• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Spiritual Interpretation pt5.

Status
Not open for further replies.

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This song of Moses is sung in Revelation just prior to God’s wrath being poured out on the land in Revelation chapter 16 (Rev. 16:1).

….and the Great Harlot in chapters 17-18….

16 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and play the harlot after the strange gods of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. Dt 31


1 And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls, and spake with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters; Rev 17

The Song of Moses is alluded to in other places in the NT, not just Revelation.

Compare:

5 They have dealt corruptly with him, they are not his children….. Dt 32

…with:

41 Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God. Jn 8

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mt 3

33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell? Mt 23

9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Rev 2
9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Rev 3

Compare:

5 They have dealt corruptly with him, they are not his children, it is their blemish; They are a perverse and crooked generation.
20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: For they are a very perverse generation, Children in whom is no faithfulness. Dt 32

…with:

40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2

39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:

45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation. Mt 12

4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed. Mt 16

Reference Josephus:

“It is therefore impossible to go distinctly over every instance of these men's iniquity. I shall therefore speak my mind here at once briefly: - That neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world.....” Book 5, ch 10, sec. 5

“.. I suppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, that the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom (20) perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed....” Book 5, ch. 13, sec. 6

“....and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness.....” Book 4, ch. 5, sec. 2

Compare:

21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; They have provoked me to anger with their vanities: And I will move them to jealousy with those that are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. Dt 32

…with:

19 But I say, Did Israel not know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you. Ro 10
 
Last edited:

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The song of Moses was to be sung as a witness against the children of Israel when God’s judgment came upon them for breaking the covenant.

That was the gist of post #6. I often leave off my own or other men's narration and try to use only the brevity of scripture to make a point.

Did you catch the subtle 'time indicator' of post #4?

Would you agree that the 'house of God' is being judged in Rev 2-3?
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some of you have gone beyond interpreting Scripture figuratively. You have made it nothing more than an allegory.

I assume you're referring to post #35. You've never pondered Joshua as a type of Christ? Or is that too dangerous, and we ought not be doing such things?

Figures, allegorys, types, antitypes, shadows, parables, similes, etc., these all add to the proofs and wonders of that most precious Book He has given us. What better pastime to have than to search the scriptures for them?
 
Last edited:

Covenanter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ian said:
Spiritualising is seeing Christ, his real spiritual kingdom & his redeemed people in OT prophecy, rather than a carnal focus on the nation of Israel & an earthly kingdom. 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 3

Good job of discernment. The quote was from a Swedenborgian website: Bible Interpretation : Sacred Scripture : Spiritual Wisdom

There are many groups that spiritualize, and they all have their own methods. It's much easier to simply interpret with the grammatical-historical method and let the text say what it says.

But as long as you brought it up, you apparently have no idea what carnality is if you think a defense of the literal Abrahamic covenant as it involves Israel (literally) to this day is carnality. And I find it ridiculous in the extreme to consider an earthly reign of Christ to be carnal. "Carnal" and "physical" are not synonyms, unless you're a Gnostic.
You may be fluent in your language ability, but that does not mean you have a clear understanding of Scripture.

"Carnal" & "flesh" - Strong 4559-4561 - are of course closely related words, often being used in a negative sense but only correctly understood by the context.

e.g. NIV 2 Cor. 1:12 Now this is our boast: our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace. 13 For we do not write to you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
....
20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ. And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God.

3:5 ..... our sufficiency is of God; 6 who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Paul shows a better wisdom than carnal/worldly wisdom. However well the Hebrew was understood by the Jews, they had only human reasoning & human understanding. In Paul's dealings with the churches, old covenant reasoning relating to the Law was high among the problems. See particularly Galatians.

When you write
"if you think a defense of the literal Abrahamic covenant as it involves Israel (literally) to this day is carnality. And I find it ridiculous in the extreme to consider an earthly reign of Christ to be carnal."
it is apparent that you have not understood Paul, nor the whole new & everlasting covenant in the blood of Jesus as a completion & perfection of God's saving purposes, begun with the specific promises to Abram.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That was the gist of post #6. I often leave off my own or other men's narration and try to use only the brevity of scripture to make a point.

Did you catch the subtle 'time indicator' of post #4?

Would you agree that the 'house of God' is being judged in Rev 2-3?
The time indicators are all pointing toward first century fulfillment...harlotrous Israel...and false assemblies being purged...
The current generation of Israelites are secular.....they do not fit as first century Israelites did.
Jesus was crucified then, some were alive to see the covenant curses come upon that generation.
 

PrmtvBptst1832

Active Member
Site Supporter
I assume you're referring to post #35. You've never pondered Joshua as a type of Christ? Or is that too dangerous, and we ought not be doing such things?

Figures, allegorys, types, antitypes, shadows, parables, similes, etc., these all add to the proofs and wonders of that most precious Book He has given us. What better pastime to have than to search the scriptures for them?

Scripture uses many different types of language. What is interesting to me is that when Paul was going to speak in allegory, he specifically stated that he was going to do so (Gal. 4.21-31). However, his allegorical interpretation and application of an Old Testament text was inspired. Yours, however, is not. I think it is "dangerous" to take it upon oneself to take a text and interpret or apply it allegorically unless Scripture itself warrants it. Otherwise, you might be finding allegories where allegories do not exist.

I was asked by Iconoclast about the world (οἰκουμένη), the inhabited earth, to come in Heb. 2.5 where we will see all things out under him. My interpretation is obvious because it's right there. Where does your system allow for it? As far as being closed in a box, I am at more liberty to interpret Scripture than you are because I do not start out with a date (e.g. A.D. 70) that I have to smash everything together and have it fulfilled by.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some of you have gone beyond interpreting Scripture figuratively. You have made it nothing more than an allegory. I wasn't even this bad when I was an Amillennialist.
The plain and literal meaning of the bible becomes whatever we want it to mean!
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You may be fluent in your language ability, but that does not mean you have a clear understanding of Scripture.
Wow, you can tell all of this from a few posts on an Internet forum!!! :)

Fortunately, the Bible college administration where I teach completely disagrees with your opinion. :Biggrin
"Carnal" & "flesh" - Strong 4559-4561 - are of course closely related words, often being used in a negative sense but only correctly understood by the context.

e.g. NIV 2 Cor. 1:12 Now this is our boast: our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace. 13 For we do not write to you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
....
20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ. And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God.
3:5 ..... our sufficiency is of God; 6 who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Paul shows a better wisdom than carnal/worldly wisdom. However well the Hebrew was understood by the Jews, they had only human reasoning & human understanding. In Paul's dealings with the churches, old covenant reasoning relating to the Law was high among the problems. See particularly Galatians.
None of this answers my criticism of your statement, but in fact bolsters what I asked. So I'll ask again, rephrasing it. Why do you consider a reign of Christ on earth to be "carnal," since as you yourself point out the usage of the word in the Bible is almost all negative?

Even if you disagree with the (clearly Biblical) doctrine of a physical reign of Christ on earth, there is absolutely nothing negative about the doctrine. In fact, the idea that Christ could have a perfect reign on earth, with no crime, war, or sickness, is a wonderfully positive doctrine, and it glorifies God in a big way.
When you write it is apparent that you have not understood Paul, nor the whole new & everlasting covenant in the blood of Jesus as a completion & perfection of God's saving purposes, begun with the specific promises to Abram.
Neither did Peter, so I'm in good company (2 Peter 3:15-16).

But hey, you're an amazingly perceptive person, since you know so much about me and my knowledge of Scripture after our very limited contacts here on the BB.;)
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As far as being closed in a box, I am at more liberty to interpret Scripture than you are because I do not start out with a date (e.g. A.D. 70) that I have to smash everything together and have it fulfilled by.
I have the greatest respect for my dear brother Iconoclast, but I have to say that this is exactly right. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Preterists cannot ascribe the obvious, clear and simple meaning to Acts 1:11 and Revelation 1:7 because they are committed to a system that requires those texts to mean the opposite to what they say.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scripture uses many different types of language. What is interesting to me is that when Paul was going to speak in allegory, he specifically stated that he was going to do so (Gal. 4.21-31). However, his allegorical interpretation and application of an Old Testament text was inspired. Yours, however, is not. I think it is "dangerous" to take it upon oneself to take a text and interpret or apply it allegorically unless Scripture itself warrants it. Otherwise, you might be finding allegories where allegories do not exist.
You are on target here, but just to be clear, Paul's "allegory" is not allegorical interpretation as it is described today, but fits in what is called typology in hermeneutics: using an historical event as an illustration for spiritual truth.
I was asked by Iconoclast about the world (οἰκουμένη), the inhabited earth, to come in Heb. 2.5 where we will see all things out under him. My interpretation is obvious because it's right there. Where does your system allow for it? As far as being closed in a box, I am at more liberty to interpret Scripture than you are because I do not start out with a date (e.g. A.D. 70) that I have to smash everything together and have it fulfilled by.
Hear, hear! :)
 

PrmtvBptst1832

Active Member
Site Supporter
I have the greatest respect for my dear brother Iconoclast, but I have to say that this is exactly right. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Preterists cannot ascribe the obvious, clear and simple meaning to Acts 1:11 and Revelation 1:7 because they are committed to a system that requires those texts to mean the opposite to what they say.

Precisely. In one of my previous posts I also presented several verses referring to the day of judgment. Any response? No. They don't want to engage with the scriptures themselves but only how they can ultimately interpret it and apply it to the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem. Preterist Christian Zionism LOL
 

PrmtvBptst1832

Active Member
Site Supporter
J.Stuart Russell's refutation of Partial Preterism

It cannot, indeed, be denied that occasionally our Lord uttered ambiguous language. He said to the Jews: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up' (John ii. 19); but the evangelist is careful to add: 'But he spate of the temple of his body.' So when Jesus spoke of 'rivers of living water flowing from the heart of the believer,' St. John adds an explanatory note: ' This spake he of the spirit,' etc. (John vii. 36). Again, when the Lord alluded to the manner of His own death, 'I, if I be lifted up from the earth,' etc., the evangelist adds: 'This he said, signifying what death he should die' (John ix. 33).

There is, in fact; no ambiguity whatever as to the coming referred to in the passage now under consideration. It is not one of several possible comings; but the one, sole, supreme event, so frequently predicted by our Lord, so constantly expected by His disciples. It is His coming in glory; His coming to judgment; His coming in His kingdom; the coming of the kingdom of God. It is not a process, but an act. It is not the same thing as 'the destruction of Jerusalem,'- that is another event related and contemporaneous; but the two are not to be confounded. The New Testament knows of only one Parousia, one coming in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is altogether an abuse of language to speak of several senses in which Christ may be said to come, -- as at His own resurrection; at the day of Pentecost; at the destruction of Jerusalem; at the death of a believer; and at various providential epochs. This is not the usage of the New Testament, nor is it accurate language in any point of view. This passage alone contains so much important truth respecting the Parousia, that it may be said to cover the whole ground; and, rightly used, will be found to be a key to the true interpretation of the New Testament doctrine on this subject.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What is interesting to me is that when Paul was going to speak in allegory, he specifically stated that he was going to do so (Gal. 4.21-31).

So, that's YOUR hard and fast rule? The scriptures absolutely must state beforehand that 'this is an allegory', or, 'this is a type', or 'this is a parable'.....etc.

Wow, the largest type with the most similarities found in the Bible has no such announcement that I'm aware of. That of Joseph as a type of Christ.

You really have boxed yourself in.
 
Last edited:

PrmtvBptst1832

Active Member
Site Supporter
So, that's YOUR hard and fast rule? The scriptures absolutely must state beforehand that 'this is an allegory', or, 'this is a type', or 'this is a parable'.....etc.

Wow, the largest type with the most similarities found in the Bible has no such announcement that I'm aware of. That of Joseph as a type of Christ.

You really have boxed yourself in.

I have boxed myself into the box of inspired Scripture and inspired interpretation. It's a good place to be.
 

PrmtvBptst1832

Active Member
Site Supporter
So, that's YOUR hard and fast rule? The scriptures absolutely must state beforehand that 'this is an allegory', or, 'this is a type', or 'this is a parable'.....etc.

Wow, the largest type with the most similarities found in the Bible has no such announcement that I'm aware of. That of Joseph as a type of Christ.

You really have boxed yourself in.

Do you believe in the (future) coming of the Lord, resurrection of dead, and day of judgment? Just a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have the greatest respect for my dear brother Iconoclast, but I have to say that this is exactly right. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Preterists cannot ascribe the obvious, clear and simple meaning to Acts 1:11 and Revelation 1:7 because they are committed to a system that requires those texts to mean the opposite to what they say.
Hello Martin,
I have no problem believing Acts1,or Rev1....as written. ..no problem whatsoever.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scripture uses many different types of language. What is interesting to me is that when Paul was going to speak in allegory, he specifically stated that he was going to do so (Gal. 4.21-31). However, his allegorical interpretation and application of an Old Testament text was inspired. Yours, however, is not. I think it is "dangerous" to take it upon oneself to take a text and interpret or apply it allegorically unless Scripture itself warrants it. Otherwise, you might be finding allegories where allegories do not exist.

I was asked by Iconoclast about the world (οἰκουμένη), the inhabited earth, to come in Heb. 2.5 where we will see all things out under him. My interpretation is obvious because it's right there. Where does your system allow for it? As far as being closed in a box, I am at more liberty to interpret Scripture than you are because I do not start out with a date (e.g. A.D. 70) that I have to smash everything together and have it fulfilled by.
What I was asking about was not the term inhabited earth...
I am more interested in Who......the passage is speaking of?
Who is over the works of His hands?
 

PrmtvBptst1832

Active Member
Site Supporter
What I was asking about was not the term inhabited earth...
I am more interested in Who......the passage is speaking of?
Who is over the works of His hands?

The Son of Man and by extension those who will reign with him. Do we see that? Are we going to see that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top