Old Testament: Eschatology or Christology?

[asterisktom]

I think we really have a disagreement about how to interpret the Bible here and we'd probably need to discuss that before we discussed the meaning of any prophetic passage.

The best way to understand a statement is to take it in its immediate context and work outward from there. You seem to be taking a macro view as the priority, instead.

For instance, if a man is a cuisine writer for a newspaper, he might make frequent use of the word "cupcake". However, if you picked up a letter that he wrote his wife, his use of the word "cupcake" might be totally unrelated to the way he uses it in his work, though the context of each kind of writing will make his meaning clear.

In the scriptures, a writer's use of a word or phrase should be determined primarily from the context. Once that is determined, then the big themes that extend accross the Bible become apparent.

Reading the meaning of the parable of the wheat/tares into prophetic passages as an overarching theme of meaning seems like an arbitrary choice to me. Given the number of parables Jesus told, what is the reasoning for making that particular parable the thematic guide? I don't think such a use is justified.

Well, thanks for the interaction. You seem like a serious student in all of this and what I have brought up in this post is probably off-topic for the thread, so I digress.

As far as interpretation is concerned I believe context, cross-reference, and that "macro view" are to be used. I believe I have already demonstrated my use of the first two. BTW, I never mean to say that we overlook these things. Speaking of overlook - we need to also add the study of terms (STOICHEIA, for instance) and (to a lesser degree) historical setting.

But over all in importance of these four we listed is the overarching macro view. And this is where, I believe, your cupcake comparison doesn't stand. The macro view of the Bible is that it testifies of Christ. This is the foundation of the OT and the New.

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:27

It is isn't that every single Old Testament verse has Christ in it, but that they all point to Him, underscore the need for Him, and for the New Covenant in His blood.
Herein is the (what I perceive to be, at least) the distinctive difference between Dispensationalists (for want of a better term) and non-disps: We tend to see Christ in many more places than Disps do. Where we see Christ thy often see Jews. In one place (Dan. 9:26) we see Christ and they see Antichrist. We also tend to see the finished work of Christ in the OT in many places where they see either endtimes or Millennial fulfillment.

There is this difference with the "cupcake husband's" words and that of the Bible: The husband, like all humans, lacks, to a consistent degree, a concentrated theme in his life. But God - in His book - does concentrate on what is truly important. I am so glad that not every stupid and idle word of mine in my life is recorded. There is a lot of junk there. But this is not the case with the OT. There is, thus, a correspondingly much greater economy of terminology and consistency of theme.

It is the knowledge of this theme that overrides all other methods of parsing out the text. I start first with the assumption: Christ is here somewhere - by prophecy, teaching, type, parallel, etc. I know, speaking of Isaiah again, that i will encounter Christ here in many places - so I look for Him. I also look for His work to be described - the outworking of the New Covenant.

This assumption BTW is what finally led me to realize that there is no reason, no purpose, no place (al three of these) for the supposed Millennial Kingdom with all of its sacrifices and other trappings. The thoroughly finished work of Christ combined with the once-for-all obliteration of the inner wall of partition does away with the need for it.

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper, I agree that Peter gets his language from Isaiah. However, Peter is not speaking of this current age.

This leads to another question of "ages" and when they began and when the ended. Paul indicates his 1st century audience was living in the end of an age:

1Co 10:11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come,

The same "end of the age" found in Matt. 24:3 to which Clarke recognizes as the Jewish age:

End of the world - Του αιωνος; or, of the age, viz. the Jewish economy, which is a frequent accommodated meaning of the word Αιων,

Peter is speaking of a time to come. Note his language: "the present heaven and earth are reserved for fire...." "The Day of the Lord will come...." "Since everything will be destroyed in this way...." "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness".

Since it refers to the end of the Jewish age it was in fact future at the time Peter wrote this. Gill identifies the end of the age with the destruction of the Temple:

and therefore they ask also, of the sign of the end of the world, or present state of things in the Jewish economy:

When Peter speaks of the new heaven and new earth, borrowing Isaiah's language, he is speaking of something that is yet to come, not something that is here now. The wheat and tares parable, which clearly describes the present age, does not fit here at all.

They lived in the "present age", we live in what they called the "age to come".

Best book I've read on 2 Peter is this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0938855255/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Grasshopper]

Please give us an example of a metaphorical animal in Isaiah and a non-metaphorical animal in Isaiah and how you determine the author's use of them. I am open to considering that the lion and lamb are metaphorical, but I don't understand the method you are using to come to your conclusion.

Albert Barnes commenting on Is. 11:7

And the lion shall eat straw like the ox - A representation of the change that will take place under the reign of the Messiah in the natural disposition of men, and in the aspect of society; as great as if the lion were to lose his natural appetite for blood, and to live on the usual food of the ox. This cannot be taken literally, for such an interpretation would suppose a change in the physical organization of the lion - of his appetites, his teeth, his digestive organs - a change which it would be absurd to suppose will ever exist. It would in fact make him a different being. And it is clear, therefore, that the whole passage is to be interpreted in "moral" sense, as denoting great and important changes in society, and in the hearts of men.

John Gill commenting on the same passage:

their young ones shall lie down together; those like the calf and the young bear, shall lie in the green pastures of Gospel ordinances, and do no injury, the latter to the former, being of one mind, and agreeing in doctrine and practice:
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; kings shall be nursing fathers to the church, and feed on the same Gospel provisions; and there shall be a great agreement between them who were before comparable to lions for their strength, power, and cruelty, and ministers of the Gospel, who are compared to oxen, for their strength and laboriousness, 1Co_9:9 "straw" here denotes true doctrine, though elsewhere false, see 1Co_3:12.


Isa 35:9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:

Albert Barnes:

No lion shall be there - Lions abounded in all the countries adjacent to Palestine. They are, therefore, often referred to by the sacred writers, as objects of dread and alarm.


John Gill

Isa 35:9 No lion shall be there,.... That is, in the way before described; no wicked persons, comparable to lions for their savage and cruel dispositions towards the people of God; for those who have been as such, as Saul before conversion, yet when brought into this way become as tame as lambs. The Targum interprets it of tyrannical kings and princes,
"there shall not be there a king doing evil, nor an oppressive governor;''


Isa 30:6 The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them.