Spiritual Interpretation pt5.

[Yeshua1]

Just saying that the literal meaning would be also assigning toi scripture the genre that was being used, and also that the descrptions could be of thinghs actually done physically, but using descriptive term in describing them!

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,

I certainly am proud of him. It's such a delight to teach with him. His office is two doors over, and we get to discuss Scripture and theology all the time as part of our job. He just sent me an interesting article on Daniel's 70 weeks, since I'm teaching eschatology.

Well you can be proud of your son that's for sure.

Don't take my word for it. Check him out for yourself. He was mentored for the Ph.D. by well-known Greek scholar David Alan Black, who also wrote the forward to the book version of my son's dissertation: Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter: Paul A. Himes, David Alan Black: 9781625643629: Amazon.com: Books

Actually, his dissertation is right out there for the world to read, as seen in the link above, so he is certainly not hiding the Ph.D. under a bushel. And he has quite a few articles already published in the journals, and his second scholarly book is being published this year.

Now...we have a problem here Houston.....

I was very tired last night when I began to glance at your Son's book...just the sample pages.
I hope I misunderstood and will look more tonight, but if the basic premise is that he is trying to suggest that foreknowledge is prescience, rather than using the accepted biblical usage of an intimate knowledge and foreordination of persons..... he is certainly in error.
The secular usage does not trump the biblical usage. If that is his scholarly take on the word, it would be that he is attempting to speak against the doctrines of grace, and would need to be rejected.

I have no doubt he read and did go over those writings in the bibliography, but what good would any of that do if at the end of the day...he comes to the wrong conclusion.

Maybe I was tired and misread it. if I did not misread it...I would oppose any such reasoning, even if it is in a format that can get a person known as a PH.D....
No ...I would rather remain an unlettered person.

My son is a Petrine scholar. It's not on his radar, because there is nothing in Chilton in his field. Regardless, I know he could easily answer Chilton. Edited in: In fact, his second book is on the first three chapters in Revelation, in particular about the social and cultural milieu behind the book.

His work would not stand if examined by these same people who you suggest are offering baloney...

Frankly, though I'm not a scholar recognized by the broader evangelical world, I believe I could easily answer it. But why should I take the time? I have various other projects I'm working on. For example, my son and I are finishing up a completely new translation of the NT into Japanese. It would be a big step down for us to write against an obscure commentary on Rev.

You should focus on what you do best...that is your priority.

 

[Iconoclast]

Just saying that the literal meaning would be also assigning toi scripture the genre that was being used, and also that the descrptions could be of thinghs actually done physically, but using descriptive term in describing them!

That is the very thing you are posting aginst...if you are going to post here...get a bible, open to each of these passages, then give your answer...your one line tweets are useless.....what about the big rock in Daniel...what about joel 2, 3...answer or do not post....
Open a bible....give your" literal understanding"......
Here is a clue....everyone believes the verses have a literal meaning.

 

[kyredneck]

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.

Where is Joseph announced to be a type of Christ? Or do you simply refuse to recognize the type?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is the very thing you are posting aginst...if you are going to post here...get a bible, open to each of these passages, then give your answer...your one line tweets are useless.....what about the big rock in Daniel...what about joel 2, 3...answer or do not post....
Open a bible....give your" literal understanding"......
Here is a clue....everyone believes the verses have a literal meaning.

The big Rock in daniel would be the Kingdom of Jesus getting extended over the entire earth, which happens at His Second Coming!

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is Joseph announced to be a type of Christ? Or do you simply refuse to recognize the type?

He is never called that, is he?

 

[kyredneck]

He is never called that, is he?

That's the point, PB says 'inspired' scripture must identify an allegory, type, etc., as such, and Joseph as a type of Christ is a marvelous type and possibly the largest one (rivaled only in size by the type that lies in the conflict between the House of Saul and the House of David, which also is NOT identified as such), and nowhere is Joseph identified as a type of Christ.

PB is wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's the point, PB says 'inspired' scripture must identify an allegory, type, etc., as such, and Joseph as a type of Christ is a marvelous type and possibly the largest one (rivaled only in size by the type that lies in the conflict between the House of Saul and the House of David, which also is NOT identified as such), and nowhere is Joseph identified as a type of Christ.

PB is wrong.

Except that the Holy Spirit was always good at identifiying other types by name, correct?

 

[kyredneck]

Except that the Holy Spirit was always good at identifiying other types by name, correct?

No. There's LOTS of 'pointers', 'clues', but few clear statements like "which was a figure to come".

I'm convinced He wants us to search them out. To ask as David, "Let me behold wondrous things from thy law". It's untold the number of 'unmined' treasures there is yet to be found in that BOOK.

 

[Iconoclast]

The big Rock in daniel would be the Kingdom of Jesus getting extended over the entire earth, which happens at His Second Coming!

Now you

Interesting thing is that in most reformed circles, especially those of classical Covenant theology views, bothReconstruction and Theonomy are looked at as being high suspect!

Could you give an example of that?
Also you are spiritualizing Dan 2....just like an a mill, you just say it is at the end....so stop saying anyone is not being literal.

 

[kyredneck]

The big Rock in daniel would be the Kingdom of Jesus getting extended over the entire earth, which happens at His Second Coming!

Very good! It smashed into the feet of the Roman Empire and splintered it into ten Germanic tribes, the Holy Roman Empire, which corresponds to the seventh head of Revelation which ten horns would war with the Lamb (the Church) and hate the Harlot (Jews) and eat her flesh and burn her with fire (which Hitler and others before him epitomized).Incredible the accuracy of the prophecies.

 

[Jope]

……you're getting WARMER!

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:
20 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church,
23 which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Eph 1

5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: Eph 2

5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;
6 and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 1

Unfortunately it gets pretty cold after Revelation 11:15-18 though.

"The reader is directed to Rev. 11 :18, and under the last trumpet, preceding (as all must admit) the Millennium, we have 'the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward,' etc. Here is a distinctive Pre-Millennial resurrection asserted in connection with a time of wrath and rewarding, which the general analogy asserts as belonging to the Second Advent of Jesus. To acknowledge a resurrection of dead ones to be here announced, and then to postpone the same until after the 1000 years, is a mere subterfuge, seeing that the connection demands its fulfilment, under the seventh trumpet, or at the period of time thus designated.

The weak and unsatisfactory manner in which this passage is handled by our opponents is well illustrated by Barnes, Com. loci. Kot knowing what to do with such a resurrection in his system of Eschatology, and unwilling to deny its plain reference to a literal one, he, unable to spiritualize it away (or introduce his favorite 'as if'), represents this occurrence at a specific time as one that is embraced by the events introductory to, contained in, and concluding the 1000 years, quoting Rev. 20:4, 5, 6, 12-15 ; Matt. 25 : 34-40; Rev. 21 and 22. How hard pressed and defective a theory must be which is forced to such a wholesale application of a chronological prediction. The time of rewarding the Prophets e.g. is Pre-Millennial as seen e.g. in the case of Daniel (Prop. 126): so the time of wrath, the time of judgment, the time of rewarding the righteous, the time of destroying the enemies of God, the time when the Christ assumes His reign—all, as we show in detail under various Propositions, is Pre-Millennial" (George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 127, Obs. 1).

Not to mention Rev. 20...

"It seems absurd to press this passage into a spiritual or moral conversion in the face of the beheading which was endured for the Word, since it is virtually affirming that the sinner, previous to his conversion, suffers death because of his witnessing for Jesus ; that the unregenerated man endures a beheading for his unswerving devotion to the truth ; and then, after such an exhibition of love, he is resurrected, i.e. converted, etc. 3. The beheading itself indicates a literal death. For (1) it cannot be asserted, taking our opponents' views of spirit, that the spirit or soul can be beheaded. (2) The state of a wicked man cannot be called a headless stone, for in the case of these souls it would prove too much, viz., being beheaded, implies that previously they had them in possession. (3) The beheading results from their previous moral action. (4) The word translated 'beheading' denotes 'decapitation by the axe,' a violent death. This literal death is shown in Rev. 13 and Rev. 14.
4. The persons who have part in this resurrection are such as were converted to the truth before this death. This is proven by (1) the witnessing they gave which caused others to put them to death. (2) The 'holy' only have part in it (3) A distinguishing resurrection is promised to the saints. Hence, this is a promise of a resurrection given because they are 'holy,' and not one to make the wicked 'holy'" (George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, prop. 127, obs. 3).​

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk​

 

[Jope]

@kyredneck @Iconoclast

"Admitting the [non-literal] principle to be a correct one, how can you meet in argument those who claim that they have the Spirit equally with yourself? You cannot appeal to the letter, for that 'killeth;' you cannot appeal to the Spirit, for both profess to possess it. In fact, it leaves us no solid criterion by which to judge" (George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 4, Obs. 7).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Where is Joseph announced to be a type of Christ? Or do you simply refuse to recognize the type?

There are obvious similarities between Joseph and Christ. Is that significant? We do not learn anything new about Christ that we otherwise would not know by recognizing the similarities. It is not like I believe it was recorded in the Bible for that specific reason.

 

[Jope]

That's the point, PB says 'inspired' scripture must identify an allegory, type, etc., as such, and Joseph as a type of Christ is a marvelous type and possibly the largest one (rivaled only in size by the type that lies in the conflict between the House of Saul and the House of David, which also is NOT identified as such), and nowhere is Joseph identified as a type of Christ.

PB is wrong.

We admit that Joseph is a type of Christ (literally meaning "anointed one"). Joseph was anointed with the Spirit. However, your view cannot reconcile Jesus Christ with the Joseph antitype.

"The Providence of God, both general and particular, is sufficiently evidenced in the call of Abraham ; the raising up of the Jewish nation ; the distinction made between Esau and Jacob ; the history of Joseph ; the removal from Egypt; the establishment of a Theocratic Kingdom ; the varied transactions of that Kingdom; the care of good and punishment of wicked kings ; the raising up of prophets ; the re-moval of the Theocracy; the provisions made for its re-establishment; the rejection of the nation; the call of the Gentiles; the destruction of Jerusalem, and in hundreds of particulars ; so much so that the student of the Theocratic Plan is constantly impressed with it, and feels it to be a living reality in which he can evermore trustingly confide. Every step in the progress of events, every unfolding of time, every reference to the Theocratic ordering, every provision made for the future Messianic Kingdom teaches him that underlying all, and having control over all, is a Divine Providence which has occupied itself with the high and the low, the lofty and the minute, the nation and the individual, the rich and the poor, the happy and the suffering, the pious and the wicked—all tending toward the one great goal in the future.

A Pre-Millennarian must, from the very nature of his faith, be a strong believer in Providence. The Theocratic idea as developed in the past, and as predicted to be realized in the future at the Second Coming of 'the Son of Man,' necessarily embraces, as fundamental and essential, an existing, superintending Providence. It enforces a thousand Scripture declarations respecting that Providence in preservation, control over nature, birth, life, disease, death, affliction, prosperity, trial, adversity, rewards, punishments, etc. And all this not simply mediately, but at pleasure (if requisite) immediately, as is finally evidenced at the Sec. Advent, when both mediate and immediate power is exercised far beyond anything that has yet been experienced" (George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 185, Obs. 2, bold emphasis mine).

We certainly see Joseph as a type of the messianic theocratic king of (our) future millennium. We consider Joseph's reign a sign of the power of the providence of God in His ability to establish the covenanted future theocratic kingdom here on earth. However, your view necessitates the covenanted theocratic kingdom to be already present and ruling. Your view completely destroys the typology of Joseph to Christ. Joseph's reign was one of prosperity that enabled the poor nations to come to him in Egypt in a time of poverty. Your Joseph necessitates a non-sensual, non-carnal kingdom reigning presently with no earthly riches. Is it any wonder some of the popes desired strongly to remove some scriptures that favored the premillennial doctrine? Is it any wonder the popes and Augustine favored Origen's idea of the kingdom precisely when Constantine converted to Christianity? Lo and behold! A strong reason for Luther's reformation was that Rome was stealing/taxing too many riches from Germany: the reformation is contrary to amillennial implications!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk​

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,"]
Hello John

...Yes we do, but that is the beauty of it all.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

You will help and reach people I will never reach. You already have. I cannot do what you do, in the way you do it.

Very true. And in this regard we are not talking about who is a "better" Christian. I've known great Christians among both scholars and the average layman.

I enjoyed a presentation you made in Friendship Baptist of Cincinnati about 5 yrs ago showing your families work in Japan.

That's a great church, and we always were blessed by going there.

I am ignorant of many things for sure. I am not one to frequent academic circles....I get to speak with the non academic, non PH.D. types.

I speak with average folk all the time. I'm currently discipling two men who don't have college educations--good men who love the Lord.

I do not want to speak against "formal education". I respect those who attain and excel in certain fields. That being said....formal education, even attaining a PH.D. does not necessarily translate to biblical understanding.

This is very true. But here is what a theological education does for you: (1) You learn what the theological mistakes of the past were and how to avoid them. (2) You learn the original languages of the Bible so that you don't make the linguistic mistakes of those who don't understand language. (3) In our college and seminary, which are strongly focused on ministry, you learn to apply your theology to real life. I'll never forget going on church visitation with my Hebrew prof, who is a noted scholar. And there is much more I could say on this line.

John....Are you saying by this that unless someone has a PH.D. they cannot be self taught and attain to biblical understanding?

Not at all. I believe in a trilogy of knowledge, understanding and wisdom taught in the Bible. Anyone can have wisdom, the ability to make godly choices. Many can have understanding, but a theological education helps with that. Knowledge puffs up, so it is dangerous, but it is still vitally necessary to understanding the Bible in a scholarly way. The advances in the theology of the church of Jesus Christ have usually been made by the theologians, then passed down to the believer in the pew. Again, the stand taken against false doctrine is helped by the knowledge of the scholars.

I am attending a small rural church where the believing brethren struggle to read, much less attain any advanced level of educational.
Should I write Ichabod over the church? Or....try and edify each and every person as opportunites present themselves.

I would never write Ichabod over a church. That's God's job. We had a similar church in rural Alabama supporting us, and it was such a blessing to go there and see their love for the Savior.

When you addressed those people in Ohio...you spoke plainly to them, you communicated your heart and desire to see spiritual fruit...
[could I be critical of your theology....sure, but you are not the enemy]
I could enjoy and appreciate what you were getting across to them, and I could enjoy it. I have a better idea of who you are, and how to pray for you and your translation work. I know God has raised you up for that work and given you a proper helpmeet.

Thank you. I am blessed.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but there are many more of us out here who are more or less self taught. This does not count?

Self taught is good, as long as one is humble about it and knows his limitations. Frankly, I don't see Chilton as being humble about it. Looking through a couple of his books, I was very bothered by (1) his stance that he knew the Greek (he did not) and (2) his attitude on hermeneutics. (He apparently does not know anything about the grammatical-historical method; didn't mention it in 1000 pages.)

Let's think this out a bit....There are advantages to spending time focused on instruction in a seminary setting. Pray, lectures,sermons, bible studies and fellowship are all good.
At the end of the day.....you are...
1]praying
2] reading
3] listening
4]meditating
5]writing
6]discussing
7] debating

the scriptures....
Can someone give themselves to these things outside of a formal setting?
It might take longer, or there might be some diversions, but I am going to suggest that the overwhelming majority of believers are on this path.
God has designed the local church and the one another verses for this purpose.
Am I against seminary?...No....I do see several areas of weakness with that paradigm however.

The primary blessings of a theological education involve the mentoring going on. For much of church history, theological education took this form. At our school, we are determined to never to go the online route, so that we can keep the mentoring relationship. I am so blessed by the relationship I have with my students.

If one has a mentor of some kind, theological education can take place outside of a school. (I mentored a young pastor this way in Japan.) But there are so many good schools nowadays, a young preacher should go to one and be mentored.

I think this is a different issue however.

About that--all I have to do is read North to think there are some wacko reconstructionists.
.

I meant premillennial persons will not take this on,
In Covenant theology, Christian reconstruction, theonomy circles , they go at each other all the time. They are not afraid to examine each others ideas, trying to come to truth.

I'm not a bit afraid of examining other's ideas. I do it all the time, and have my students do it. But frankly, reconstructionism is fringe, and not at all a problem in my circles. Tell you what, I'll do a thread on Chilton this week after I get caught up on grading, okay?

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

Well you can be proud of your son that's for sure.

Now...we have a problem here Houston.....

I was very tired last night when I began to glance at your Son's book...just the sample pages.
I hope I misunderstood and will look more tonight, but if the basic premise is that he is trying to suggest that foreknowledge is prescience, rather than using the accepted biblical usage of an intimate knowledge and foreordination of persons..... he is certainly in error.
The secular usage does not trump the biblical usage. If that is his scholarly take on the word, it would be that he is attempting to speak against the doctrines of grace, and would need to be rejected.

I have no doubt he read and did go over those writings in the bibliography, but what good would any of that do if at the end of the day...he comes to the wrong conclusion.

Maybe I was tired and misread it. if I did not misread it...I would oppose any such reasoning, even if it is in a format that can get a person known as a PH.D....
No ...I would rather remain an unlettered person.

I'm afraid you are not understanding the world of the scholar. You cannot get a Ph.D. at the level of my son's without doing new, original research. In other words, my son's dissertation broke completely new ground in the area it was in. He did research on the Greek word "foreknowledge" (prognosis), especially in the Petrine epistles, that has never been done before. Also, note that his dissertation was not on Calvinism, but strictly on the Greek word and the milieu in which it gained its meaning. It should be of benefit to any Calvinist who honestly wants truth.

His work would not stand if examined by these same people who you suggest are offering baloney...

Pr 18:13--"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

From what I've seen of Chilton, North and others, no contest.

You should focus on what you do best...that is your priority.

Yep.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Whose fain is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Matthew 3:12)

Is this verse referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? If so, I have a few questions.

GEHENNA = FIRE THAT NEVER SHALL BE QUENCHED/FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell (gehenna), into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell (gehenna), into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire (gehenna): Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:46-48)

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (gehenna). And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (gehenna). (Matthew 5:29, 30)

EVERLASTING FIRE = GEHENNA

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire (gehenna). (Matthew 18:8, 9)

I anticipate the argument that Jesus was speaking to Jews, but...HELLO?! Was not 99% of what Jesus spoke to Jews??? So that really isn't an argument and proves nothing. A.D. 70 or the day of judgment???

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (gehenna). (Matthew 10:28)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell (gehenna) than yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (gehenna)? (Matthew 23:33)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Whilst I am by no means opposed to education and lots of it, I think it might be pointed out that neither C.H. Spurgeon nor D.M. Lloyd-Jones, perhaps the greatest British preachers of the 19th and 20th Centuries respectively, had any formal theological training. Indeed, until about 1850, British Universities were closed to dissenters, so a doctorate would have been out of the question for Spurgeon.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Matthew 3:10)
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Matthew 7:19) in the context of the day of judgment (Matthew 7:21-23 cf. Matthew 25:12)