The Tower In Siloam

[Joseph M. Smith]

Joseph, (although I'm 99.999999% certain what the rendering will be) would you mind sharing a brief synopsis of the lectionary readings for March 07? Or how did YOU present it?


Thanks

The quickest thing to do ... since I am hurrying off to another church for an evening appointment ... is to give you the link to the sermon:

http://sermoncentral.com/sermons/fa...h-smith-sermon-on-parable-vineyard-144963.asp

 

[kyredneck]

The quickest thing to do ... since I am hurrying off to another church for an evening appointment ... is to give you the link to the sermon:

http://sermoncentral.com/sermons/fa...h-smith-sermon-on-parable-vineyard-144963.asp

Thanks for the link Joseph; and it was rendered just as I expected, which is by far and away the prevailing take on the passage. Excerpt from the link (emphasis mine):

"....And then an undeserved disaster, the collapse of the Tower of Siloam, thought to be one of the sixty or so towers in the old city wall, perhaps also a part of the water system. We know almost nothing about the incident, but it must have been fresh on people’s minds. Eighteen people killed when a wall collapsed. Did those eighteen people deserve to die? Probably some thought so; we always find ways to blame victims....."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the words “in like manner” and “likewise” in vv. 3 & 5.

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish Lu 13

I suggest to all that the phrases “in like manner” and “likewise” are in reference to the violence of war, which indeed came to pass, and not to random incidents of chance. I would further modify the passage by amplifying vv. 3 & 5 to read:

1 Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood [Pilate's soldiers] had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And he answered and said unto them, Think ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they have suffered these things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner [by the sword] perish [in the wrath that is to come upon this generation; i.e. the war of AD 66-70]
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the [soldiers garrisoned in the tower in Siloam] fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise [by the sword] perish [in the wrath that is to come upon this generation; i.e. the war of AD 66-70] Lu 13

 

[kyredneck]

This is a theological and a philosophical question. Try reading:

The Bridge of San Luis Rey by Thorton Wilder.

Thanks for commenting CTB.

Excerpt (emphasis mine) from http://www.tcnj.edu/~wilder/works/bridge.html :

"Thornton Wilder's second novel, THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY, was published in 1927 to worldwide acclaim. The plot is deceptively simple: On July 20, 1714, "the finest bridge in all Peru" collapses and five people die. Brother Juniper, a Franciscan missionary, happens to witness the tragedy, and as a result, he asks the central question of the novel: "Why did this happen to those five?"........"

Once again, this is the prevailing take on the passage. Christians have probably pondered this scripture as a devotional for so long they would never consider any other rendering of it.

 

[saturneptune]

I have read your thread and really enjoyed your take on repentence. There are just some things we have no control over as far as accidents, sickness, or disasters. God is in control, which is why we are called to repentence today, while we have life.

I read the book Bridge of San Luis Rey some years ago, and really thought it was great. I never connected that book with the passage until I read this thread. Thanks for sharing your insight.

 

[kyredneck]

I have read your thread and really enjoyed your take on repentence. There are just some things we have no control over as far as accidents, sickness, or disasters. God is in control, which is why we are called to repentence today, while we have life.

I read the book Bridge of San Luis Rey some years ago, and really thought it was great. I never connected that book with the passage until I read this thread. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Thanks SN. You do realize that my take on the passage is basically preterist I hope, which is contrary to what's generally believed (concerning Lu 13:1-5).

 

[saturneptune]

Thanks SN. You do realize that my take on the passage is basically preterist I hope, which is contrary to what's generally believed (concerning Lu 13:1-5).

Not to derail your thread, but as I understand the preterist doctrine, most things were fulfilled in 70 AD. That being the case, with Christ already fulfilling His return, what do they think will happen at the end of time as we know it?

 

[kyredneck]

Not to derail your thread.....

You're not derailing at all. I've made the points that I wanted to on Lu 13:1-5. Most, if not all, make it into devotional passage; I see it otherwise - a prophetic warning of vengeance from 'the Prophet', addressed to 'that generation', which indeed came to pass on 'that generation'. There's many such warnings given by The Prophet contained within the gospels. The sad thing is that so many of these passages concerning 'the Severity of God' that came on 'that generation' are woefully misapplied to the covenant of Grace.

....but as I understand the preterist doctrine, most things were fulfilled in 70 AD. That being the case, with Christ already fulfilling His return, what do they think will happen at the end of time as we know it?

I suppose you're referring to 'full preterism', which I am not, and I'm not qualified to answer that for them. I'm 'partial preterist', or so I've been told, and I'm still looking for the coming of Christ (1 Cor 15:23,24). However, I believe it's plain from scripture that there was a coming of Christ in judgment on that generation of Jews that both rejected and judicially murdered Him and persecuted the early Church. I'm pan-millennial when it comes to future things.

 

[olegig]

You're not derailing at all. I've made the points that I wanted to on Lu 13:1-5. Most, if not all, make it into devotional passage; I see it otherwise - a prophetic warning of vengeance from 'the Prophet', addressed to 'that generation', which indeed came to pass on 'that generation'. There's many such warnings given by The Prophet contained within the gospels. The sad thing is that so many of these passages concerning 'the Severity of God' that came on 'that generation' are woefully misapplied to the covenant of Grace.

I suppose you're referring to 'full preterism', which I am not, and I'm not qualified to answer that for them. I'm 'partial preterist', or so I've been told, and I'm still looking for the coming of Christ (1 Cor 15:23,24). However, I believe it's plain from scripture that there was a coming of Christ in judgment on that generation of Jews that both rejected and judicially murdered Him and persecuted the early Church. I'm pan-millennial when it comes to future things.

How does a 'partial preterist' handle Jer 31:35-37, as a devotion or prophecy?

 

[kyredneck]

How does a 'partial preterist' handle Jer 31:35-37, as a devotion or prophecy?

Just 'off the cuff', this partial preterist turns amil and spiritualizes it to refer to the Church. It couldn't apply to physical Israel:

20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her.
21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

 

[olegig]

Just 'off the cuff', this partial preterist turns amil and spiritualizes it to refer to the Church. It couldn't apply to physical Israel:

20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her.
21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

Jeremiah 31:35-37 (King James Version)

35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Thanks for your honest answer.
I can see how one might equate physical Israel with Babylon, the great city so therefore God has cast off Israel as His chosen people.
But I don't see how one explains that the sun and moon are still around doing their thing.

If one is amil, then one feels we are in the kingdom now with Christ spiritually ruling and reigning from heaven.
So now I ask what you do with the following:

1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

[olegig]

Just 'off the cuff', this partial preterist turns amil and spiritualizes it to refer to the Church. It couldn't apply to physical Israel:

While setting in Church this morning I thought of something else because of the above statement.

Let us assume that whatever God meant in His Word, He meant only one thing and He meant the same thing for everyone. ok????

Now, if the above is true, then if we hash this thing out long enough, we should all come to the same conclusion and hold to the same theologies.

So I ask, on what basis does one know which passages are to be take literally and which are we free to spiritualize.

Please bear in mind with your answer that the scriptures have to drive the theology, not the other way around.

 

[kyredneck]

....So I ask, on what basis does one know which passages are to be take literally and which are we free to spiritualize.....

Excellent question olegig. How does one avoid illegitimate spiritualizing? I love the saying, 'The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed'. I believe the saying had it's origin with Augustine. Anyway, I've found it to be so true and have derived immense pleasure in my personal Bible study for years from following that simple dictate.

How does one avoid illegitimate spiritualizing? IME, you should always first have what I call a 'pointer' to direct you to the passage. The Bible is pregnant with these pointers. Example:

In post #29, I take Mystery Babylon, the great city, to mean apostate Judaism. Why? How? I've a pointer given in 11:8:

And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

There's actually FOUR points of comparison here, Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem. Therein lies some astounding similes with what transpired during the wrath that came upon 'that generation'. It is my intent, the Lord willing, to share what I see in these as time goes along. You might find it interesting to know that while several prophecies are given in the OT concerning the destruction of Babylon, Babylon was never destroyed as described. It remained a viable city up until the eighth century A.D. when the river Euphrates changed course and left it sitting high and dry. Babylon faded away, it did not meet with the violent destruction as described. But those OT prophecies concerning Babylon very aptly describe what happened during the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus the term, Mystery Babylon?

Here's another pointer example:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. Jn 3:14,15

And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21:8

Note that the brazen serpent was lifted up for those that were bitten.

.........They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mk 2:17

It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for Him.

..........another example of regeneration before belief.

Fortunate indeed are those that have been made to feel the serpent's awful sting. Fortunate are those that hunger and thirst after righteousness.

I used a pointer here (to make my point):
......For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: 1 Cor 5:7
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1525840#post1525840

Here's an example of some illegitimate spiritualizing I did that went over like whale dung:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=62718

 

[kyredneck]

Question for you olegig:

And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away. Mt 21:19

You think this is just an example of our Lord losing his temper at a tree?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Not olegig, but I'll take a stab at cause this passage used to seem to be an anomoly to me.

I believe that by the time Christ came, the Jewish nation was no longer producing fruit. They weren't the example to the nations that God intended for them to be and were in no way upholding their end of the covenants that God had made with them.

The olive tree was an example of that. Outwardly it was lush and beautiful, but inwardly, where it counted, it failed to produce fruit. The tree didn't live up to what it was advertising.

It is an example of the future wrath that will/has (depending on point of view) fallen on the Jewish nation.

 

[kyredneck]

Not olegig, but I'll take a stab at cause this passage used to seem to be an anomoly to me.

I believe that by the time Christ came, the Jewish nation was no longer producing fruit. They weren't the example to the nations that God intended for them to be and were in no way upholding their end of the covenants that God had made with them.

The olive tree was an example of that. Outwardly it was lush and beautiful, but inwardly, where it counted, it failed to produce fruit. The tree didn't live up to what it was advertising.

It is an example of the future wrath that will/has (depending on point of view) fallen on the Jewish nation.

That's zactly the way I see it MK.

 

[kyredneck]

Question for you olegig:

And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away. Mt 21:19

You think this is just an example of our Lord losing his temper at a tree?

Where you at olegig? I thought me and you had a dialog going on here.

 

[kyredneck]

....I've made the points that I wanted to on Lu 13:1-5. ...

....well almost. I left off some other information concerning the towers of Jerusalem from Josephus.

Now the towers that were upon it were twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in height; they were square and solid, as was the wall itself, wherein the niceness of the joints, and the beauty of the stones, were no way inferior to those of the holy house itself. Above this solid altitude of the towers, which was twenty cubits, there were rooms of great magnificence, and over them upper rooms, and cisterns to receive rain-water. They were many in number, and the steps by which you ascended up to them were every one broad: of these towers then the third wall had ninety, and the spaces between them were each two hundred cubits; but in the middle wall were forty towers, and the old wall was parted into sixty, while the whole compass of the city was thirty-three furlongs.... Wars, Book 5, Ch IV, Sec 3

Now as to the tower of Antonia..... The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three....... Wars, Book 5, Ch V, Sec 8

 

[olegig]

Where you at olegig? I thought me and you had a dialog going on here.

I am patiently waiting for a response to previous points made:

But I don't see how one explains that the sun and moon are still around doing their thing.

If one is amil, then one feels we are in the kingdom now with Christ spiritually ruling and reigning from heaven.
So now I ask what you do with the following:

1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

You are wishing to dialog about points within the amil interpretation; however as yet we have not agreed that it is the proper method of interpretation.

So far all I have seen is that you seem to take some license in the interpretive method based on the assumption there is only one 'great city' in scripture.

Since I am not at all familiar with what you personally might consider to be a "pregnant point", I cannot dialog based on what is in your mind for I make no claim of knowing what or how you think.

In other words, if we take the scriptures literally, then we can dialog on their interpretation in view of other scriptures.
However if one finds cause to spiritualize a given passage, then he/she can at will take that particular troubling passage out of the mix of proof texts.

Another way of saying it is that if one is free to spiritualize given passages, then the other is basically lost in the dialog from the beginning, so what is the use?

 

[kyredneck]

I am patiently waiting for a response to previous points made:

Is it one way with you? You get to ask all the questions? You've asked three in a row, I replied to two of them. It's your turn to answer now, then I'll move on to the third.

You are wishing to dialog about points within the amil interpretation; however as yet we have not agreed that it is the proper method of interpretation.

You already know we're not going to agree on that, and besides, if we used the same method of interpretation it wouldn't be a very interesting debate would it? Probably no debate at all.

So far all I have seen is that you seem to take some license in the interpretive method based on the assumption there is only one 'great city' in scripture.

There's only one 'great city' in Rev.

Since I am not at all familiar with what you personally might consider to be a "pregnant point", I cannot dialog based on what is in your mind for I make no claim of knowing what or how you think.

You asked on when one could spiritualize, I gave my opinion.

In other words, if we take the scriptures literally, then we can dialog on their interpretation in view of other scriptures.
However if one finds cause to spiritualize a given passage, then he/she can at will take that particular troubling passage out of the mix of proof texts.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

How do you literalize a Book presented in signs, symbols, and picture stories?

Another way of saying it is that if one is free to spiritualize given passages, then the other is basically lost in the dialog from the beginning, so what is the use?

Get with it olegig! You might learn something, and have some fun to boot!

 

[olegig]

Is it one way with you?

Its one of those been-there-done-that things. After debating hundreds of time with those who do not take the scriptures literally I have found that given enough license they can make the scriptures say whatever they wish so I just cut to the quick.

If we are presently in the Kingdom, then we should not be "flesh and blood".
If you have a literal interpretation of how we can be in a spiritual kingdom while being flesh and blood, then I am listening; otherwise I had just as soon talk about the weather.

You get to ask all the questions? You've asked three in a row, I replied to two of them. It's your turn to answer now, then I'll move on to the third.

I see now I should have brought up the tough one first.

You already know we're not going to agree on that, and besides, if we used the same method of interpretation it wouldn't be a very interesting debate would it? Probably no debate at all.

It might be nice to have a discussion of discovery and not of debate.
But then to do that folks have to be on the same page of the same Book.

How do you literalize a Book presented in signs, symbols, and picture stories?

You accept it as it stands and wait for it to unfold in the future.

Does one feel the disciples position on taking something spiritually and literally changed after they witnessed the resurrection?
All great things of God are a bit hard for man to understand before man sees them happen.