-
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!
Who Gave the Right to Interpret "Spiritually"?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
You misunderstand the difference between preterism and partial preterism by lumping them all together.
You still missed the point.
Nope. Johns point was that these sevens are years. I win.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
<Sigh> Martin's statement was what I was addressing. He said:
When, actually, Daniel did speak of "weeks." That is what the word means, based on the first creative week of 7 days. The word can thus be used metaphorically to mean a group of 7 somethings. 7 anythings can be called a "week" metaphorically.
There are clearly two persons, the lord of the vineyard and his believed Son, in this parable. Arguing the deity of Christ at this point is useless because you must still make a distinction between the two persons.
John of Japan,
.)
No mention of a "future "7 yr tribulation here....premill books say so, the text does not.
The Great Shepherd of ezk 34 is Jesus....[jn10]
The kingdom has already began.....
ezk 40-48 does not mention a thousand year period....you inserted it
You ignore the fulfillment that is ongoing, one new man in Christ, the temple that is the Church....
the seventy weeks of Dan 9:24-27 describes Jesus being cut off in the midst of the week, not a future anti christ
chapter3
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1921_mauro_seventyweeks.pdf
see chapter 3 here.....
.)
dispensationalism evades the clear Nt answers
7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.
No mention of a "future "7 yr tribulation here....premill books say so, the text does not.
The Great Shepherd of ezk 34 is Jesus....[jn10]
The kingdom has already began.....
ezk 40-48 does not mention a thousand year period....you inserted it
You ignore the fulfillment that is ongoing, one new man in Christ, the temple that is the Church....
the seventy weeks of Dan 9:24-27 describes Jesus being cut off in the midst of the week, not a future anti christ
chapter3
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1921_mauro_seventyweeks.pdf
see chapter 3 here.....
Last edited:
John of Japan said:
I believe them in light of NT. revelation, like here;
Then Peter preached this;
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Now Peter says exactly.....This is that which was spoken by Joel
He does not say; this is like that which was spoken by Joel...
He says....THIS IS THAT...
He does not say...this is a partial fulfillment...no......THIS IS THAT...
He does not say...this is part of a double fulfillment, and say it is like looking over two mountain ranges, you cannot see what is in the middle
No...this is that....
The language of;
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: did not bother Peter as similar metaphorical language was used in the Ot, for a change of government, or administration, unlike premill persons who seek to get out of this holding out for your literal fulfillment....
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
Was Peter allergorizing? Or speaking of what happened right then,,,,this IS THAT
Last edited by a moderator:
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: -Ac. 1.3
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. -Ac. 1.6, 7
It is rather difficult to imagine that the apostles posed this question to the Lord because they were completely misinformed. Not only did Jesus not correct them, but the kingdom of God was a vital part of their preaching (Ac. 8.12; 14.22; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31).
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. -Ac. 1.6, 7
It is rather difficult to imagine that the apostles posed this question to the Lord because they were completely misinformed. Not only did Jesus not correct them, but the kingdom of God was a vital part of their preaching (Ac. 8.12; 14.22; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31).
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. -Mt. 20.20-23
Jesus could have settled the issue once and for all by merely pointing out to James, John, and their mother that they had mistaken notions concerning the kingdom, but, again, he did not.
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. -Mt. 19.28
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. -Lk, 22.30
Jesus could have settled the issue once and for all by merely pointing out to James, John, and their mother that they had mistaken notions concerning the kingdom, but, again, he did not.
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. -Mt. 19.28
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. -Lk, 22.30
Last edited:
Jesus clearly had NOT taught about a restored Jewish kingdom, or they would not have asked. Once the Holy Spirit came on them, there is never another word about a Jewish kingdom.
See Acts 15 for the way they understood prophecy.
Yes. I beg your pardon.Uh, he speaks of 70 שָׁבוּעַ. Pronounced shabuwa. Now go to an online translation program and translate שָׁבוּעַ from Hebrew into English.
The word will be translated "week." In fact, שָׁבוּעַ is the normal modern Hebrew word for "week.
I meant to write, "He does not say seventy sevens of years." But I refer you to Ezekiel 45:21, where shabua seems to mean seven days, and again to Matthew 18:22 which is the only other time (I think) that 70 sevens is mentioned in the Bible.
Last edited:
I think we all agree that Gabriel's 70 weeks are 490 years.
The purpose of that prophecy is to teach that Messiah will complete his saving work as detailed it v. 24.
The 70th week ministry begins with his anointing/baptism, his crucifixion is in the midst of the week. During his earthly ministry, and during the first 3 1/2 years of the Apostolic ministry, Jesus confirmed the everlasting covenant on his own blood. Many thousands of Jews were converted but the Jewish leaders rejected the covenant by stoning Stephen. The Holy Spirit declared them 'uncircumcised'. The old covenant was FINISHED.
All that remained was for the invading army to destroy both city and sanctuary.
It all happened exactly as prophesied.
Is there a more literal understanding/interpretation?
Note, with respect to the OP, vision and prophecy were sealed up. See Jesus' words in Luke 24.
We have the authority of the LORD, Gabriel, Daniel, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Apostles to reject futuristic literal interpretations, so-called. Scripture Interpretation now must be spiritual, in terms of the present spiritual kingdom of our Saviour God. The kingdom, aka the church now comprises one redeemed people of God, Jew and Gentiles in one body.
The purpose of that prophecy is to teach that Messiah will complete his saving work as detailed it v. 24.
The 70th week ministry begins with his anointing/baptism, his crucifixion is in the midst of the week. During his earthly ministry, and during the first 3 1/2 years of the Apostolic ministry, Jesus confirmed the everlasting covenant on his own blood. Many thousands of Jews were converted but the Jewish leaders rejected the covenant by stoning Stephen. The Holy Spirit declared them 'uncircumcised'. The old covenant was FINISHED.
All that remained was for the invading army to destroy both city and sanctuary.
It all happened exactly as prophesied.
Is there a more literal understanding/interpretation?
Note, with respect to the OP, vision and prophecy were sealed up. See Jesus' words in Luke 24.
We have the authority of the LORD, Gabriel, Daniel, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Apostles to reject futuristic literal interpretations, so-called. Scripture Interpretation now must be spiritual, in terms of the present spiritual kingdom of our Saviour God. The kingdom, aka the church now comprises one redeemed people of God, Jew and Gentiles in one body.
It is noteworthy that many futurist Christians insist on a present day use of verse 21 for evangelism (and rightly so) but cast the immediate verses before it into the future. But verse 16 shows that the following verses (at least through 20) take place in the time of Acts. Arguably (but wrongly), using the "And it shall come to pass" as a new time marker, one could say verse 21 is the only future verse.
So these futurist Christians would make present verses future, and a future verse present!
Yet context and cross-reference shows 16 - 20 as past events and 21 as an ongoing reality.
That would be me. I have been rather sick lately and just came back to this thread.
No, I do not believe in a still-future physical coming of Christ.
Chapter and verse, please, for this "on hold".
Yes. And they're both kurios.
No. I do not have to make that distinction.
5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil 2
Jesus Christ is 'Lord of the vineyard', and has always been 'Lord of the vineyard'.
Last edited:
Oh, come on, this is so basic. Can't we get past figures of speech? I believe you are more intelligent than this, but I feel like I'm teaching freshmen.Because you do, quite rightly, what you keep denying you do. You see, correctly, that John 6:35 cannot be interpreted literally and you see that Mark 16:15 can and should be. In this we are of one mind. The difference between us is that I admit that I do it and you don't admit it.
In grammatical historical interpretation we interpret figures of speech as such. Even my freshman Eng. 101 students understand this. Their textbook says, "Figures of speech make your writing more vivid and concrete because they create a specific image in the reader's mind" (James Chapman, College Grammar and Composition Handbook, p. 132). Then it tells what a metaphor is: "an implied comparison, one that does not use like or as" (ibid).
Allegorical interpretation, which takes one to the amil or preterist position, is something entirely different. "Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter (rhete) or the obvious (phanera) is the real meaning (hyponoia) of the passage" (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 24). So allegorical interpretation takes straight out normal language and makes it allegorical.
As an example, look at the famous prophecy of Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah (Micah 5:2). Micah made his prophecy more vivid by using a figure of speech, personification, talking to Bethlehem as if it were human. Yet when Christ was actually born, it was readily understood by the interpreters to be a literal prophecy (Matt. 2:4-6).
Now think of a normal, literal prophecy of the 2nd Coming with no figures of speech in it. Isaiah 9:7 prophesies that the Messiah will sit on the throne of David when He comes, yet allegorizers (amil, preterist, and progressive dispensationalist) all say this is the right hand of God in Heaven, a place where David never sat. Literal interpretation says that there is a genuine throne of David on earth during the Millennium upon which Christ will sit.
That is the substance of the OP, something that neither you nor anyone else has answered on this thread. If the prophecies of the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally (complete with figures of speech to make the prophecy vivid), then why will not the prophecies of the 2nd Coming of Christ be fulfilled literally?
Last edited:
Excellent!
- Status