripture, and you won't even respond to some of it. Yet you feel the liberty to question my salvation. Wow ...

You just contradicted yourself. It is is right in front of them, then it is not spiritual. You were right in the first statement. His point to the Pharisees was that it was all over the place. They could see it. They didn't need to look for it anymore. It was there. But it wasn't anything about being spiritual. You are hung up on that and won't answer legitimate questions about the inspired word of God that contain his promises.

It may be ended here, but one day you will have to deal with these questions. And you will have to find answers.

One last question: Why did you say above that you would deal with v. 38 and now decide not to?

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I did deal with verse 38 because it is a spiritual kingdom! You just can’t “see” it.
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,”

This is the core of your misunderstanding of Jeremiah 31.

1) It was to be a “spiritual restoration.” The house of Israel, as well as the house of Judah, share in the new covenant. As both shared the exile - both share the spiritual restoration.

2) You take verses 35-37 and then use it as the wrong pivotal point in the text. Verse 35 begins with; “So says Jehovah….” “So says Jehovah” looks back at verses 31-34 and then confirms the certainty of the spiritual New Covenant by saying, if I may paraphrase it, - “the Lord will, without question, make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, but it will be written upon their hearts, and it will be for the forgiveness of their sins. My promise of that is so certain that only if you see the “elements of the universe” disappear will I “cast off ALL the descendants of Israel…”

In using it as the wrong pivotal point, you then misunderstand the context of verses 38-40 to be a literal promise of a restoration of “the land” and therefore an earthly kingdom. However, the last verse says that; “It shall not be uprooted or overthrown any more forever.” That can be nothing else but a spiritual kingdom, the New Jerusalem, which will endure throughout eternity! Even if the context can be used as a “double pivotal point” of confirmation of both, then the certainty of both is a given. The New Covenant as being instituted with the house of Israel and the house of Judah at the cross and the New Jerusalem being established forever at the end of the world.

This post is not intended to pick up and run with it again, but is intended to put an end to this “off topic” post. I have no doubts that it will not be taken seriously any more than it was previously. Right now, I do not have the time to continue debating this issue no matter what you come back with. I will, at some time in the future, begin a thread on this topic.

 

Thanks for your response and for the spirit in which it was written (until the last paragraph). Let me see if we can move this forward.

First, on what textual basis do you say this is a spiritual kingdom? The only thing “spiritual” in the text is the new heart and spirit (regeneration) that is given to the people described in vv. 31-32 (those who fathers came out of Egypt, entered the Mosaic covenant, and then disobeyed and were kicked out of the land). That seems to say that the NC promises regeneration to national Israel.

Second, how does vv. 35-37 fit in with the idea that a “spiritual Israel” has replaced “national Israel”? God’s point in those verses is that he will not cast off “all” of national Israel. Therefore, the group he does not cast off has to be of the same group that he did cast off. Otherwise the word “all” has no apparent meaning. God seems to be saying that he will restore national Israel because 1) it was their fathers to whom he promised (vv. 31-34) and 2) he will not cast them off “until” the universe changes (a figure of speech to indicate impossibility). So God is reiterating his promise to national Israel, that he will not take away this promise from them.,

Third, how do vv. 38-40 support a spiritual kingdom? The landmarks used in that passage to describe the land that will never be overthrown again are physical landmarks. You can go over there and look at them, stand on them, take pictures them. How is that spiritual? And what is the point of using these landmarks if God did not intend those landmarks to mean those landmarks? In other words, if God intended a spiritual kingdom, what point does the use of physical landmarks serve? God seems to indicate to his people that the land in which these physical landmarks are found is the land that will not be overthrown. You dispute that. Why?