why Would We see prophecy as "Spiritual" Not Literal In Interpretation?

[JesusFan]

Why should we spiritualize the prophecies of the Bible, instead of seeing them through lense of literal(But NOT wooden!)

 

[Greektim]

Why should we spiritualize the prophecies of the Bible, instead of seeing them through lense of literal(But NOT wooden!)

Who says we do this with just prophecy??? Why not practice a messianic/missional hermeneutic everywhere?

 

[JesusFan]

Who says we do this with just prophecy??? Why not practice a messianic/missional hermeneutic everywhere?

Just curious, which Reformer, or modern theologian ever understood the texts in such a fashion?

 

[Greektim]

Just curious, which Reformer, or modern theologian ever understood the texts in such a fashion?

Ever heard or TIS?

 

[zrs6v4]

Just curious, which Reformer, or modern theologian ever understood the texts in such a fashion?

If im not mistaken this is a common position of many covenant theologians, right?

 

[Greektim]

If im not mistaken this is a common position of many covenant theologians, right?

Maybe, but often many things are ascribed to covenant theology that is not at all relevant. For instance, I am amill but not a covenant theologian type.

I would argue that Jesus lays this kind of hermeneutic down in Lk 24:44ff. It is a messianic hermeneutic and it is a missional hermenuetic.

 

[preacher4truth]

Why should we spiritualize the prophecies of the Bible, instead of seeing them through lense of literal(But NOT wooden!)

Did Jesus come literally when He was predicted to come and die/resurrect? Certainly. He came physically, bodily. He is said to be coming back the same as he ascended. Now somewhere along the line "somebody" turned this whole entire "Day of the Lord" and "coming kingdom" to being "spiritually" fulfilled, and using extra-biblical revelation for support. This is like someone who won't come to church, but is there "spiritually." :laugh:

 

[Greektim]

Did Jesus come literally when He was predicted to come and die/resurrect? Certainly. He came physically, bodily. He is said to be coming back the same as he ascended. Now somewhere along the line "somebody" turned this whole entire "Day of the Lord" and "coming kingdom" to being "spiritually" fulfilled, and using extra-biblical revelation for support. This is like someone who won't come to church, but is there "spiritually." :laugh:

I find it amazing (and alarming) that what you think is so clear and plain in the OT was so mysterious in veiled for the Jewish community. The truth is, the people did not usually understand the prophecy until after the fact! So what is so clear to you is cryptic to the pre-cross generations.

AND... Jesus coming physically and returning physically is nowhere said in Scripture to be the driving force of our hermeneutic. However, Jesus tells us what HIS hermeneutic looked like:

Luk 24:44 Then he told them, "These are the words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds so that they might understand the Scriptures.
Luk 24:46 He told them, "This is how it is written: the Messiah was to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
Luk 24:47 and then repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Opening their minds to Scripture included a messianic interpretation of the OT and a missional interpretation of the OT. Thus you have strange fulfillment passages in Matthew 2 that w/out the NT we would have a hard time seeing christologically.

I am coming more and more convinced the dispensationalism and fundamentalism is the product of a post-enlightenment sense of modernity. You deal in terms of either/or and you think that objectivity is an attainable variable in your interpretation. You take what is simple (literal fulfillment) and devise an extremely complicated system and timelines.

 

[preacher4truth]

I find it amazing (and alarming) that what you think is so clear and plain in the OT was so mysterious in veiled for the Jewish community. The truth is, the people did not usually understand the prophecy until after the fact! So what is so clear to you is cryptic to the pre-cross generations.

Please show me where I said these prophecies were "so clear and plain in the OT." Can you do that for me please? Nothing I've stated implied "clear and plain." only that He came literally, not "spiritually."

I too "find it amazing" (shucks, why not) "and alarming" that you've added to what I've said.

 

[JesusFan]

I find it amazing (and alarming) that what you think is so clear and plain in the OT was so mysterious in veiled for the Jewish community. The truth is, the people did not usually understand the prophecy until after the fact! So what is so clear to you is cryptic to the pre-cross generations.

AND... Jesus coming physically and returning physically is nowhere said in Scripture to be the driving force of our hermeneutic. However, Jesus tells us what HIS hermeneutic looked like:

Luk 24:44 Then he told them, "These are the words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds so that they might understand the Scriptures.
Luk 24:46 He told them, "This is how it is written: the Messiah was to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
Luk 24:47 and then repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Opening their minds to Scripture included a messianic interpretation of the OT and a missional interpretation of the OT. Thus you have strange fulfillment passages in Matthew 2 that w/out the NT we would have a hard time seeing christologically.

I am coming more and more convinced the dispensationalism and fundamentalism is the product of a post-enlightenment sense of modernity. You deal in terms of either/or and you think that objectivity is an attainable variable in your interpretation. You take what is simple (literal fulfillment) and devise an extremely complicated system and timelines.

Will Christians have "just" a spiritual resurrection, or will our physical bodies be raised out of the grave as Jesus body was?

isn't jesus STILL in His raised physical Body?

When will this all happen to us?

 

[Greektim]

Will Christians have "just" a spiritual resurrection, or will our physical bodies be raised out of the grave as Jesus body was?

isn't jesus STILL in His raised physical Body?

When will this all happen to us?

What do any of these questions have to do w/ the OP or even my last post. I believe in a physical resurrection for all parties involved.

 

[Greektim]

Here is a quick video that explains a bit of my hermeneutic: http://vimeo.com/22673201

 

[JesusFan]

What do any of these questions have to do w/ the OP or even my last post. I believe in a physical resurrection for all parties involved.

When do you see that happening?

 

[zrs6v4]

Maybe, but often many things are ascribed to covenant theology that is not at all relevant. For instance, I am amill but not a covenant theologian type.

I would argue that Jesus lays this kind of hermeneutic down in Lk 24:44ff. It is a messianic hermeneutic and it is a missional hermenuetic.

This is very true and I believe I understand what you are saying. There are obvious variances and underscores to all systems. Even in a literal approach to prophecy or theology as a whole there are recognitions for prophecy, typology, and other similar factors that must be taken into account. There is a lot that was not authorial intent but clearly placed in Scripture by God to be a type, prophecy, or shadow of what was and is to come. Types and shadows are an exception to the dispensational rules. Personally I do not claim anything yet because of my lack of knowledge on these matters. I like to be literal in understanding context, but allow the context to guide figures of speech or possible allegories if you will. It is obviously no simple task.

 

[zrs6v4]

Here is a quick video that explains a bit of my hermeneutic: http://vimeo.com/22673201

I really like that video, the issue is with allegorical approaches they are dangerous and leave to much room for false connections. Literal interpretation is safer in the sense that you allow the text to present itself. Now, after a literal biblical theology of a text can you draw possible connections and Keller made int he video? i think some are more obvious than others, but some were iffy. All of which he presented were types and shadows. In the end I agree that the Bible points and focuses in on Christ but I don't think that is a consistent way of reading into the text because while it primarily focuses on Christ is secondarily shows men and woman of the faith we gain from.

 

[Greektim]

I really like that video, the issue is with allegorical approaches they are dangerous and leave to much room for false connections. Literal interpretation is safer in the sense that you allow the text to present itself. Now, after a literal biblical theology of a text can you draw possible connections and Keller made int he video? i think some are more obvious than others, but some were iffy. All of which he presented were types and shadows. In the end I agree that the Bible points and focuses in on Christ but I don't think that is a consistent way of reading into the text because while it primarily focuses on Christ is secondarily shows men and woman of the faith we gain from.

1) Literal is only safer for you b/c you think it is more objective. But objectivity in interpretation is impossible. You can never approach the text objectively. Neither can you complete ascertain what the author meant. Nor can the author fully communicate that truth. The text becomes its own entity once it is published for the world. So an objective hermeneutic is not only impossible, but it is unhelpful b/c it does not approach the text for what it is.

2) I would argue that reading Jesus as the focus on the Bible is the only consistent way it should be approached. That was Jesus argument in Lk 24:27 & 44ff. He read the OT with himself as the goal and the mission of God blessing the nations as the driving force of Messiah.

3) This approach does not remove the moralistic and exemplary lessons that we glean from the OT. But such a focus is only secondary to the main issue-Jesus and his mission to redeem creation.

 

[JesusFan]

I really like that video, the issue is with allegorical approaches they are dangerous and leave to much room for false connections. Literal interpretation is safer in the sense that you allow the text to present itself. Now, after a literal biblical theology of a text can you draw possible connections and Keller made int he video? i think some are more obvious than others, but some were iffy. All of which he presented were types and shadows. In the end I agree that the Bible points and focuses in on Christ but I don't think that is a consistent way of reading into the text because while it primarily focuses on Christ is secondarily shows men and woman of the faith we gain from.

Simple area that would bring much disagreement would be in areas of :

what is relationship in the Bible regarding isreal and the Church?

what is nature/timing of Jesus Second Coming?