Seventy Weeks Prophecy, no Gap, but a Solid Promise

[PreachTony]

Do you believe anyone but a true child of God can really pray such a prayer? Why would a true child of God pray for something to come that already has come for them????? This is not a prayer for lost people to pray. If the kingdom was nothing more than spiritual and here and now, such a person would be praying in vain, as they are already in that kingdom or they could not pray this prayer. The kingdom to "come" is yet something future.

Who said anything about lost people praying the Lord's prayer? I said that some people I know think we should only pray the Lord's prayer. I was not personally advocating this position, and I will stand by you in saying that, if someone so chooses to rotely say the Lord's prayer, then doing so in a lost state is wrong.

You say "If the kingdom was nothing more than spiritual and here and now, such a person would be praying in vain." Just out of curiosity, what do you think must still be accomplished in order for the Lord to return? Do we need another Temple to be built? Does the Roman Empire need to be re-established? Does Babylon need to rise again? If these things are true, then Jesus's statement that no man knows the day nor hour in which He will return is, while not totally negated, at least greatly weakened, as those of us living now can point to scripture and say, "well, we know He can't come back yet, because this event and that event haven't happened."

I'm not a full preterist, Biblicist, but I also don't believe that there is anything to stop the Lord returning.

Surely you can't be serious? Are you telling me that is all you see in 1 Thes. 4? Just being forever with the Lord? Don't you believe in the resurrection of your own body? Look at the contextual reason for Paul considering this topic (1 Thes. 4:13). Surely, you are not suggesting that the precise order he is given is simply to be spiritualized into nothing but we will be with the Lord forever???

I can assure you that one sentence does not completely cover my theological stance. I would argue that just reading 1 Thes 4 includes the resurrection of the body, as it lays out the dead rising first and the alive being called up. I'm curious how you think I can read 1 Thes 4 and not see the resurrection.

Allow me to turn it back on you: to you, Biblicist, is it not enough to be with the Lord forever?

 

[DHK]

What Jude asserts is "ηλθεν κυριος εν αγιαις μυριασιν αυτου" which, I think you know, can also refer to angels. In fact this should be the favored interpretation since it is similar to other verses.

At the very least it is not the "gotcha" verse that you seem to think.

(ESV) It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

(Geneva) And Enoch also the seuenth from Adam, prophecied of such, saying, Beholde, the Lorde commeth with thousands of his Saints,

Other translations do not support your view.
The word 'hagios means saint or holy one. It never means "angel."
We, the saints, will judge angels, not the other way around.

What does the next verse in Jude say:
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.[/FONT]
--Christ, with his saints, will come to execute judgment upon all...

[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?[/FONT]

Christ is coming with his armies of saints.
[FONT=&quot]Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Revelation 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.[/FONT]
The armies clothed in fine linen and white, are the saints. The linen and white describe the righteousness of the saints.

[FONT=&quot]Revelation 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.[/FONT]
--There is the bride of Christ arrayed in fine linen, clean and white.
The same is coming with Christ to execute judgment just as Jude describes.
The two events are the same.

 

[DHK]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think must still be accomplished in order for the Lord to return?

[FONT=&quot]Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.[/FONT]

 

[asterisktom]

Furthermore, there is no linguistic grounds for your interpetation in the New Testament (as far as usage).

1. Whenever φυλαι is modified by της γης in the New Testament it is NEVER ONCE applied to Israel. Whenever it is applied to Israel it ALWAYS has some other modifer than της γης.[/COLOR]

What? You're kidding right? This phrase occurs only here. Nowhere else in the NT. This is like saying "Indians always walk single file. At least the one I saw did."

 

[The Biblicist]

Who said anything about lost people praying the Lord's prayer?

You missed my point completely! I replied to your idea that this is simply praying the kingdom comes in a spiritual sense of new birth. I was pointing out the self-contradiction of that idea. First, this person could not be the prayer of a lost person and so the person praying it is already spiritually in God's kingdom. So for a person already in the spiritual kingdom to pray "thy kingdom come" is oxymoronic and really vain repetitious praying. Since, this is a model prayer for believers, it must refer to something beyond entrance into a present spiritual kingdom (already accomplished to be a believer) but refers to a FUTURE kingdom to come on earth, as the King rules already in heaven. There is a time yet future when "the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms" of His dear Son (Rev. 19:5). Remember, the pray is about God's will being done "ON EARTH" as in heaven and that day has not yet arrived.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think must still be accomplished in order for the Lord to return? Do we need another Temple to be built? Does the Roman Empire need to be re-established? Does Babylon need to rise again? If these things are true, then Jesus's statement that no man knows the day nor hour in which He will return is, while not totally negated, at least greatly weakened, as those of us living now can point to scripture and say, "well, we know He can't come back yet, because this event and that event haven't happened."

That is another topic altogether and I don't want to derail this thread. If you want to talk about that, then just open up a thread for it.

I can assure you that one sentence does not completely cover my theological stance. I would argue that just reading 1 Thes 4 includes the resurrection of the body, as it lays out the dead rising first and the alive being called up. I'm curious how you think I can read 1 Thes 4 and not see the resurrection.

Again, you missed my point. I was responding to your generic response to 1 Thessalonians 4 to be nothing more than being with the Lord forever more. I said surely you don't spiritualize all the language away to mean nothing more than that??? There is a precise order given there, just as in 1 Cor. 15:20-56, which cannot be simply spiritualized to mean nothing more than we are going to be with the Lord forever.

Allow me to turn it back on you: to you, Biblicist, is it not enough to be with the Lord forever?

Surely you are jesting? You can't be with the Lord forever if you spiritualize all the stated means to obtain that goal can you????? That is precisely what you are implying even by this question! If we spiritualize scripture in this manner, then what could we not spiritualize away in scripture???????? Surely, you must have hermeneutical guidelines to keep you from spiritualizing away what is to be taken literal or else one could dispose of the whole Bible by simply spiritualizing away God, heaven, hell, salvation, etc., etc.

 

[The Biblicist]

What? You're kidding right? This phrase occurs only here. Nowhere else in the NT. This is like saying "Indians always walk single file. At least the one I saw did."

Take a look at Acts 3:25. The fact is that whenever the word "φυλαι" is use of Israel it is NEVER modied by "earth."

Moreover, you are simply ignoring the other contextual evidence I presented. The context from which Revelation 1:7 was taken repudiates your translation. The continued use of "φυλαι" by the writer of Revelation repudiates your translation. The usage in Acts 3:25 repudiates your translation even though it is not exactly the same.

Moreover, since this is the only text exactly worded in this fashion, then what grounds do you have to even suggest your translation since neither terms are found in any New Testament context, especially revelation to even support your translation. The context from which it is quoted does not support it. The usage of "phulai" by the Revelater does not support it.

So give me some evidence for your better translation from the context out of which Revelations 1:7 comes in Zechariah? So give me some evidence for where "earth" is used anywhere else to modify Israel in the New Testament?

The fact is that the overiding evidence for the proper translation should be the context from which the quotation was taken and you know that. That context does not support your translation at all.

 

[PreachTony]

You missed my point completely! I replied to your idea that this is simply praying the kingdom comes in a spiritual sense of new birth. I was pointing out the self-contradiction of that idea. First, this person could not be the prayer of a lost person and so the person praying it is already spiritually in God's kingdom. So for a person already in the spiritual kingdom to pray "thy kingdom come" is oxymoronic and really vain repetitious praying. Since, this is a model prayer for believers, it must refer to something beyond entrance into a present spiritual kingdom (already accomplished to be a believer) but refers to a FUTURE kingdom to come on earth, as the King rules already in heaven. There is a time yet future when "the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms" of His dear Son (Rev. 19:5).

As I said earlier, I think we've gotten into much more of a kerfuffle than was required over this issue. It's obvious we have differing points of view and I doubt seriously that either of us will convince the other to switch sides.

That is another topic altogether and I don't want to derail this thread. If you want to talk about that, then just open up a thread for it.

I probably will, as it sounds like a fun discussion. Though I will own up that that is one of the biggest reasons I dislike internet forums. The freedom that exists to wander from topic to topic in a normal conversation is limited in writing. I've always preferred face-to-face conversation.

Again, you missed my point. I was responding to your generic response to 1 Thessalonians 4 to be nothing more than being with the Lord forever more. I said surely you don't spiritualize all the language away to mean nothing more than that??? There is a precise order given there, just as in 1 Cor. 15:20-56, which cannot be simply spiritualized to mean nothing more than we are going to be with the Lord forever.

Yes, I gave a generic response. I alluded to merely one thing, albeit the main thing, that I see in the last few verses of 1 Thes 4. I was not meaning the imply that the entirety of 1 Thes 4 is only about being with the Lord. In much the same way as Matthew Chapter 6 is only about the Lord's Prayer, 1 Thes 4 is not only about the last verses.

That being said, I'm sorry that you believe that those of us who accept spiritualized interpretation are merely "spiritualizing away" scripture. We are not (at least the ones I know personally). While some people may use that, I do not.

Surely you are jesting? You can't be with the Lord forever if you spiritualize all the stated means to obtain that goal can you????? That is precisely what you are implying even by this question! If we spiritualize scripture in this manner, than what could we not spiritualize away in scripture???????? Surely, you must have hermeneutical guidelines to keep you from spiritualizing away what is to be taken literal or else one could dispose of the whole Bible by simply spiritualizing away God, heaven, hell, salvation, etc., etc.

So I can't be with the Lord forever because I've spiritualized the scripture? If you have a guideline of spiritual vs literal, Biblicist, I'd love to see it. Should I take a seven-headed beast with ten horns literally? Should I take Mystery Babylon literally as a woman sitting upon many waters? Should I take a camel going through the eye of a needle literally?

 

[The Biblicist]

As I said earlier, I think we've gotten into much more of a kerfuffle than was required over this issue. It's obvious we have differing points of view and I doubt seriously that either of us will convince the other to switch sides.



I probably will, as it sounds like a fun discussion. Though I will own up that that is one of the biggest reasons I dislike internet forums. The freedom that exists to wander from topic to topic in a normal conversation is limited in writing. I've always preferred face-to-face conversation.



Yes, I gave a generic response. I alluded to merely one thing, albeit the main thing, that I see in the last few verses of 1 Thes 4. I was not meaning the imply that the entirety of 1 Thes 4 is only about being with the Lord. In much the same way as Matthew Chapter 6 is only about the Lord's Prayer, 1 Thes 4 is not only about the last verses.

That being said, I'm sorry that you believe that those of us who accept spiritualized interpretation are merely "spiritualizing away" scripture. We are not (at least the ones I know personally). While some people may use that, I do not.



So I can't be with the Lord forever because I've spiritualized the scripture? If you have a guideline of spiritual vs literal, Biblicist, I'd love to see it. Should I take a seven-headed beast with ten horns literally? Should I take Mystery Babylon literally as a woman sitting upon many waters? Should I take a camel going through the eye of a needle literally?

If you want to seriously discuss the issues, I am more than willing to discuss it with you. However, these responses simply demonstrate you are being illusive and simply want to skirt evidence that you don't want to deal with and I am not here to force anyone to deal with evidence they simply don't want to deal with.

Obviously, you have never taken any training in Biblical heremeneutics or else you would not even ask "if you have a guideline of spiritual vs literal."

You should NEVER spiritualize anything unless literalizing it makes no sense or unless the immediate context demands it. Everything else should be interpreted literally. If you do not follow this common sense principle of interpretation than what is there in God's word that cannot be spiritualized away???? Think about it. For example, should we spiritualize "John" away or is he the literal writer of Revelation? Just think about it.

 

[PreachTony]

If you want to seriously discuss the issues, I am more than willing to discuss it with you. However, these responses simply demonstrate you are being illusive and simply want to skirt evidence that you don't want to deal with and I am not here to force anyone to deal with evidence they simply don't want to deal with.

Obviously, you have never taken any training in Biblical heremeneutics or else you would not even ask "if you have a guideline of spiritual vs literal."

You should NEVER spiritualize anything unless literalizing it makes no sense or unless the immediate context demands it. Everything else should be interpreted literally. If you do not follow this common sense principle of interpretation than what is there in God's word that cannot be spiritualized away???? Think about it. For example, should we spiritualize "John" away or is he the literal writer of Revelation? Just think about it.

Well, I'm glad to know that my entire understanding of Biblical study is meaningless. I apologize to you, Biblicist, for my inane desire to seek spiritual discernment of the things of God. I've always thought of the Word of God as one of those things of God. I see now that I should be as literal as possible unless otherwise dictated...never mind that a literal interpretation reveals much of the Bible to be focused at certain groups in certain places in certain times, and therefore a literal interpretation, while wonderful for a historical reading, becomes meaningless in our modern lives.

I'll be removing myself from this conversation now, Biblicist, as I realize I am not up to your standards of interpretation. I'll now go sit in a quiet room and try to figure out why God has shown me so much in the scripture if my interpretation method is as flawed as you make it out to be.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, I'm glad to know that my entire understanding of Biblical study is meaningless. I apologize to you, Biblicist, for my inane desire to seek spiritual discernment of the things of God. I've always thought of the Word of God as one of those things of God. I see now that I should be as literal as possible unless otherwise dictated...never mind that a literal interpretation reveals much of the Bible to be focused at certain groups in certain places in certain times, and therefore a literal interpretation, while wonderful for a historical reading, becomes meaningless in our modern lives.

I'll be removing myself from this conversation now, Biblicist, as I realize I am not up to your standards of interpretation. I'll now go sit in a quiet room and try to figure out why God has shown me so much in the scripture if my interpretation method is as flawed as you make it out to be.

Again, you are not dealing with the evidence seriously but playing the martyr while ignoring the problems I placed squarely before you.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot approach the Scriptures with a spiritualization bias! Do you approach any other book that way? You ALWAYS take what you read literally unless there is sufficient evidence from the immediate context to take it some other way (metaphors, simile's, parables, etc.).

For example, why not spiritualize away John 3:16? Why not spiritualize away every single text you come to?????? What keeps you from doing that or saying that is just fine? Don't you have any common sense guidelines for what you read??? Have you ever heard of the golden rule of interpretation? It reads like this:

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning UNLESS the facts of the immediate context, studied in thelight of related passages and axiomatic and fundemental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

If you do not practice this, then every heresy imaginable can be defended by scripture. If one does not practice this rule then pandora's box is opened up to every imaginable concievable error there is.

 

[PreachTony]

One last reply before I step out:

Again, you are not dealing with the evidence seriously but playing the martyr while ignoring the problems I placed squarely before you.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot approach the Scriptures with a spiritualization bias! Do you approach any other book that way? You ALWAYS take what you read literally unless there is sufficient evidence from the immediate context to take it some other way (metaphors, simile's, parables, etc.).

No, I don't approach any other book that way, but I also don't take any other book to be the divinely inspired word of God. Although I'm glad to have learned that I'm not using "common sense" when it comes to reading the Bible. And please don't cast me as the martyr. I'm merely leaving a conversation that, while once a good discussion/debate, has turned into a nasty, fairly elitist discussion in which one side is taking a much more exalted position than the other and is simply turning up its nose instead of calmly and civilly discussing the topic.

For example, why not spiritualize away John 3:16? Why not spiritualize away every single text you come to?????? What keeps you from doing that or saying that is just fine? Don't you have any common sense guidelines for what you read???

Why are you so intent on saying that I'm "spiritualizing away" the scripture? To the best of my knowledge, I've not just "spiritualized away" anything, but instead have sought the guidance of the Spirit in discerning the Word of God. To me, an overly literal interpretation can take away far more than a spiritualized interpretation. But, we already knew we stood at that interpreted impasse.

Have you ever heard of the golden rule of interpretation? It reads like this:

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning UNLESS the facts of the immediate context, studied in thelight of related passages and axiomatic and fundemental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

I am familiar with that rule. I'm also well acquainted with a number of people who hold to a different eschatological stance than I, who try desperately to enforce that rule on others while blatantly ignoring it themselves. (Please note, I am not labeling you as one of these people. These are actual, physical acquaintances of mine, not people hidden behind screen names on a forum.)

If you do not practice this, then every heresy imaginable can be defended by scripture. If one does not practice this rule then pandora's box is opened up to every imaginable concievable error there is.

If you believe that I've endorsed a heresy, then bring it to me and discuss it. I believe enough in gospel order that I'll reason with you over the topic. However, I'm not keen on broad-brushing an entire school of interpretation as "open to every imaginable concievable [sic] error" because it doesn't follow my interpretation standard or it doesn't adhere to the man-made "golden rule of interpretation."

 

[The Biblicist]

It goes against both common sense and Scriptural usage to imagine that there are one or two gaps within this period of 70 weeks. I hate to admit that, earlier on, I have taught both variants. It was because I valued the authority of men over the Word of God.

It is against common sense.
It is ironic that we have to argue for common sense on this very point of imagined gaps in the 70 weeks, because those who hold for gaps, for the most part, also hold very strongly to Cooper’s dictum “If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense”. Dispensationalists run that flag up everywhere in Scripture, almost … except here.
​

It is COMMON in the Old Testament to find the first and second coming in the same passage without anything said about the gap that separates them. For example Joel 2:32 is one of many such examples. Peter when quoting it in Acts 2 stopped right in the middle of the verse because the remainder of the verse applied to the second coming. It is common to find prophecies of the end of this world inseparable from current or expected destructions that occurred in the Old Testament time period (Jerusalem, Babylon, Ninevah, etc.).

So to say that a gap of time is inconceivable based upon common sense or scripture is absolutely rediculous.​

 

[The Biblicist]

One last reply before I step out:



No, I don't approach any other book that way, but I also don't take any other book to be the divinely inspired word of God. Although I'm glad to have learned that I'm not using "common sense" when it comes to reading the Bible. And please don't cast me as the martyr. I'm merely leaving a conversation that, while once a good discussion/debate, has turned into a nasty, fairly elitist discussion in which one side is taking a much more exalted position than the other and is simply turning up its nose instead of calmly and civilly discussing the topic.

I am attacking YOUR PRINCIPLES of interpretation NOT YOUR PERSON. Why turn this discussion into a personal bashing party? It is not degrading to insist upon "common sense" when dealing with Scritpure and it is not "common sense" to approach scripture with a "spiritualization" bias! If you can't win a debate just attack the debater, that will make you a winner every time! And don't say I personally attacked you because I did not. You simply interpreted it that way. I never called you a single name and just because I said that a particular approach is lacking "common sense" does not mean what I said is not perfectly accurate. So don't play these games with me. I have dealt with principles not persons in our discussion. If the principles fit your practice, that is not a personal attack on your person but on your principles of interpretation.

I am familiar with that rule. I'm also well acquainted with a number of people who hold to a different eschatological stance than I, who try desperately to enforce that rule on others while blatantly ignoring it themselves. (Please note, I am not labeling you as one of these people. These are actual, physical acquaintances of mine, not people hidden behind screen names on a forum.)

Why do you play this game? Coming to scripture with a spiritualization bias is as much an abuse as failing to obey rules because of some other kind of bias. I am not talking about abuse but use! This rule is SOLID and SOUND and to ignore it or fail to practice ONLY PRODUCES ERROR! If you can't see this, you simply do not understand the rule itself, as that rule is absolutely essential to sound Biblical exegesis. Ignore it and you have only heresy as the result. I am talking about PRINCIPLE not about PERSONS and so don't take this and twist it as you have other principles I have set forth and claim I am attacking your person.

If you believe that I've endorsed a heresy, then bring it to me and discuss it. I believe enough in gospel order that I'll reason with you over the topic. However, I'm not keen on broad-brushing an entire school of interpretation as "open to every imaginable concievable [sic] error" because it doesn't follow my interpretation standard or it doesn't adhere to the man-made "golden rule of interpretation."

You simply can't take criticism of your principles without making it a PERSONAL attack thing can you????? I have never called you any name. I have never accused you of any heresy. I have painted with a broad brush of principles that define truth and error. If the shoe fits wear it. If it does not, then stop taking it so personal.

 

[The Biblicist]

However, I'm not keen on broad-brushing an entire school of interpretation as "open to every imaginable concievable [sic] error" because it doesn't follow my interpretation standard or it doesn't adhere to the man-made "golden rule of interpretation."

I am not addressing this merely to Tony, but to all on this forum. Tony simply presented the accusation that the "golden rule of interpetation" is a "man made" standard when it is in fact Biblically based and common sense based. It is Biblical based as Paul told the Corinthians that the purpose of language is to communicate not to confuse:


1Co 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.


Again the rule states:

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning UNLESS the facts of the immediate context, studied in thelight of related passages and axiomatic and fundemental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

Language is designed to be a vehicle of communication rather than a mechanism for confusion. Communication is impossible apart from this common sense rule of interpretation. Again communication is IMPOSSIBLE if this rule is ignored.

If what we hear and read is not first accepted according to the common ordinary meaning of the words being used, then it is impossible to ascertain whether or not some other sense is meant. How can you even know spiritualization is the intent if you do not first approach it literally???? It is only when the common meaning is found to be nonsensical, or something in the context is literally indicating a spiritualization is intended that one should even imagine something other than the common meaning should not be accepted. There must be some contextual basis to even consider some other meaning other than what would be the normal understanding of such words. If those words are not intended to be understood according to their normal meaning then unless the immediate context makes some other meaning clear ALL COMMUNICATION CEASES to exist.

Hence, this is nothing more than common sense! If it makes sense seek no other sense UNLESS the context demands more than the common ordinary meaning. If the context does DEMAND some other kind of meaning, it will be made obvious or else COMMUNICATION CEASES TO EXIST!

Now, I am not talking about ABUSE of this rule but its PROPER USE. Just because some may ABUSE it does not invalidate it.

1Co 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

 

[DHK]

Concerning spiritualizing or allegorizing scripture, this is what John MacArthur had to say:

Secondly, don't spiritualize or allegorize the text. Some people think the Bible is a fable to teach whatever you wanna get across. A myriad of illustrations of this. I remember back when Jerry Mitchell was on our staff and a young couple came into him for counseling, marriage counseling. He began to talk with them and after about 30 minutes, he said he'd been married only six months and you're already on the edge of a divorce? Why did you ever get married? You're miles apart. "Oh," said the husband, "it was a sermon the pastor preached in our church." "What was the sermon?" "Well, he preached on the walls of Jericho." "Jericho? What does that have to do with marriage?" "Well," he said, "God's people claimed the city marched around it seven times and the walls fell down." And he said, "If a young man believed God had given him a certain girl, he could claim her, march around her seven times and the walls of her hear would fall down. That's what I did and we got married." "That can't be true," he said. "You're kidding, aren't you?" I remember him sayin' that. "You gotta be kidding." "No, it's true. And there were many other couples that got married because of the same sermon." Some people believe their marriages were made in Heaven. That was made in an allegory and a bad one at that. That's the kind of interpretation that has gone on since the early days of the church, continues today, especially in the Charismatic movement.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-55/proper-biblical-interpretation
It is from his fourth chapter in his book "Charismatic Chaos." What is available on the Web is condensed from what is in his book, but it is still good material that deals with biblical hermeneutics in this chapter.

 

[The Biblicist]

Concerning spiritualizing or allegorizing scripture, this is what John MacArthur had to say:

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-55/proper-biblical-interpretation
It is from his fourth chapter in his book "Charismatic Chaos." What is available on the Web is condensed from what is in his book, but it is still good material that deals with biblical hermeneutics in this chapter.

This is so true! The charismatic movement is a perfect example of this type of interpretation gone amuck! They see demons behind every bush or angels, and simply jerk a text out of context and make it mean whatever they want it to mean based upon some kind of spiritualization or experience, vision or dream.

 

[kyredneck]

First, why don't you quote the whole text?

...drat, I was trying to sneak one by you there but you're just too clever.

Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Terra firma - the land

Moreover, notice the timing of the context where this statement is quoted by John:

Zechariah 12:9 ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

So, in light of Acts 15:14-17, what do you think 'the house of David' signifies?

 

[The Biblicist]

...drat, I was trying to sneak one by you there but you're just too clever.

Well, you ought see me when I wear my glasses, nothing gets by me!

Terra firma - the land

Silly me, I thought "clouds" were above the terrra firma - the land, but "in the air" the atmosophere above old terra firma! Maybe, he meant that he cometh in "the fog"????

So, in light of Acts 15:14-17, what do you think 'the house of David' signifies?

You are just great in dissecting scriptures, choosing some parts and ignoring other parts.

"house of David AND upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem" It is not an either/or! All "Jerusalem" is included in the text before it. The "house of David" in Zechariah is the subject of destruction by all the nations gathering against it. Are all the nations gathering against the "tabernacle of David" in Acts 15:14-17 to destroy it? hmmmm? Seems to me that Acts 15:14-17 is about saving both Gentiles and Jews rather than all gentile nations gathering to destroy Jerualem, the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem?????? So you are trying to make both about destruction or both about salvation? Seems to me this is a forced fit anyway you turn!

 

[kyredneck]

...You are just great in dissecting scriptures, choosing some parts and ignoring other parts.

"house of David AND upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem" It is not an either/or!

OK. So in light of Acts 15:14-17 and Gal 4:26, what do you think 'the house of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem' signify?

 

[The Biblicist]

OK. So in light of Acts 15:14-17 and Gal 4:26, what do you think 'the house of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem' signify?

I took my time answering that, so if you just return to the previous post you will see what I don't think it means.

It is lovely how you just pick and choose scriptures from entirely different contextual applications and then weave them together to invent a doctrine.

The context in Zechariah is about the destruction of the house of David not about building it up, about the gathering of gentile nations against it to destroy it not about gathering gentiles for salvation.

Galatians 4:26 is evidently located in heaven which cannot be destroyed whereas Jerusalem in Zeckariah can be destroyed.

Your problem is that just because similar terms are used does not mean the context is speaking about the same thing. Joel 2 is applied to the A.D. 70 destruction but Peter stops in the middle of verse 32 because its final application is the end of the world. The first and second comings were often found in a single text without any gap placed between them in the Old Testament. You fella's just don't get that, and so you take an application and finalize it when Scripture has sometimes multiple applications before the ultimate and final one.