Featured The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics

"A text out of context is a pretext for a subtext." Oops. Well, it wasn't original with me.

 

An inescapable fact to keep in mind.

 

Classically partial truth.

Sometimes they failed to understand precisely because they did not take him literally:

Mar 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
Mar 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

Rising from the dead meant exactly that: literally rising from the dead.

The Sadducees were wrong on a couple of Bible doctrines, like the resurrection and angels, precisely because they metaphorized them.

When the Bible is to be taken spiritually, as opposed to literally, it'll tell you.

Otherwise, you get the Greek mindset of Plato expounding the text. See Origen and the Roman Catholic church for exhibits.

 

It is not as if their upbringing fully prepared them. In fact, their preconceived ideas of what and who Messiah would be kept them from understanding. This is something we all must deal with, just as *T has already mentioned.

 

The problem is, Jesus, blinded the Pharisees from understanding scripture by giving them this rule. If you want to know the meaning of a passage, ask how the NT understands it.

 

Stars fell (exclusively?) figuratively in the O.T.?

 

Actually it would be to take the intended and literal meaning of the words!

 

What passage do you have in mind?

 

the Reformed/Calvinist are gulity of this, with their perversions of Scriptures like John 3:16, where they corrupt the Teaching of Jesus Christ, to their own theological nonsense!

 

Ok, thanks, at least now I know what you're referring to. So:

Isa 34:3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
Isa 34:5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

1) The passage is broader in application than only Idumea sith v.2 says:

the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies
Not even historically did that occur.

2) The passage is yet future because:

a) Even though v.2's verbs are in the past tense: hath...destroyed; hath delivered; the rest of the verbs are future: shall be cast out (v.3), shall come up (v.3), shall be melted (v.3), shall be dissolved (v.4), shall be rolled together (v.4), shall fall down (v.4); etc.
And of course, as Bible readers, we know well that a partial historical application is only that, a partial application, sith the word of God is sharper than any twoedged sword (Heb.4:12) and the future application is often the fuller one of the two applications, historical and future. Those things mentioned in Isaiah 34 are only thought of as figurative because they clearly did not occur literally in the past. So the preterist is forced, by the very nature of his theological outlook, to spiritualize such passages to explain them. See #1 in my signature.

b) The revelation of Jesus Christ given to John places Isaiah 34 in the future:
Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Indeed, Revelation 6 is introduced under the section of Revelation which our Lord Jesus Christ himself calls the things which must be hereafter (Rev.4:1).

Of course, the stars falling and the heaven departing as a scroll is further in line with Isaiah's prophecy and Peter's quote placing the destruction of the heavens out in the future, on the day of the Lord, as preceding the news heavens and earth:
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

So yes, I am arguing that they did not fall figuratively. They will fall literally.
Now if you wish to argue that stars cannot possibly literally fall to the earth, we can do that, but for now, my argument is that, as far as the scriptures, Isaiah 34 is future and literal.

 

You're welcome.

"all" is a word describing quantity, not chronology.
You could say that my futurist bent (ironic criticism given that the Bible is a book of prophecy and that in Isaiah God literally challenges other gods and nations to prophesy the future like he does in Isaiah) is the reason I see a future application, but to connect "all" with "future"...well I don't the sense at all. And if you counter that "all" points to the future, well, that's a confession that the futurist application is valid (you know, Armageddon).

But I mentioned that:

As for:

I addressed that when I said:

That twoedged sword, that double application, is so often what "gets" the preterist. It's designed to do that.

 

Isaiah 34 isn't even partially applicable historically, since, clearly, the stars did not fall nor did the heaven depart circa 750 B.C.
There is nothing to discuss here.
See #1 in signature.

 

You did not assume. You looked at the picture.
May God save me from ever confounding "unbelieving" (however politely disguised as a metaphoric interpretation) with "better".

 

There is such a thing as figurative interpretation, and even such a thing as allegory in the Bible (Galatians 4:24).
However, the Bible is not a wax nose to be punched into any shape one wishes.
One cannot legitimately declare that Scripture means the opposite of what it says.
One cannot pretend that 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' really means, 'My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me.'
Nor can one pretend that 'This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same manner as you saw Him go into heaven' really means, 'He will return in an entirely different manner than you saw Him go into heaven.'