Ship of Fools: Rapture?

Thread: Rapture? Board: Kerygmania / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002328

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Dispensationalists like to take these two verses from Matthew 24: 36-44 and develop a whole heresy around them

quote:
40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.

However, in Jesus' day it was not so much about someone being taken up into paradise, it was about being left in the field or at the mill. During the Roman Occupation it was not a good thing for a man to be taken from the field, or-especially-a woman to be seized at the mill.

How we get things turned around!

But I am curious, where the source of this saying may have come from.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

This passage sometimes comes across as randomness. A rapture that follows a scatter gun approach, not like the ordered selection of the Sheep and Goats model.
But then thinking about it, taking one from each pair going about various activities could be like God taking a cross-section from a community.

This is a long shot it but I'm left wondering if the Rapture model may have had it's origins in the way the Ancient World selected slaves. Careful not to decimate a population so as to ensure a future supply and variety of a human resource.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

No, the rapture model takes it's basic idea from 1 Thessalonians 4:

quote:
The Coming of the Lord
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters,[g] about those who have died,[h] so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.[i] 15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.[j] 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

and 1 Corinthians 15

quote:
51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die,[m] but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

And also from the Book of Revelation which, if one interprets the book in a similar manner to, say, Isaiah, and sees the immediate application and a predictive application, one can interpret the letters to the 7 churches as being predictive of the church age. After describing the final church John then shifts the attention to the countless redeemed saints in Heaven - the raptured church - whilst the world suffers the outpoured judgments of God. The next time the church appears in Revelation is at the triumph of Christ as he returns accompanied by the saints, and descends to the earth as King of kings.

One final idea is that just as Noah and his family were rescued from the earth, inside the ark, before the judgment came, so the church will be taken before the tribulation comes with the opening of the seals and the bowls being poured out, etc.
The reference in the OP to someone being taken whilst the other is left is to what Jesus said in the context of the events in the last days 'as in the days of Noah.'
Well, in the days of Noah, the family were taken (into the ark) whilst the rest of the population were let behind and drowned.

Possibly, we can also look to the fact that the plagues of Egypt, like the judgments in Revelation, are persuasive, not penal, and therefore like the Israelites, the church will be spared whilst God deals with the world in a similar way to how he dealt with the Egyptians.

The plagues of Revelation are designed to turn people to Christ - and many will be saved - in the way that the Plagues of Egypt were designed to persuade Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave.

[ 28. November 2016, 13:27: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Do you subscribe to the view that the Church is raptured prior to the Tribulation, or half way through it?

And what (if any) possibilities of salvation are there for anyone after the Rapture in your view?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I believe it's a pre-trib rapture.
Yes, there is the availability of conversion - there is the text that speaks of those who have come out of great tribulation.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If you recall in May 2011, some loon was insisting that the world was going to end that month. There was some mild excitement generated by this forecast which as you might expect has completely died down. However at the time there were a ton of non-Christians who were confused and even alarmed by our foofaraw, and I wrote a blog post summarizing the broad lines of End Times theology for their benefit.
I forget what theologian it was who argued that it is never of benefit to discuss End Times. It nearly always leads to bad theology, is never (as Jesus himself points out) successful forecasting, and reliably inspires derision in unbelievers.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Of course, believing in and expecting the rapture does not require or encourage date-fixing or unhelpful predictions.

In fact, pre-trib rapture actually prevents that because it is the next prophetic event and there are no signs given to when it might take place. Any of the events predicted that surround the second coming actually take place after the rapture and so cannot be predicted before that event.

All in all, we are simply required to look up, be ready and ensure that we are not left behi

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe it's a pre-trib rapture.

I think you'll be struggling with bits of Daniel then, specifically 9:27 which suggests the Abomination of Desolation doesn't get set up until half-way through the tribulation. Who has been looking after the sacrifice and offerings until then?

quote:
Yes, there is the availability of conversion - there is the text that speaks of those who have come out of great tribulation.

Then on what basis are they saved? Remember, in your scheme of things Christ has already come back for his Church, which as far as I can see means for the entire body of believers.

And why, in 1 Cor 15, say, is this third category of believers neither dead in Christ or changed in a twinkling of an eye, not mentioned by Paul?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe it's a pre-trib rapture.
I think you'll be struggling with bits of Daniel then, specifically 9:27 which suggests the Abomination of Desolation doesn't get set up until half-way through the tribulation. Who has been looking after the sacrifice and offerings until then?
quote:
Yes, there is the availability of conversion - there is the text that speaks of those who have come out of great tribulation.
Then on what basis are they saved? Remember, in your scheme of things Christ has already come back for his Church, which as far as I can see means for the entire body of believers.

And why, in 1 Cor 15, say, is this third category of believers neither dead in Christ or changed in a twinkling of an eye, not mentioned by Paul?

1) Why would the A of D need to be in place before the rapture?
The antichrist comes to power at the beginning of the 7 years, then makes peace with and around Israel.
If the rapture is at the start of that 7 years, then the 'trouble' starts 3 and a half years in, when the antichrist sets up the image and reneges on the peace accord with Israel.
That will make the last 3 and half years a terrible time until the return of Christ; a period when the seals are opened, etc, etc.

2)On what basis are they saved? On the same basis that the saints of Hebrews 11 were saved - on the righteousness ascribed to them under the covenant with Israel and the work of Christ that underpins the old covenant in retrospect.

3) Paul doesn't mention them in that passage, but he does speak about all Israel being saved - and they are not saved by grace but by covenant.

[ 28. November 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
they are not saved by grace but by covenant.

What is the difference, please?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Mudfrog wrote:

quote:
No, the rapture model takes it's basic idea from 1 Thessalonians 4:

Is this meant as a rebuttal to the idea that Matthew 24 36 - 44 is the template for Rapture theology? Because I've heard that passage cited numerous times by pre-mil thinkers.

Hal Lindsey via Al Hartley

[ 28. November 2016, 15:36: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hal Lindsey via Al Hartley

From that link it would appear that a primary qualification for being raptured is being supremely well-endowed...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hal Lindsey via Al Hartley
From that link it would appear that a primary qualification for being raptured is being supremely well-endowed...

Well, Al Hartley did a lot of cheesecake and pin-up stuff before he went Christian, so I guess that continued to be an influence after his Road To Damascus.

(link possibly NSFW)

One thing I recall about his Christian Archie Comics is that the girls were always shown in one-pieces, as opposed to the secular comics, which didn't shy away from putting them in bikinis.

[ 28. November 2016, 16:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mudfrog wrote:

quote:
No, the rapture model takes it's basic idea from 1 Thessalonians 4:

Is this meant as a rebuttal to the idea that Matthew 24 36 - 44 is the template for Rapture theology? Because I've heard that passage cited numerous times by pre-mil thinkers.

Hal Lindsey via Al Hartley

Well, yes, of course you have. I'm not saying that the Matthew passage is not useful to rapture theology, but it's not the only one; and the word rapture comes from the Thessalonians passage.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

I think there's a large clue as to what's going on earlier in the chapter (24:1-3), and at 26:1

Full quote

The topic under discussion is the destruction of the Temple. Jesus has been asked when it's going to happen, so he answers the question, and says some more things that will happen around that time.

No-one's asked him about the end of the world. So either he's gone on a very long monologue answering a question no-one's asked about a completely different topic, or he's still talking about the events of AD 70 (which would be near topical news when Matthew wrote it).

Until 26:1, Matthew indicates no change of subject matter.

What Jesus has done is to use a mixture of OT quotation, and a genre of picture language common to the time, to predict the events of AD70. He was talking much like an OT prophet.

The “One will be taken...” thing probably refers to the 100,000 slaves Vespasian took to fund the campaign. Making the Jewish massacre self-funding was, for the Romans, a political statement along the lines of 'Mexico will pay for the Wall'.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not saying that the Matthew passage is not useful to rapture theology, but it's not the only one; and the word rapture comes from the Thessalonians passage.

It's not in it, though.

I would still like to know what the difference between being "saved under covenant" and "saved under grace" might be.

I am also curious to know why you apparently espouse a theory that doesn't seem to have been adopted by anyone in the early church. So far as I can tell, the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is one that has entered evangelical Christianity via, in ascending historical order, the Scofield Bible, JN Darby, Edward Irving, and the eighteenth-century Jesuit monk called Lacunza who first came up with the idea.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've seen dispensationalists try to make a case that belief in a pre-tribulation rapture was held by various Church Fathers, perhaps quoting them as selectively as they quote scripture.

I can see where the pre-millenialists get it from, but to my mind it begs more questions than it resolves and leads to fruitless speculation.

The thing I don't understand is why they feel the need to interpret the messages to the Seven Churches of Revelation in some kind of predictive sense - seven ages of the church and such like. I see no warrant for that in the text itself.

Why should those passages be projected to some unspecified future date? Why can't they simply be exhortations or rebukes to churches at that particular time, albeit expressed in hyperbolic or apocalyptic language?

What would be the point of conveying a message to Sardis or Laodicea if its relevance wasn't contemporary but referred to something hundreds of years in the future?

There's nothing in the text or context to suggest that we should look for some future fulfilment of the Letters to the Churches in Revelation as we might with the prophecies of Isaiah. Whichever of the two or three Isaiahs we attribute them to.

These days I see little point in speculating about eschatology - nor the freewill/predestination issue come to that.

I really don't see what there is to be gained from it.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Gamaliel, you could say everything you have said about the predictive element in Revelation about the predictive element in Isaiah.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Gamaliel, you could say everything you have said about the predictive element in Revelation about the predictive element in Isaiah.

And if Gamaliel won't say it, I will.

Prophecy isn't about predicting things. Not primarily, not even necessarily.

I think when we see Christ in things Isaiah says, it's because Isaiah is talking about things that reveal certain deep patterns (so to speak) the way myths speak of such patterns. Christians can look into the Hebrew Scriptures and find templates into which Christ fits, and that's one way of comparing this new event to the known patterns of God's interaction with the world.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've seen dispensationalists try to make a case that belief in a pre-tribulation rapture was held by various Church Fathers, perhaps quoting them as selectively as they quote scripture.

I can see where the pre-millenialists get it from, but to my mind it begs more questions than it resolves and leads to fruitless speculation.

The thing I don't understand is why they feel the need to interpret the messages to the Seven Churches of Revelation in some kind of predictive sense - seven ages of the church and such like. I see no warrant for that in the text itself.

Why should those passages be projected to some unspecified future date? Why can't they simply be exhortations or rebukes to churches at that particular time, albeit expressed in hyperbolic or apocalyptic language?

What would be the point of conveying a message to Sardis or Laodicea if its relevance wasn't contemporary but referred to something hundreds of years in the future?

There's nothing in the text or context to suggest that we should look for some future fulfilment of the Letters to the Churches in Revelation as we might with the prophecies of Isaiah. Whichever of the two or three Isaiahs we attribute them to.

These days I see little point in speculating about eschatology - nor the freewill/predestination issue come to that.

I really don't see what there is to be gained from it.

Gamaliel can you state that you know that Paul and the apostles along with first century writers did NOT believe in an imminent apocalypse preceded by a rapture of the church?
If so enlighten please. My understanding is that they did until Origen began the allegorising and that later, Augustine of Hippo made that thinking and platonic thinking into a kind of 'church is Israel now' theology that Catholicism holds to this day.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
can you state that you know that Paul and the apostles along with first century writers did NOT believe in an imminent apocalypse preceded by a rapture of the church?

As far as the rapture goes, it's an argument from silence, because the Bible mentions no such thing. To paint a picture of the pre-tribulation rapture as described by Mudfrog involves cobbling together various bits of Scripture to fit with a timeline similarly cobbled together from other bits of Scripture.

And if the first Christians did believe in an imminent apocalypse they were wrong, weren't they? 2,000 years on and it still hasn't happened. They might have been correct that it could have been imminent, but the fact is that it patently wasn't.

There is a tension throughout the NT of a sense of Christ's (potentially) imminent return and the sense of a certain number of eschatological events having to happen first, a tension that is pretty much impossible to resolve.

Either we accept this as a paradox and seek to "live in the light of his coming" whilst, along with Luther, planting our apple tree today even if the end of the world is heralded for tomorrow.

Or we attempt, as dispensationalism does, to cram all the pieces of the jigsaw into a framework of human invention.

The trouble with the latter is that you end up creating more problems than you solve - such as having people saved after the return of Christ for his own, having them saved under differing regimes (both "under the covenant" AND "under grace", whatever that means), and centuries' worth of attempting to match current events to biblical prophecy in a way that is demonstrably mistaken. The collateral damage of such an approach is simply far too high - and a sure sign that it's wrong.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
can you state that you know that Paul and the apostles along with first century writers did NOT believe in an imminent apocalypse preceded by a rapture of the church?
As far as the rapture goes, it's an argument from silence, because the Bible mentions no such thing.

I take it that is a no.
BTW there are plenty of places the concept of 'rapture' is found in the sense of snatching away unexpectedly. The word hapazeo' is pretty common. How out of interest do you read 1 thes 4:17..caught up to meet him in the air.." Another eg is in Acts when Phillip was "caught up".
Also the concept of imminence is not necessarily about timing. It seems to mean the idea of the next thing to happen. One can thus say the rapture has been imminent for 2 millennia. I.e. There is nothing to stop it occurring in the sense of stuff having to happen first.
As for dispensationalists putting square pegs in round holes, ISTM that any system is guilty of this and dispensationalism is the least guilty. It has bad press from date setting of course, but you don't have to set dates to see the way it harmonises scripture. Jesus' two comings for instance make sense if in the next dispensation he returns as a Davidic king.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
there are plenty of places the concept of 'rapture' is found in the sense of snatching away unexpectedly. The word hapazeo' is pretty common. How out of interest do you read 1 thes 4:17..caught up to meet him in the air.."

I read it that at the end of everything we will be with the Lord. I'm not literalistic enough to assume we are required to meet him mid-air (and where do we go then? Back down to earth??).

Where I part company with dispensationalists is in the idea that this "meeting in the air" leaves a separate group of people behind on earth, i.e. is a distinct event in time from the eschaton.

As others have pointed out, one can just as easily read Matthew as believers being left behind and those "taken" as being judged. There is no sense of "meeting the Lord in the air" in the Matthew passage, at all.

quote:
you don't have to set dates to see the way it harmonises scripture.

Wait, Scripture needs harmonising?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
there are plenty of places the concept of 'rapture' is found in the sense of snatching away unexpectedly. The word hapazeo' is pretty common. How out of interest do you read 1 thes 4:17..caught up to meet him in the air.."
I read it that at the end of everything we will be with the Lord. I'm not literalistic enough to assume we are required to meet him mid-air?

Well then, you are not reading what is there but what you want to be there. IOW eisigesis right?

The story goes BTW that there is a mid air reconciliation of the living with the dead saints, the church then goes to heaven for the marriage supper of the lamb, Earth is consigned to Satanic forces of Antichrist for a set time possibly 7 years, possibly 3 and one half.

During this time Israel is refined by judgement again and the gospel is entrusted to the 144k who are Jewish evangelists. They preach Christ but the cost of accepting him at this time is often beheading since Christians will be unable to take the mark of Antichrist.

At a climactic moment at the end of that time,(7years or final 3 and a half of the 7 which isDaniel' s final week or '7') called in scripture the day of the Lord or the time of Jacob's trouble, the repentant Jewish remnant will acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah and he will return to save them, defeat the forces of Antichrist, set up the kingdom or millennial reign of Christ which will be a political hands on peaceful government on Earth for 1000 years, after which Satan will be released to lead a final rebellion which is allowed to test human hearts, which, after it is defeated ends the current Biblical metanarrative having fulfilled all prophecy.

Mudfrog may have some appendix to this scenario.

[ 29. November 2016, 07:33: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
you are not reading what is there but what you want to be there. IOW eisigesis right?

To my mind I am reading the hard-to-understand parts of Scripture in the light of the easy-to-understand parts, and not the other way around. The idea of us being with the Lord at his return is all over Scripture. The detailed scenario you have outlined, not so much, and it creates a whole host of problems with easier-to-understand parts.

quote:
The story goes BTW that there is a mid air reconciliation of the living with the dead saints, the church then goes to heaven for the marriage supper of the lamb, Earth is consigned to Satanic forces of Antichrist for a set time possibly 7 years, possibly 3 and one half.

The story does no such thing. This train of events is arrived at by cutting and pasting bits from 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, Revelation, and Daniel, and leaving lots of other bits out.

If this were to represent the way thing are going to pan out, why on earth is there no prophetic passage setting out this train of events as you have? Or to repeat my question, why does Scripture "need" "harmonising" as above?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Eutychus is spot-on.

The idea if everything being lively until nasty old Origen allegorised everything and we ended up with the Catholic Church is an over-simplification and derives from a similar tendency to want to harmonise history into some kind of neat template in the same way as dispensationalists try to do with scripture. It's a kind of join-the-dots, cut-and-paste the proof text theology.

@Mudfrog, yes, you could apply the same kind of criteria about prophecy to Isaiah - and generally I would. However, there does seem to be a kind of forecasting element in Isaiah that we don't necessarily find in the Letter to the Churches in Revelation.

I_m comfortable with the idea of the early Church 'Christianising' passages from Isaiah and applying them to Christ. That's clearly how their hermeneutic worked - often quite clumsily it has to be said given some examples in the Gospels.

I'm still conservative enough to admit of some kind of future fulfilment of prophetic passages, alongside a contemporary and short or mid-term application but I can't for the life of me see why we have to adopt some kind of detailed end-time schema based on making imaginative leaps from the Letters to the Seven Churches.

That's an eisegetical leap too far.

As for meeting Christ in the air, that strikes me as an echo of the Ascension and however we understand it, I can live with the Mystery in that and other instances.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
e story does no such thing. This train of events is arrived at by cutting and pasting bits from 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, Revelation, and Daniel, and leaving lots of other bits out.

If this were to represent the way thing are going to pan out, why on earth is there no prophetic passage setting out this train of events as you have? Or to repeat my question, why does Scripture "need" "harmonising" as above?

Look, it makes perfect sense of Isaiah 11, Daniel 9, Zechariah 11,12 Matt24 and Thessalonians. If you want to say it is a cut paste job, you have to deal with the same cut paste job Jesus himself did and Paul did.
Scripture needs harmonising because as you well know it is not a linear narrative. If it is analogous to a jig saw, then the first step is to say the puzzle is valid; it coheres so then you start figuring it out. If you say it's not really a puzzle, it doesn't have to cohere, then you cannot say it is God's revelation can you? At best you come up with the solution that some of it is but then you need to figure out which parts are. If you do this you lose the compass. You have to start with an axiom outside it so then we get all the God is a genocidal maniac arguments because you have to start with human preconceptions.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Look, it makes perfect sense of Isaiah 11, Daniel 9, Zechariah 11,12 Matt24 and Thessalonians.

But only at the expense of making the picture more, not less complicated.

To me, one of the red flags indicating dispensationalism is wrong is that it requires so much extra-biblical explanation. As far as I can see that runs wholly counter to the promise of the New Covenant.

quote:
If you want to say it is a cut paste job, you have to deal with the same cut paste job Jesus himself did and Paul did.

Well oddly enough, I don't believe myself to have the same authority to cut and paste in the way the writers of Scripture did.

quote:
Scripture needs harmonising because as you well know it is not a linear narrative.

1) Why should its non-linearity require harmonisation?

2) So why are you so insistent on reading Revelation, in particular, linearly?

(I think it makes a whole load more sense to read Revelation as a number of successive scenes often portraying the same thing from a different angle. So, for instance, the 144,000 (and which numbers in Revelation do you take literally, and why?) do not 'precede' the great crowd from every nation, tribe, and tongue. They are the same group, i.e. all believers. John first "hears" their number, then "sees" the crowd)

quote:
If it is analogous to a jig saw, then the first step is to say the puzzle is valid; it coheres so then you start figuring it out.

If we could figure it out, we'd be God.

quote:
If you say it's not really a puzzle, it doesn't have to cohere, then you cannot say it is God's revelation can you?

That depends on whether you think God's revelation is designed predominantly to tell us everything, or to get us asking the right questions in life.

quote:
You have to start with an axiom outside it (...) you have to start with human preconceptions.

What is dispensationalism but a set of human preconceptions based on the axiom that there is a definitive way of "rightly dividing the word of truth" so that it all fits into the scheme?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

As I understand it....

1) Up till the 19th C there were two views of the future - Simply that Jesus would return in judgement to usher in the final new heaven and new earth, and a less popular view that there would somehow be a literal 1000-year earthly 'Millennium' after that return and before final judgement. A variant view believed in a future blissful millennium but before the Second Advent.

Crucially none of these views believed in a 'pre-tribulation Rapture' - that view only arose in the early 19thC.

2) The trail of the pre-tribulation Rapture idea goes back to a Church of Scotland minister called Edward Irving. In a church mostly preaching a 'post-millennial' Second Coming - and therefore with little urgency or excitement about it - Irving recovered the idea of preaching an imminent Second Coming and excited people with the thought of constant readiness for the event. He also caught onto the idea of a post-Second-Coming Millennial Kingdom.

3) As a result of Irving's preaching there was a great interest in prophecy and 'Prophetic Conferences' were held all over the UK (and beyond?). But as biblical prophecy was studied, they found a problem - much prophecy could be interpreted as already fulfilled, while other portions apparently belonged in the Millennium. But they increasingly found prophecies that had not been fulfilled but seemed to belong before the judgement and the Millennium. Where could those prophecies belong in a scheme that was very insistent that Jesus' return might be literally 'any second now'??

4) at this point, they could have followed the pattern suggested by the I Thess passage - i.e, that with some prophecy yet to be fulfilled, they might, as it were, pull back from 'Red Alert' to Amber Alert', remaining prepared but aware that there did seem to be unfulfilled prophecies yet to happen. Unfortunately it seems they weren't willing to give up on the excitement of believing in an imminent 'any-second-now' return.

5) It was at this point that the pre-tribulation Rapture idea was thought up, by the Brethren leader John Nelson Darby with, it seems, hints from a 'prophet' in the 'charismatic' wing of Irving's followers.

Essentially the prophecies that were causing difficulty would no longer need to be fulfilled before Jesus returned, because that wouldn't quite be 'The End'. If Jesus returned to rapture his church and preserve them from the Tribulation, then these other prophecies could be fulfilled during the Tribulation period, before Jesus 'returned again' with the Church to bring judgement and usher in the Millennium. This view quickly caught on among the prophetic students and was boosted by the Schofield Bible whose notes effectively guided readers to that interpretation.

6) In early versions of this view the return of Israel, and a mass conversion of Jews to Christianity, would of course be 'post-Rapture' and indeed a response to it. This particular interpretation was - well at least significantly modified by the events of 1948.

I'll be back later to follow this up in its application to this thread.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The supreme irony, of course, is that dispensationalists engage in allegorisation to a similar extent - if not more so - than some of those they believe themselves to be 'correcting' ...

So, for instance, what is the dispensationalist 'take' on the Letters to the Seven Churches if it isn't an elaborate allegorisation projecting trends and tendencies into a far-off future that would have been of little or no relevance to the people who made up the congregations of those churches at the time?

It always used to strike me as odd as how those who went in for a futurist interpretation of the Seven Churches always categorised this current 'dispensation' as the Laodicean age.

On what grounds?

Why couldn't we be in the 'Ephesian age' or the 'Smyrnan age' of the church, the 'Pergamon age' or the 'Thyatiran age' or the 'Sardis Age' the 'Philadelphian age' ...

What possible means or yardstick do we have to determine which 'age' we are supposed to be in other than some kind of extra-biblical framework of interpretation?

Sure, I know there are ironies on the other side too. I've long thought it odd that the Orthodox are so vehemently opposed to anyone using Revelation in a predictive sense yet they happily mine the Book of Revelations for proof-texts as to how we are to worship ... with incense, robes and so on. Not that I'm opposed to any of that - I quite like it - but then neither would I use texts from Revelation to suggest that this is how things should be done ...

All that said, I do find the whole fundamentalist dispensationalist thing to be shot through with discrepancies, contradictions and resort to overly personal and subjective flights of fancy in order to make the pieces of the jigsaw fit.

The scriptures aren't a jigsaw, they are more like a kaleidoscope or a mosaic, a tapestry - and yes, parts of the picture are as yet blurred.

How could it be otherwise? We are dealing with eternal truths here, not an A-Z map of our local town.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The bit you are missing is that Irving apparently got his ideas from Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz who under the pseudonym Rabbi Juan Josafat Ben Ezra wrote La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Majestad ('The coming of the Messiah in glory and majesty') in 1790. The abridged 3-volume version (!) was published in 1821, translated by Irving in 1826 and released in a further abridged version in 1833.

As I type this out I can't help but be struck by how recent all this is as a doctrine.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that is broadly how the eschatological schema or model we are discussing developed, Steve Langton.

However, a belief in the conversion of the Jews before the return of Christ or contiguous with it in some way had been current for centuries - it's one of the reasons Cromwell admitted the Jews back into England during the Commonwealth period of course. The idea was that they would be exposed to the Gospel and converted, thereby hastening the return of Christ.

You've got an allusion to it in Andrew Marvell's poem, 'To His Coy Mistress' too, of course.

The point is that the whole pre-tribulation thing is so mid-19th century ...

[Big Grin]

It developed out of concerns about the end of the world hastened by the turmoil of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars and the unrest and revolutions of mid-19th century Europe - 1848 and all that.

Add fervid revivalism and popular religious movements to the mix and you've got a recipe for eschatological speculation that has continued in more conservative forms of Christianity to the present day - and it's solely restricted to fundamentalist forms of Protestant evangelicalism either.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As I type this out I can't help but be struck by how recent all this is as a doctrine.

Nor how 'recent' of vintage the groups are that tend to espouse this sort of thing. The Plymouth Brethren, they emerged at the same time. The various holiness and revivalist groups that coalesced - as far as they have - into the various independent evangelical groups we find across the English-speaking world (and among those other cultures they've evangelised) ... again, recent vintage (although they all draw on older influences too, of course).

It might be objected that simply because something is of recent vintage it doesn't mean it is 'wrong' - but the alarm bells do ring with me when marginal positions are adopted as mainstream within certain groups.

Although, in Mudfrog's case I suspect his pre-tribulation style dispensationalism isn't particularly common across the Salvation Army as a whole.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I have no problem with the prospect of a mass conversion of the Jews. Romans 9-11 certainly holds out some hope for that, as do all those OT prophecies.

Where I start climbing the walls is when I read supposedly biblical details of how this is going to happen and in which dispensation of salvation, and when excitable non-Hebrew-speaking congregations start singing songs in Hebrew and blowing shofars with a sort of super-spiritual sheen on their faces.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As I type this out I can't help but be struck by how recent all this is as a doctrine.
Nor how 'recent' of vintage the groups are that tend to espouse this sort of thing. The Plymouth Brethren, they emerged at the same time.

As you say, this seems to have been due to a conjunction of historical circumstances. The Adventists and JWs also date from around the same time and have similar eschatologies.

As someone raised in the Brethren, attending an Adventist service is like going into an ecclesiastical Uncanny Valley.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can imagine.

I've never been to an Adventist services but there's a tiny group of Adventists here who left their 'regular' churches and set up a congregation following the visit of some itinerant evangelist who 'explained' the scriptures to them.

The guy I know from there is a lovely bloke and something of an autodidact. I don't wish to be rude but I've noticed a tendency with autodidacts of whatever stripe to slide off into all manner of whacky or fringe ideas - I've seen this with people who've slid over to the extra-Parliamentary Left or to the political right.

Alongside his Adventism he takes an overly literal approach to eschatology - Angela Merkel is the latest candidate for setting up some kind of super-dooper Endtimes European Union - as well as flakey ideas about medical issues.

My wife shouldn't be on chemotherapy, of course, that's all a big con designed to line the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, she would be better advised to come off chemo and go onto a vegetable only diet as that is the sure-fire way to cure cancer ...

[Roll Eyes]

Ok, I recognise that we shouldn't tar all more 'mainstream' dispensationalists / pre-millenialists with the same brush but I'm afraid I've got it down as part of the same kind of continuum ...

It's all very well Jamat saying that what has discredited the movement/tendency to some extent is the propensity to fix dates and add too much detail - but I'd suggest that this is inherent within such a system. It's where it leads.

I'm sorry, I've got it down on my list of quack-theologies. I'm not doubting the overall orthodoxy (small o) of dispensationalist groups but it does veer into whacko-jacko territory and there are uncomfortable similarities with JW-ness and the loopier fringe of Adventism.

That doesn't mean that I think that all the individuals involved are whacko-jacko - no, far from it - but as a schema and system I think it's fundamentally flawed. Fundamentally being the operative word.

It is a fundamentalist trait as well as a system that trumpets out of its own fundament.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
I think it makes a whole load more sense to read Revelation as a number of successive scenes often portraying the same thing from a different angle. So, for instance, the 144,000 (and which numbers in Revelation do you take literally, and why?) do not 'precede' the great crowd from every nation, tribe, and tongue. They are the same group, i.e. all believers. John first "hears" their number, then "sees" the crowd.

I have heard Revelation described as a series of descriptions of an extremely large picture with many elements. There is no chronology in the picture; it all exists at once. However, the descriptions of the different elements must come one after another.

Moo

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed, and one can understand the reluctance of some of the Eastern Churches to accept Revelation into the canon of the NT, given the propensity of people to read all sorts of things into it.

I'm glad it's in, but it ought to come with a health-warning.

This is an area where, paradoxically, some of the independent evangelical groups have retained elements of small o Orthodoxy - perhaps better than some mainline churches - and yet are susceptible to idiosyncratic and eccentric interpretations.

It extends into some sectors of evangelicalism within the historic Churches too - my loveable but dotty evangelical Anglican mother-in-law being a case in point. She was/is susceptible to any fruitcake flavour end-time/revivalist fantasy from the Israel and the End times lobby.

I'm sorry, but it's the theological equivalent of quack cures and alternative therapies. They can do some good and make us feel a bit better but ultimately they're placebos.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Ok so let's say that on the one hand, you have a literal reading that attempts to synthesise the scriptures with regard to the eshaton because it wants to grasp what God's plan in history is and reconcile it with faith in Christ as saviour and his identification with God.

This view is historically recent in that no one has created a summary of prophetic events like this beforehand that interprets scripture in this way. However this view is based on what the Bible writers have put in print and claimed to be truth believed by them but subsequently lost in history after the decline into corruption,legalism and formalism that occurred in the dark ages.

The Irving movement and Darby was a rediscovery of ancient truth built upon by people like Robert Anderson and others.

What do you have on the other hand? It seems to be a distillation of the once dynamic and life changing message of the apostles into a kind of social liberalism, a hand waving message that says Come on guys let's just love everyone that is without the transformative power to facilitate that message. It comes down to human politics that faith is in. The scriptures are either flawed or incomprehensible so humanity has to save itself and the planet. That's where it seems to me the liberal church is currently. Add in evolution and God is irrelevant. We are chemical political historical accidents.

[ 29. November 2016, 13:30: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This view is historically recent in that no one has created a summary of prophetic events like this beforehand that interprets scripture in this way.

Which is precisely why it is suspect.

quote:
However this view is based on what the Bible writers have put in print and claimed to be truth believed by them but subsequently lost in history after the decline into corruption,legalism and formalism that occurred in the dark ages.

This not only contradicts your previous sentence, it is a total assumption. If there was something "in print" (sic) you would not have to admit it was historically recent.

quote:
The Irving movement and Darby was a rediscovery of ancient truth built upon by people like Robert Anderson and others.

The specific idea we're discussing here, that of a pre-tribulation rapture of the saints leaving the rest behind, is not a rediscovery of ancient truth. It's an entirely innovative hermeneutic that first appeared in the late 18th century.

quote:
What do you have on the other hand? (...) The scriptures are either flawed or incomprehensible

Dispensationalism is an interpretive system that sets itself up as the only way of "rightly dividing the word of truth". In other words, the claim of Scripture being essentially incomprehensible as they stand is one made by dispensationalism: without its specific system they are not comprehensible; they require the interpretive system to be adopted.

As I say, this is not only sectarian, it also runs counter to the essential promise of the New Covenant which says that God's people will no longer need others to instruct them but will have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts.

Meanwhile the NT has plenty to say about false apostles and those that needlessly complicate the Good News, and the outcomes of their teaching. Consider, for instance, the patently clear 1 Tim 1:3-7:

quote:
I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine, and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith.

But the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions. (...)

I'm on the lookout for "love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith". If that is your definition of "social liberalism" that says "Come on guys let's just love everyone" perhaps you should consider removing 1 Timothy from your personal canon...

quote:
That's where it seems to me the liberal church is currently. Add in evolution and God is irrelevant.

Without whipping the various Dead Horses raised here, it seems clear to me that there is plenty of theological room between dispensationalism and godless liberalism however defined.

The creeds affirm, and continue to affirm, that Christ will come again in glory and that will do me fine.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW there are plenty of places the concept of 'rapture' is found in the sense of snatching away unexpectedly.

In the passage that sparked this thread...

quote:

For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left.

...the comparison is made to the days of the flood, and specifically comments that it was the unrighteous that were taken away by the flood. Noah and his family were the ones who remained.

So, if this passage has anything to do with people being magicked away, it won't be the good old god-fearing folk that spontaneously disappear, it'd be the baddies!

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
can you state that you know that Paul and the apostles along with first century writers did NOT believe in an imminent apocalypse preceded by a rapture of the church?
As far as the rapture goes, it's an argument from silence, because the Bible mentions no such thing.
I take it that is a no.

If they did believe it, they did a pretty poor job of communicating it. The rapture is a recent invention that has little to support it in scripture, tradition or reason.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gamaliel wrote:

quote:
She was/is susceptible to any fruitcake flavour end-time/revivalist fantasy from the Israel and the End times lobby.

You haven't really lived until you've had an immediate loved-one tell you that, when the demons are terrorizing the Earth prior to the Return Of Christ, don't be surprised if she can't let you into the house, because there'll be no way of knowing if you're really who you say you are, or a demon in disguise.

Interestinglly, this relative's preoccupation with end-times safety procedures didn't last for much more than a few weeks, as the whole eschatological trip was quickly abandoned. I suppose that might be par for the course with that sorta thing.

And FWIW, that version of end-times schlockery was Roman Catholic in its orientation. The RC version of that sorta thing tends to be pretty strong in the Marian cults, but nowhere else.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ok so let's say that on the one hand, you have a literal reading that attempts to synthesise the scriptures with regard to the eshaton because it wants to grasp what God's plan in history is and reconcile it with faith in Christ as saviour and his identification with God.

Also, to my mind dispensationalism doesn't do that because it opens up all sorts of hard-to-understand alternatives to the Gospel message of "faith in Christ as saviour".

Not least because it requires you to contrive a basis on which those left behind after believers have been raptured to be with their Lord can be saved, and engage in another variety of hand-waving about various dispensations being saved "by grace" and "by covenant", as Mudfrog puts it (and has yet to explain).

What is all this if not a needless complication of the Gospel?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, I am not a theological liberal. I remain pretty conservative theologically and, I hope, very Nicene-Chalcedonian in orientation.

Neither were the Fathers theologically liberal, nor the Reformers nor the 18th century revivalists and pietists connected with the Great Awakenings of that century.

And none of them espoused a pre-tribulation Rapture nor some kind of artificial dispensationalist framework to be imposed on the scriptures.

Jamat seems to be positing some kind of binary system where you either have his particular brand of conservative evangelicalism on the one hand or else mediaeval Romanism or Protestant liberalism on the other.

It's perfectly possible to hold to a high view of scriptural inspiration and to historic creedal Christianity without signing up for 19th century pop-theology about the Eschaton.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

@ Gamaliel: Have you read Iain Murray's "The Puritan Hope"? I read it years ago and it makes a strong case for saying that the "classic" Reformed position on the Second Coming has nothing to do with a secret rapture and pre-millennialism. See: here.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The bit you are missing is that Irving apparently got his ideas from Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz who under the pseudonym Rabbi Juan Josafat Ben Ezra wrote La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Majestad ('The coming of the Messiah in glory and majesty') in 1790. The abridged 3-volume version (!) was published in 1821, translated by Irving in 1826 and released in a further abridged version in 1833.

As I type this out I can't help but be struck by how recent all this is as a doctrine.

I hadn't actually missed that, or the English guy who introduced Irving to 'Ben Ezra' - I was just trying to make the point as briefly as possible.

But note that neither Ben Ezra nor Irving included any idea of a 'pre-Tribulation Rapture' - that aspect didn't come about till Darby and those who followed him. As far as I know, there is no trace of it in any earlier exposition - and without the early 19th C developments via Darby and Co, there was no need of such an idea either.

Sorry, Jamat, while you can point to a few generally 'pre-millennial' believers before Irving and even back to early times, the idea of a pre-tribulation Rapture was not a revival of earlier ideas but
a) all new in the 19th C, and
b) founded as I say on a questionable step taken by Darby.

I've also read Murray's "Puritan Hope" book; and as a brief account of the general 'A-Millennial' interpretation, there is WJ Grier's paperback summary "The Momentous Event". And I've previously referred to William Hendriksen.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Baptist Trainfan: Iain Murray, Andrew Walker, Os Guinness, Adrian Plass... I sometimes wonder whether our bookshelves could be indistinguishably merged.

[ 29. November 2016, 15:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Gamaliel: ..and none of them espoused a pre-tribulation Rapture nor some kind of artificial dispensationalist framework to be imposed on the scriptures.

I asked you before, how do you know this?
Also how can you say theological conservatism is a good thing when you seem to want to condone other viewpoints and have a bet both ways on so many issues.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
how do you know this?

How do you know they didn't believe in small green creatures from Alpha Centauri?

We have no idea what they believed about what they didn't write down, and projecting later beliefs onto them in an attempt to provide historical credibility for these beliefs in the absence of any evidence at all is just not, well, credible.

[ 29. November 2016, 15:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The bit you are missing is that Irving apparently got his ideas from Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz who under the pseudonym Rabbi Juan Josafat Ben Ezra wrote La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Majestad ('The coming of the Messiah in glory and majesty') in 1790. The abridged 3-volume version (!) was published in 1821, translated by Irving in 1826 and released in a further abridged version in 1833.

As I type this out I can't help but be struck by how recent all this is as a doctrine.
I hadn't actually missed that, or the English guy who introduced Irving to 'Ben Ezra' - I was just trying to make the point as briefly as possible.

But note that neither Ben Ezra nor Irving included any idea of a 'pre-Tribulation Rapture' - that aspect didn't come about till Darby and those who followed him. As far as I know, there is no trace of it in any earlier exposition - and without the early 19th C developments via Darby and Co, there was no need of such an idea either.

Sorry, Jamat, while you can point to a few generally 'pre-millennial' believers before Irving and even back to early times, the idea of a pre-tribulation Rapture was not a revival of earlier ideas but
a) all new in the 19th C, and
b) founded as I say on a questionable step taken by Darby.

I've also read Murray's "Puritan Hope" book; and as a brief account of the general 'A-Millennial' interpretation, there is WJ Grier's paperback summary "The Momentous Event". And I've previously referred to William Hendriksen.

Well that might be true though I do not really know, about the pre trib rapture, but the concept of rapture itself is Biblical not 18 century. You could argue Enoch was raptured in Genesis and Elijah was raptured in 2 Kings. And there is the OP reference as well as 1 thes 2 which literally promises that not all will die. You have to contradict Paul here to deny it. That is why I said that to say no to the rapture, you have to do much more interpretive mangling than dispensationalism does.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
the concept of rapture itself is Biblical not 18 century. You could argue Enoch was raptured in Genesis and Elijah was raptured in 2 Kings.

By the Rapture on this thread we do not mean the sudden taking up of any individual à la Elijah et al.

We mean the Rapture as popularly understood, i.e. an end-time sudden departure of all believers, leaving behind unbelievers, usually left to face all or part of the Tribulation, for an indeterminate time before the last judgement (and, somehow or other, with the option of being saved in some other dispensation than that of the present age).

That is the idea that is a) innovative b) being hotly disputed here.

[ 29. November 2016, 15:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
how do you know this?
How do you know they didn't believe in small green creatures from Alpha Centauri?

We have no idea what they believed about what they didn't write down, and projecting later beliefs onto them in an attempt to provide historical credibility for these beliefs in the absence of any evidence at all is just not, well, credible.

My point is that they did write it down. You just need to have ears to hear and eyes to see. There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster in scripture but there are lots of eschatological references , certainly not a linear story mind. If you say there is no evidence at all, you could just be choosing to ignore what Biblical evidence there is. What do you do with 'one shall be taken and the other left' for instance?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What do you do with 'one shall be taken and the other left' for instance?

This, for instance?

To assume it means believers are "taken" and unbelievers "left" requires not only to interpret the passage against what is actually written in it (in the light of the theory of the end-time rapture), it also requires the introduction of an entire parallel system of salvation which is wholly unsupported by Matthew and, to boot, undermines Jesus' entire point that one needs to be ready at any hour - since it opens up the possibility of being saved after that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
the concept of rapture itself is Biblical not 18 century. You could argue Enoch was raptured in Genesis and Elijah was raptured in 2 Kings.
By the Rapture on this thread we do not mean the sudden taking up of any individual à la Elijah et al.

We mean the Rapture as popularly understood, i.e. an end-time sudden departure of all believers, leaving behind unbelievers, usually left to face all or part of the Tribulation, for an indeterminate time before the last judgement (and, somehow or other, with the option of being saved in some other dispensation than that of the present age).

That is the idea that is a) innovative b) being hotly disputed here.

And, that idea is part of a Biblical pattern of 'taking up' pre tribulation is is not the only way to look at it. Agreed, it is my way and of course millions of others who do not post here,but it is not the only theological model that believes in a rapture.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
there are lots of eschatological references , certainly not a linear story mind.

If there's no linear story in the Scriptures, why is there any pressing need to impose one? Did you miss that bit in Timothy about wasting time on speculation?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
it is not the only theological model that believes in a rapture.

Are you backing off the model of a rapture as defined in my post?

i.e. that leaves unbelievers behind on earth?

There is no biblical passage that straightforwardly supports this. You have been presented with an alternative and more self-evident hermeneutic of Matt 24 and so far chosen to ignore it in favour of one that reverses who's taken and who's left.

If you are backing off that model, please specify what exactly you mean by an end-time "Rapture".

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
but the concept of rapture itself is Biblical not 18 century.

I don't think that I, or Eutychus/Gamaliel/Baptist Trainfan etc are disagreeing about the Rapture - as it says in I Thess 4, any Christians living on the day of the Advent "will be caught up together with them (i.e., the 'dead in Christ' who have 'risen first') in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air".

But we also accept I Thess 5 which portrays how that day will come suddenly and for unbelievers there will be 'no escape' - nothing there to suggest any long tribulation with second chances for the 'left behind', or conversion of the Jews in that period, or whatever.

The issue here is very much the ' pre-tribulation rapture' and whether that specific 'twist in the tale' is Scriptural'.

Posted by Urfshyne (# 17834) on :

Chick Yuill (an ex-Salvation Army officer, incidentally)in his book "Moving in the Right Circles" makes the point that we need to view this as those living in the first century would understand it.

He makes the point that a visiting ruler or dignitary would be met outside the gates of a city by its citizens. They would then escort him as he processed into their town - they were not going off with him to his palace.

This, then, was meant as an encouragement to early Christians that God's kingdom would be established in our world.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Jamat, no, I didn't say the idea of the Rapture was 18th century, it's a 19th century concept.

I don't know what positions you are referring to that apparently hedge their bets. I aim to be an orthodox(small o) Christian in the broad Nicene-Chalcedonian and creedal sense. I am not a fundamentalist. In the world I inhabit there are more choices than fundamentalism on the one hand and uber-liberalism on the other.

@Baptist Trainfan, yes, of course I've read Iain Murray's 'The Puritan Hope'. It was popular in the restorationist circles in which I moved in the 1980s.

Talking about Andrew Walker, who has also been mentioned here, I well remember a US doctoral student of his (from the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination in the US) and Walker himself joining forces to roundly refute some dispensationalist nonsense that was coming 'from the floor' at a conference 'On 'Revival' he hosted at King's College in 2003 I think it was.

That graphically made the point for me that neither the Orthodox 'Grand Tradition' nor the Big R Reformed tradition have any room or time for the febrile speculations of dispensationalism.

Sure, there are worse tendencies and bigger issues to contend with, but I&m firmly of the view that dispensationalism is a complete and utter waste of time. I was only exposed to it for around three months after my evangelical conversion when I occasionally attended a Brethren Assembly but that was enough to convince me of its paucity.

Looking back, there was sufficient in the Brethren Bible studies I attended to give me a love of the scriptures and an overview if you like of salvation history, to keep me going. But I never bought into the dispensationalist package. It all seemed so contrived.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

At the risk of a tangent, I hasten to add that I see most fundamentalists, other than the extreme and hate-filled ones, as fellow travelers. The only beef I have with them is either dispensationalism or very wooden forms of literalism ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The other thing to add is that among the ironies is the fact that the dispensationalists I knew who would criticise the rest of Christendom for allegorising things were only too happy to allegorise the Parable of the Good Samaritan, parts of the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats and almost anything else that had a practical application in terms of loving our neighbours or actually being involved in society in any way ...

Of course, we can't lay that charge to the SA but as a general rule of thumb, I'd suggest that where dispensationalism prevails the level of engagement with 'The world' diminishes to the point that it's only there to be preached at.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
criticise the rest of Christendom for allegorising things were only too happy to allegorise the Parable of the Good Samaritan, parts of the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats and almost anything else that had a practical application in terms of loving our neighbours or actually being involved in society in any way ...

They don't all allegorise those things. Some take the JW line that they are part of the (NT) apostolic age and therefore do not apply to the present dispensation.

And as I recently mentioned elsewhere, within the last week or so I've read an explanation of the sheep and the goats that describes it as a "pre-trial hearing" (at the end of the Tribulation IIRC) for those "left behind": merely a kind of preliminary triage prior to the last judgement.

I wonder if somewhere in the divine conservation of momentum Keith Green is spinning in his grave at this convoluted travesty - offset by Larry Norman revolving in the oppposite direction as we diss "I wish we'd all been ready"?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
it is not the only theological model that believes in a rapture.
Are you backing off the model of a rapture as defined in my post?

i.e. that leaves unbelievers behind on earth?

There is no biblical passage that straightforwardly supports this. You have been presented with an alternative and more self-evident hermeneutic of Matt 24 and so far chosen to ignore it in favour of one that reverses who's taken and who's left.

If you are backing off that model, please specify what exactly you mean by an end-time "Rapture".

No you are basically correct I am pretty well a pre trib dispensationalist but I have not commented on the Matt 24 ref except to acknowledge it as relevant.

I was pointing out that there is a rapture concept in the Bible that is denoted by the 'harpazeo' word that appears quite a lot e.g. In Acts when Phillip is transported supernaturally. You were stating (wrongly) as I recall that there is no evidence to support the rapture idea.

So if I was to sum your criticism, you seem to object to dispensationalism per se on the grounds that it is an imposed reading involving the cut/pasting of verses together? To which I reply that pretty well every preacher does this in every sermon. The assumption is that one concept will reinforce another so if for instance the subject is faith, Romans 5:1 might be seen in tandem with Heb 11:1.

Why then is to juxtapose say 1Thes 1,2 with Matt 24 so bad when discussing eschatology? I have seen Matt 24 seen in the light of Dan 9 and Revelation when discussing the tribulation where the 4th beast of Daniel is linked to the Antichrist power who puts the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy place. That beast is seen as the same antiChrist power who is seen in Revelation. It all goes to bed quite nicely. So essentially if you don't make these inferences, what do you do with the apocalyptic passages considering that they are apostolic writings that report some pretty amazing things?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Urfshyne:
Chick Yuill (an ex-Salvation Army officer, incidentally)in his book "Moving in the Right Circles" makes the point that we need to view this as those living in the first century would understand it.

He makes the point that a visiting ruler or dignitary would be met outside the gates of a city by its citizens. They would then escort him as he processed into their town - they were not going off with him to his palace.

This, then, was meant as an encouragement to early Christians that God's kingdom would be established in our world.

I think I broadly agree with you on this point - that Jesus returns from heaven and his people go out to meet him and as you say effectively escort him.

But for clarification, when you say that "God's kingdom would be established in our world", are you then referring to a Millennial kingdom for a thousand years before the Judgement?

As I read it, Jesus' return, with a Rapture in terms as you portray, is followed almost immediately by the Judgement and the Kingdom established eternally in a renewed heaven-and-earth.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As Steve Langton has said, Jamat, it's not as if anyone here is denying that there are verses in scripture about people being 'transported' as it were or 'caught up' or whatever term we wish to use. The issue is how we understand these references and whether they dove-tail together to create a particular eschatological schema.

The point us non-tribulation rapture types are making is that there are other ways to understand those references and that the neat schema you describe only makes sense if you want to make it fit. It's not obvious to everyone else nor has it been for centuries.

Are you seriously asking us to believe that the Christian Church remained in a state of collective amnesia on the issue for 1800 years?

@Eutychus, yes, you're right. If they weren't allegorising those passages they were dispensationalsing them out of the way so that they had no practical relevance of application for us today.

Indeed, from my brief sojourn among the Brethren I picked up the impression that the only passages of scripture that had any relevance to us at all were John 3:16 and the more spectacular apocalyptic passages in Revelation.

Talking about apocalyptic writings, are you aware how these function, Jamat? You do know how apocalyptic literature works?

That it isn't 'literal'?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

So Gamaliel, what then do you believe about eschatology?
You state you are neither a fundamentalist nor a liberal so does that mean you believe in a literal second coming?
Do you believe that the scriptures referring to Israel,now apply to the church? Is there room for literal Israel in your thinking?
Why are you so dismissive of a dispensational view is it because you see it as an imposed hermeneutic if so give an eg of an imposition. To me you see, it answers a lot of very basic questions for instance how the OT injunctions relate to the NT behavioural ethic on say marriage. We have one marriage partner now so why was it ok for a man to have a bunch of wives in David's time? Dispensational thinking would suggest that Christ restored the original marriage pattern which had been corrupted after the fall.

[ 29. November 2016, 21:49: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[x-post]

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You were stating (wrongly) as I recall that there is no evidence to support the rapture idea (...) I was pointing out that there is a rapture concept in the Bible that is denoted by the 'harpazeo' word that appears quite a lot

My battered Strong's translates this as 'catch', 'catch away', 'catch up', 'pluck', 'pull' and 'take by force', while my equally battered Thayer's says "used of divine power transferring a person marvellously and swiftly from one place to another".

Nowhere do my reference books use the word "rapture" to translate this word.

Nowhere have I expressed any doubts that the Bible talks about people being snatched away.

What I am expressing a doubt about is that these instances amount to an assertion of the dispensationalist doctrine of the Rapture™ which includes, not only believers meeting the Lord, but also, unbelievers being left behind - with all the attendant theological problems that entails.

quote:
So if I was to sum your criticism, you seem to object to dispensationalism per se on the grounds that it is an imposed reading involving the cut/pasting of verses together?

Yes to the ground of imposed reading, but not quite for the reason you suggest.

quote:
I have seen Matt 24 seen in the light of Dan 9 and Revelation when discussing the tribulation

That is part of my problem right there. I was taught to read difficult passages in the light of simpler ones, and not the other way around.

Matt 24 is admittedly not straightforward, but by anybody's standards it's heaps more straightforward than Daniel 9 or Revelation, not least because it has some practical encouragements for believers (which largely get ignored in eschatalogical discussions).

More broadly, I object to dispensationalism because it attempts to be an all-encompassing system. Everyone brings hermeneutics to the Bible, but some hermeneutic approaches - like reading difficult passages in the light of simpler ones - are a lot more open-ended, allowing different people legitimately to come to different conclusions and, I would submit, more respectful of the integrity of the text.

Put another way, you can't be a good dispensationalist (and by implication, a good Christian) unless you have learned dispensationalism properly. To me that's precisely the kind of religious book knowledge Jesus came to set us free from.

Finally, I also object to dispensationalism because of its fruit. It is endlessly divisive - you have hinted at this yourself as regards just when in the Tribulation the saints are supposed to get raptured - and it often results in evangelism based on fear.

The church I grew up in (open brethren) was not hard-core dispensationalist but a lot of the preachers evidently were, shouting at us that Jesus might come back before the meeting ended, trying to terrorise us into the Kingdom. I became a Christian as a child but I can tell you it was despite those sermons and not because of one. The Chick comics I stumbled across terrified me. They still do.

When she was a small child (in a more innocent age) my wife fell asleep on the bus and woke to find her mum no longer there (she had moved down the bus to talk to a friend), so she promptly concluded she had been Left Behind. I just don't see trauma infliction as being very consistent with what I understand the Gospel to be all about.

quote:
what do you do with the apocalyptic passages considering that they are apostolic writings that report some pretty amazing things?

I take an "idealistic" view of Revelation. In other words I believe Revelation was meaningful to its original audience and that it also has symbolic meaning for all ages of the Church.

I think it points to a final eschaton and that it offers a hint of a final Tribulation, but I do not believe it progresses strictly chronologically, rather that it is a succession of overlapping scenes. It's more like an onion.

I also subscribe to the Roger Forster doctrine of Revelation: he points out that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, i.e.

a) from him
b) about him (more than anything else, so stop speculating uselessly about the rest)
c) and belongs to him (so don't go messing about with it)

I also note it has more blessings than curses in it (7 to 4) and has songs of worship on almost every page, and try to focus on these aspects.

Over the past year or so I have regularly taught on Revelation for some regional Bible seminars; not a few of the attendees appear disgruntled that I prefer this approach to calculating who the Beast is or determining exactly which type of Russian attack helicopters are being described, but there you have it.

[ 29. November 2016, 21:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

48 years ago I went down this long cul-de-sac which I didn't begin get out of for nearly 30 years. It's tenacious folly for those not inoculated by education. I found I still retained elements of it 5 years ago. The PDFs show the format I followed and the starting point for me was Matthew 24. I was utterly convinced that it would all start before the end of the C20th.

As for what Jesus was actually talking about? Who knows? Including Him. Was He 'in the Spirit'? I accept that still. He wasn't making it up, whatever it was. It starts with the First Jewish–Roman War and ends with His return. Two thousand years and counting. Where the ellipsis is ... it isn't. The events are continuous. They didn't happen so then. So He could be talking entirely about the far future. Far from now that is. In terms of the ancient, local past. Of what may be solely metaphoric and long fulfilled.

...

Who cares?

I majored in those minors, here a little, there a little for 30 years.

And entirely missed the point. The trajectory of the simplicity of Christ. Like everybody else except Martin Luther-King and his ilk.

There is no pre-tribulation 'rapture' even so in the integration of all the proof texts. The cult made up 'a place of safety' centred on Petra, can you believe, whilst denying the Rapture.

You can make up anything from this stuff. Everything except the obvious.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Dispensational thinking would suggest that Christ restored the original marriage pattern which had been corrupted after the fall.

But it does this kind of thing by dividing up the text irrespective of context, style, and everything else. It explains away some problems, perhaps, but at what a cost!

It doesn't let the text speak for itself, warts, problems, challenges, and all. To use your earlier expression, it makes sure "it all goes to bed quite nicely".

I honestly believe dispensationalists have a functionally lower view of Scripture than many liberals I know.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What do I believe about the Eschaton?

What it says in the Creeds. Yes, those creedal statements are, of course, based in scripture. What they don't do is to spell out any kind of timetable nor promote any particular theory of how Christ's second advent will take place.

Do I see a place for Israel in the divine economy as it were?

Yes I do.

But I don't speculate as to what that might be. What I don't like is the kind of Replacement Theologically that verges on anti-Semitism on the one hand nor the unbalanced focus on Israel that characterises some forms of fundamentalist Protestantism.

In short, I'm comfortable with Mystery and ambiguity.

As for my reservations about dispensationalism, it's based on what I've seen of its results. The Brethren I knew used to pride themselves on their knowledge of the scriptures, but I soon realised this was a chimera - what passed for serious engagement with the scriptures was actually a two-dimensional proof-texting approach not unlike that of the JWs.

I know several people who had a similar experience to the future Mrs Eutychus - both people in the Brethren and also the future Mrs Gamaliel. Her mum was/is an evangelical Anglican but one influenced strongly by Pentecostals and independent evangelicals.

She was obsessed with Israel and the End Times. So I've seen the harm it causes.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
Why are you so dismissive of a dispensational view is it because you see it as an imposed hermeneutic if so give an eg of an imposition.

I'm not too bothered about 'dispensationalism' as a broad idea; it is the 'pre-tribulation rapture' thing which I see as very much 'imposed' by the 19th C 'prophetic students' following Irving.

As I explained above, the first step in this was Irving's insistence on an "any-moment-now" Second Coming, and that people got hyped up to that expectation. There are in fact biblical texts that suggest a different approach.

For example, the Thessalonian Christians had got into a similar hyped-up situation about an imminent coming - and Paul points to an as yet unfulfilled prophecy as reason to calm down. But the 19th C people took things the other way round - they got hyped up, then they discovered prophecies that didn't fit the basic scheme of "Any-minute-now Second Advent followed by the Millennial Kingdom".

And the trouble is, they didn't take Paul's approach of seeing those prophecies as future and as reason to see the Second Coming as 'not yet' ("Let no one deceive you... for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first..."), instead they simply wouldn't/couldn't give up the idea of that "Any-minute now" Return of Jesus, and they jumped at an interpretation which allowed them to retain that idea, and imposed it on, well in the end pretty much the whole of Scripture, distorting the straightforward interpretation....

This has done immense harm in all kinds of ways....

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ok so let's say that on the one hand, you have a literal reading that attempts to synthesise the scriptures with regard to the eshaton because it wants to grasp what God's plan in history is and reconcile it with faith in Christ as saviour and his identification with God.
Also, to my mind dispensationalism doesn't do that because it opens up all sorts of hard-to-understand alternatives to the Gospel message of "faith in Christ as saviour".

Not least because it requires you to contrive a basis on which those left behind after believers have been raptured to be with their Lord can be saved, and engage in another variety of hand-waving about various dispensations being saved "by grace" and "by covenant", as Mudfrog puts it (and has yet to explain).

What is all this if not a needless complication of the Gospel?

OK I agree there is no verse that specifically teaches a pre trib rapture. Even Walvoord admits that it is inferred.

Your concern seems to be that there is a problem for those left behind. It may be more difficult to accept Christ but the gospel still hasn' t changed. It is still possible for those left behind to become believers. The scenario I' ve heard put forward by Fruchtenbaum, Prasch and others, is that with the true church gone, God now begins to operate via the literal Jews. This specifically is the 144k Jewish evangelists who are anointed to preach the Christian gospel during this dark time to their own people and anyone else who will listen. The difference is that converts give their lives,they are mainly martyred as they don't take the mark of the beast. Anyone who does cannot be saved but unless you do,you cannot buy or sell.

My question is if you reject that interpretation,what do you do with stuff like the mark,the people in white robes who have been martyred, and other scary stuff in the book of Revelation?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
My question is if you reject that interpretation,what do you do with stuff like the mark,the people in white robes who have been martyred, and other scary stuff in the book of Revelation?

Those things are constantly happening. It is apparently likely that when John wrote about 'the mark' he referred to a literal mark that would show people had sacrificed to the Emperor to prove their loyalty to him rather than Christ. And I once came across a Russian Imperial edict declaring the intention to make it impossible for dissenters against Russian Orthodoxy to buy and sell and even to LIVE in that state; including that their children were to be taken from them....

Martyrs are again very much a 'here and now' thing, along with plenty of other 'scary stuff'. We don't need a dubious 'extra' Tribulation period to see these things. Yes, it is likely that they may intensify towards the end when the 'man of lawlessness' is revealed; but in a very real sense these trends are always with us, and Revelation relevant to all Christians throughout the gospel era, not just to those in a supposed brief future 'Tribulation'.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jamat;

quote:
My question is if you reject that interpretation,what do you do with stuff like the mark,the people in white robes who have been martyred, and other scary stuff in the book of Revelation?
Those things are constantly happening. It is apparently likely that when John wrote about 'the mark' he referred to a literal mark that would show people had sacrificed to the Emperor to prove their loyalty to him rather than Christ. And I once came across a Russian Imperial edict declaring the intention to make it impossible for dissenters against Russian Orthodoxy to buy and sell and even to LIVE in that state; including that their children were to be taken from them....

Martyrs are again very much a 'here and now' thing, along with plenty of other 'scary stuff'. We don't need a dubious 'extra' Tribulation period to see these things. Yes, it is likely that they may intensify towards the end when the 'man of lawlessness' is revealed; but in a very real sense these trends are always with us, and Revelation relevant to all Christians throughout the gospel era, not just to those in a supposed brief future 'Tribulation'.

All of which suggests you are a historicist seeing AD 70 as the major fulfilment of Matt24. I can see the apocalyptic horsemen riding through history as well. But it is not the whole story. We haven't seen Jesus coming in the clouds.

One thing that makes sense to me about futurism is the schema of the church age as a parenthesis between Daniel's 69 and 70 week. This ties with Paul's teaching in 2 Thes where he says the day of the Lord has not yet come, first the man of sin must come. For a long time I thought that caused people to look for the antichrist not the Lord but the pre trib rapture solves that. If Jesus comes once secretly for the church then later at Armageddon to save Jerusalem where every eye sees him then the paradox is resolved.

This is what I mean by a solution to the fact that in Matt 24 , you have a coming where the Earth is quiet and business as usual with people marrying etc and a different picture where he comes in the midst of upheaval,everything is in disarray and this seems to be the coming in the clouds everyone sees.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your concern seems to be that there is a problem for those left behind.

No, my problem is that the theory requires the invention of convoluted solutions, all to deal with a state of affairs (being "left behind") which is solely a product of the theory - there's not a shred of biblical evidence, including Matt 24 if you actually read what it says.

Apart from having to separate the saved into different categories (Christ having already returned for his own...) you have to take the 144k literally, which leads you into all sorts of problems about which figures in Revelation are to be taken literally, and so on. For the 144k you have the kind of problems JWs encounter (try taking communion at a memorial service if you're not one of the few) plus the problem of exactly which tribes they are from (check the list in Revelation and get back to me).

Like I say, all these complications are devised to fit an initial erroneous premise!

quote:
My question is if you reject that interpretation,what do you do with stuff like the mark,the people in white robes who have been martyred, and other scary stuff in the book of Revelation?

I broadly agree with Steve Langton.

If you look at the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth, to my mind you have a fake Son (complete with fatal wound and yet it lives, cf the Lamb who was slain) and a fake Spirit (directing people to the fake Son, and with a counterfeit 'mark' revolving around material goods instead of the genuine and infinitely more valuable 'seal' of the Spirit).

So you have Satan, the father of lies, doing what he does best and building counterfeits. This kind of thing has been going on ever since Babel, the city of man, was erected in mimicry of Jerusalem, the city of God. John warns us of many antichrists, another indication of this going on throughout history.

Like I say, I think Revelation is like an onion, or like childbirth. There are concentric rings, or contractions, that repeat themselves throughout history. They might get more intense and yes I believe they will eventually end up producing the new heavens and the new earth, but like Gamaliel I believe this could just as well be in the far future as tomorrow. People have mistakenly believed themselves to be at the beginning of the end ever since the early church!

And finally, your description of Revelation as containing lots of "scary stuff" demonstrates how much a dispensationalist hermeneutic blinds people to the actual purpose of Scripture. Do you really think all Scripture is inspired of God, to.... scare? If it does, you're doing it wrong somewhere. (Or at least, if that's all it does, or if that's what it does predominantly, you are).

The aim of Revelation is not to have us play guessing games as to what the mark of the Beast is (latest trend: RFID tags as opposed to bar codes which are so yesterday) but to remind us that we have a far better mark in being sealed by the Spirit. Dispensationalism misses out that kind of positive emphasis entirely.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Baptist Trainfan: Iain Murray, Andrew Walker, Os Guinness, Adrian Plass... I sometimes wonder whether our bookshelves could be indistinguishably merged.

My wife would be delighted ... she says we have far too many books (and then we order more). But here's two you may not have: I've just finished Adrian Thatcher's "Redeeming Gender" while she's been reading Steve Holmes' "The Holy Trinity: Understanding God's Life" which I have yet to read.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes. I agree with Eutychus and Steve Langton.

There is an equal and opposite error in all these things, which is something I believe we toppled into at times in my 'new church' restorationist days, and that's to react against dispensationalism to the extent that we adopted an over-realised form of hyper-positive amillenialism with post-millenialist overtones. We were looking for the triumph of the church and the 'powers' of the age to come in the here and now - revivalism on steroids.

For my money, Iain Murray strikes the right kind of note in 'The Puritan Hope ' although I'm not much of a Puritan in my approach these days.

As for the scary stuff in Revelation. It's apocalyptic literature. As such it's full of symbols and cryptic clues - 'let the reader understand' - heck, I wish I did! Give us a clue!

So no, I don't take all the stuff about locusts with stings and the 144,000 and so on in a literal sense. If we understand those passages literally, then why don't wr take the description of the glorified Christ literally? Does Christ in Majesty really have a sword for a tongue?

An overly literal reading of Revelation misses the point and fails to take into account the genre in which it is written.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
"An over-realised form of hyper-positive amillenialism with post-millenialist overtones".

Wow!!!

[ 30. November 2016, 08:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Big Grin]

You seem surprised, Baptist Trainfan.

But that's what we ended up with.

I was always happy that we'd eschewed dispensationalism, but in doing so we toppled over to another extreme.

Which only underlines the case that we'd all agree on, that we all need to exercise caution when it comes to eschatological speculation.

Liberals run the risk of under-realising it, more conservative forms of Christianity can go to the opposite extreme and over-realise their eschatology.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Does Christ in Majesty really have a sword for a tongue?

Here is how one medieval artist attempted to depict that.

(If you ever go to the French city of Angers, don't miss its Apocalypse tapestry which is truly magnificent.

My favourite tapestry in the series depicts John eating the scroll: note the second angel behind him ensuring he gets it down properly, and doesn't run away!)

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But here's two you may not have

I basically stopped buying Christian books in 2004.

(Though I'm seriously considering getting the book touted in this chap's sig for Christmas, especially given the subject...)

[ 30. November 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My favourite tapestry in the series depicts John eating the scroll: note the second angel behind him ensuring he gets it down properly, and doesn't run away!)

Interesting that he's eating a codex and not a scroll. Making me wonder what the Greek actually says, and whether or not the artist knew the difference.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My interlinear says "biblaridion" which Strong's says means "little book". Of course this is a nod to Ezekiel 3:3 where Ezekiel eats a "scroll" which my Strong's says is megillah in Hebrew.

Note that for both Ezekiel and John the scroll/book is sweet, but it is bitter in John's stomach. Which I take to mean that the tough bit isn't receiving the Word, it's incarnating it.

Either that or John got a Chinese takeaway.

[ 30. November 2016, 12:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Dang, I've been to Angers and I missed that ...

[Frown]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My interlinear says "biblaridion" which Strong's says means "little book".

But little scroll or little codex?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think the Greek bibliaridion is a format neutral term, so it doesn't distinguish between a scroll and a codex (or an e-book come to that)! (Isn't that an e-reader in a fancy case in the tapestry?)

[ 01. December 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
All of which suggests you are a historicist seeing AD 70 as the major fulfilment of Matt24. I can see the apocalyptic horsemen riding through history as well. But it is not the whole story. We haven't seen Jesus coming in the clouds.

NO, the point is precisely that I too see "the apocalyptic horsemen riding through history" - John describes this in terms of his time to reveal trends that we see throughout history.

by Jamat;

quote:
This ties with Paul's teaching in 2 Thes where he says the day of the Lord has not yet come, first the man of sin must come. For a long time I thought that caused people to look for the antichrist not the Lord but the pre trib rapture solves that. If Jesus comes once secretly for the church then later at Armageddon to save Jerusalem where every eye sees him then the paradox is resolved.

You've expressed pretty exactly what must have been the thoughts of Darby & Co - though I'm not sure they worked it out quite so consciously.

But from where I'm standing, there is no biblical paradox. The paradox was artificially created by the 19th C interpreters like Irving insisting on an 'any-minute-now' expectation of the Second Coming which then left no room for a large group of prophecies (eg, the possible return of Israel to 'the Land') to be fulfilled before the Return. Whereas real history has fulfilled that prophecy about Israel - a fairly spectacular example of Darby & Co's thinking being simply wrong....

It seems clear to me that when Paul talks of the 'man of lawlessness' appearing he is saying "If you my readers are still alive at the time of the Second Coming you will see this". That is, it's a thing to happen before the Return, not something that happens in the hypothetical 'tribulation' period after Jesus comes back.

None of us can know for sure when the Advent will be; but it seems to me Paul is saying that watchful Christians reading the 'signs of the times' will see occasions of likely fulfillment of such prophecy and will not be taken by surprise by Jesus' return. Whereas 'the world' at that time will be carrying on 'as usual' unaware of the catastrophe about to hit them.

Worth perhaps saying that in the NT world 'Armageddon' is not necessarily a straightforward physical battle - certainly not on the part of Christians whose warfare is not with physical weapons. Battle yes - but a primarily spiritual battle rather than a matter of armies and nukes!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

tl;dr

In response in particular to

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I think there's a large clue as to what's going on earlier in the chapter (24:1-3), and at 26:1
Full quote
The topic under discussion is the destruction of the Temple. Jesus has been asked when it's going to happen, so he answers the question, and says some more things that will happen around that time.
No-one's asked him about the end of the world. So either he's gone on a very long monologue answering a question no-one's asked about a completely different topic, or he's still talking about the events of AD 70 (which would be near topical news when Matthew wrote it).
Until 26:1, Matthew indicates no change of subject matter.

Jesus went off message in 24:30 as I discuss below.

quote:

What Jesus has done is to use a mixture of OT quotation, and a genre of picture language common to the time, to predict the events of AD70. He was talking much like an OT prophet.

Could be. But ...

quote:

The “One will be taken...” thing probably refers to the 100,000 slaves Vespasian took to fund the campaign. Making the Jewish massacre self-funding was, for the Romans, a political statement along the lines of 'Mexico will pay for the Wall'.

That is at least doubly dubious. It implies for one that God can read the un-happened future beyond extrapolation or planned non-violent intervention. There is no evidence for that anywhere.

Matthew 24-26 New King James Version (NKJV)

Jesus Predicts the Destruction of the Temple

1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.

Matthew 24 - v 2 Jesus accurately foretells the destruction of the temple, fulfilled within his disciple audience's natural lifetime. It was for them: 'you/r' nineteen times in vv 4, 6, 9, 15, 20, 23, 25, 26, 32-34, 42, 44, in answer to their question when, in 3. He wasn't talking to anyone else, to future generations in a Biblical audience. Just the disciples. There was no Bible. To interpolate in to the white space that He foresaw the Bible and this thread in effect, is to destroy His humanity AND divinity in general.

Divinity cannot know what hasn't happened any more than we can. It knows what has happened and what is happening practically infinitely more of course, enabling infinitely rational extrapolation. vv 4-8 is business as usual. False messiahs happened all the time. War happened all the time and where there's war there are famines and pestilences. The four horsemen. Given enough time - and 40 years is more than enough in the region - there are earthquakes, particularly in Italy via Greece to Turkey, but as Jesus was in the Spirit, the Spirit would know where big quakes were building up to a practically infinite forecastable degree in that time period, affecting even the timing of Jesus' birth. Similarly with climate oscillations affecting agriculture, causing famines and pestilences. Epidemics (driven by earthquakes disrupting the ecology) would have been a long time coming from Asia. The Spirit's knowledge of these drivers of war that drives them further with other political factors would be more than enough. The Spirit would know what physical, ecological and political crises were going to happen, a tad better than our long range weather forecasts, for 40 years.

There is nothing here requiring the future to have happened, for God to have played the pre-recorded, infinitely spooled movie in His den and given Jesus spoilers. And in the limits of His omniscience He doesn't have to abuse omnipotence and make anything happen, apart from by the orthodox still normative workings of the Spirit, by which vv 9-14 happen. The Spirit guarantees that Christianity will be spreading at a predictable time of crisis in the Roman Empire. Which guarantees persecution, martyrdom. Which started three days later. Pre-tribulation, pre the coming of 'the end', pre the destruction of the second temple back at v 2. No rapture.

2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences,[b] and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

The church was persecuted progressively for decades which is the main reason why it spread, then the Spiritually predictable all but genocidal annihilation, holocaust of the entire Jewish homeland and all of its people began. The Spirit actually intervened spectacularly with pre-tribulation signs in heaven - in-prophesied, unbiblical; confusingly, inconveniently despite Jesus' prophecy of post-tribulation signs in heaven which didn't happen - so that Jewish Christians - the very elect - were firstly removed from the centre of the coming holocaust (to Pella) in 66 and the Spirit limited the genocide from 67 - 73 so that they were not caught up in it.

Soooooo, we get to The Great Tribulation of the Jews after the four horsemen have been riding alongside increasing persecution of the Church, which had tailed off with the death of Nero in 68. No rapture.

All pretty linear, serial, Jewish, not parallel, concurrent, Greek so far isn't it? Congruent with history. No omniscience except by rational extrapolation. No omnipotence involving God the Killer. Nothing unfulfilled. Yet.

The Spirit knew, by rational extrapolation, how it would naturally - no mention of Satan being involved - go. The Jews would bring down total annihilation of their homeland on themselves from an utterly enraged Rome. This was the greatest threat to Roman hegemony ever. They HAD to win. The eight year campaign financially ruined Rome, on top of Nero's artistic impulses, especially in the final assault on Masada in 74: Keeping 15,000 men supplied in a desert with no water for three months 40-50 kilometres from water, food, timber, fixings, tools for siege engines and massive military engineering. That'll do it.

Half way through the campaign the Greco-Roman abomination of desolation was standing in the holy place for the second time: The Roman army tore the temple down to the foundations to get the gold that had melted in to them from the holocaust. Any Christians in the countryside, not already in Pella, were encouraged to flee further, to the mountains. From that time Jesus' return or more likely the first coming of the Jewish Messiah would be falsely proclaimed, with magic. It would not have to be proclaimed as it would be so obvious.

Again, all very predictable by the Spirit. vv 15-28

The Great Tribulation

15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

At last we get to the eyebrow raising, divergent vv 29-31 If they were fulfilled in 74 then they were local visions and vastly exaggerated. Jesus was quite capable of such hyperbole, but that feels weak, a cop out. Although Jesus said it would happen immediately after The Great Tribulation of the Jews, He also said He hadn't the faintest idea when: vv 36-44 (including the only rapture at His only return vv 37-40 echoed by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and Junia in Hebrews 9:28). He was watching a linear vision in the Spirit. v 29 could have happened locally, the first half of v 30 too but not the second and v 31, not unless homeopathically diluted locally. The trouble is v 34 says it will all happen for the same generation. Theirs. It didn't. So it looks like it IS apocalyptic genre hyperbole. But it can't be.

At this point I take comfort that Jesus was looking through a glass darkly at a vision or a remembered dream, or an upwelling story in the Spirit, filtered through His own experience, understanding and desire. In other words, being 100% human, He erred. Perhaps I should revisit the cultic material from nearly 50 years ago. Because the literalist and fundamentalist and dispensationalist and futurist and millennial 'yeah buts' will try and drag in Revelation and Daniel and every other proof text and Israel (what about Anglo!) to make it all contemporary of, imminent upon us.

The Coming of the Son of Man

29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The Parable of the Fig Tree

32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

No One Knows the Day or Hour

36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
tl;dr

Fair enough, Martin. To be honest, it's my interpretive philosophy for the whole thread. Actually, I say this with some sadness, but this whole rapture stuff is liable to convert me into a rad trad catholic or orthodox. It really is a gigantic empire of the head.

There - I've said it. I promise to go away now.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ron! tl;dr should have had a colon after it! I meant what follows, my stuff.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, Honest Ron, there are plenty of evangelicals who aren't dispensationalists.

You don't have to be Catholic or Orthodox not to be dispensationalist. The Reformed aren't dispensationalists.

My impression is that it's a lot more common with US evangelicals than than UK ones - even though it started over here.

I don't know about Canada, Australia, Latin America, Africa or the Far East in terms of eschatological positions.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Tnx Martin & Gamaliel. I do realise that. It just has that effect on me.

And yes, I know all denoms. or whatever you want to call them have their far-out tendencies. It's just that this one seems to have insinuated its way in all over the place. Maybe you just catch me on a bad day - let's see what tomorrow brings. Sorry.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I've been semi-following this discussion, with some degree of interest. But in the end, I am left wondering "Why does it all matter!"

ISTM that we have it on dominical authority that no one knows the day or hour, but only the Father, and in the meantime our duty is simply to watch and pray, and to go on fulfilling the responsibilities to which we are called.

After all, suppose I stopped bothering because somehow I knew that the end of the world was going to be next week, I might carelessly fall under a bus, and the end of my world would come then.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes, exactly that Bro James.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I've been semi-following this discussion, with some degree of interest. But in the end, I am left wondering "Why does it all matter!"

I think what you believe about eschatology matters because like what you believe about anything, it affects the way you live particularly your prayers but also your ethics. As an eg someone who believes history is coming to a big climactic implosion is not going to be too worried about saving the planet.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Exactly, it mattered for then.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think what you believe about eschatology matters because like what you believe about anything, it affects the way you live particularly your prayers but also your ethics.

Agreed. Which is why I don't like dispensational premillenialism. It is restrictive rather than liberating, strains gnats, swallows camels, fosters speculation, and generates fear and guilt as I have related.

quote:
As an eg someone who believes history is coming to a big climactic implosion is not going to be too worried about saving the planet.

I understand you to espouse the above "big climatic implosion" view. Are you saying that as a result you are not worried about saving the planet?

[ 02. December 2016, 17:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think what you believe about eschatology matters because like what you believe about anything, it affects the way you live particularly your prayers but also your ethics.
Agreed. Which is why I don't like dispensational premillenialism. It is restrictive rather than liberating, strains gnats, swallows camels, fosters speculation, and generates fear and guilt as I have related.
quote:
As an eg someone who believes history is coming to a big climactic implosion is not going to be too worried about saving the planet.
I understand you to espouse the above "big climatic implosion" view. Are you saying that as a result you are not worried about saving the planet?

So now you want to know if I'm a litterbug too?😀

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

No. I am genuinely curious to know whether your adherence to premillenial dispensationalism means you are unconcerned about the welfare of the planet.

Certainly I think such beliefs form a significant part of the reasoning behind resistance to environmental protection in the US.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Maktub. So it doesn't matter. Like all predestination. It really doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Nothing makes any difference. At least 97% of contemporary Britain is damned to burn forever and ever amen in Hell. Unless sending Xmas cards is salvific.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No. I am genuinely curious to know whether your adherence to premillenial dispensationalism means you are unconcerned about the welfare of the planet.

Certainly I think such beliefs form a significant part of the reasoning behind resistance to environmental protection in the US.

Anybody remember James Watt?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No. I am genuinely curious to know whether your adherence to premillenial dispensationalism means you are unconcerned about the welfare of the planet.

Certainly I think such beliefs form a significant part of the reasoning behind resistance to environmental protection in the US.
Anybody remember James Watt?

yes, and I fear it's gonna be déjà vu all over again.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I've been semi-following this discussion, with some degree of interest. But in the end, I am left wondering "Why does it all matter!"
I think what you believe about eschatology matters because like what you believe about anything, it affects the way you live particularly your prayers but also your ethics.

Up to a point, I'd agree. But when it comes details—rapture, pre-millennialism, post-minnelianism, whatever—I still fail to see why it really matters. It is enough for me to know that Christ will return in glory to judge the living and the dead, and that a new heaven and new earth await us. Speculation about details, much less pouring over Scripture to fit puzzle pieces together as though they're what the gospel is about, seems to me to be a huge and unhelpful distraction from what we're supposed to be about now.

I've always like the part of the Ascension scene in Acts when the two men appear and ask the disciples "why are you staring up into heaven?" Get back to work—just be ready for the return to happen any time.

quote:
As an eg someone who believes history is coming to a big climactic implosion is not going to be too worried about saving the planet.

This example makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Because the earth is doomed anyway there's no point in taking care of it? I might as well say "why worry about my health when I'm going to die one day anyway."*

For me, care of the planet has little do with what's going to happen in the end and everything to do with faithful stewardship of that part of creation entrusted to us while it is entrusted to us.

* As I think about, speculating about ones own death may be an apropos parallel to these end times speculations. We're all going to die, but very few of us know when or how. We can be debilitated by constant worry about it, or we can get on with life, determined to make the most of each day.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Nick wrote:

quote:
This example makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Because the earth is doomed anyway there's no point in taking care of it? I might as well say "why worry about my health when I'm going to die one day anyway."*

Well, if, hypothetically, I knew with absolute certainty, via some supernatural source of information, that I was going to die next month, and that there was nothing I could do to either extend or shorten the duration of my life, I probably wouldn't bother looking after my health. Or at, least, my prioroties would be radically different than if I thought that my actions could have an impact on my lifespan.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Nick wrote:

quote:
This example makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Because the earth is doomed anyway there's no point in taking care of it? I might as well say "why worry about my health when I'm going to die one day anyway."*

Well, if, hypothetically, I knew with absolute certainty, via some supernatural source of information, that I was going to die next month, and that there was nothing I could do to either extend or shorten the duration of my life, I probably wouldn't bother looking after my health. Or at, least, my prioroties would be radically different than if I thought that my actions could have an impact on my lifespan.

So the real reason to try to figure out the timing of the Parousia is to determine if we need to take good care of the planet for a while, or can fuck it all to Hell now because it won't matter soon!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Nick wrote:

quote:
This example makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Because the earth is doomed anyway there's no point in taking care of it? I might as well say "why worry about my health when I'm going to die one day anyway."*

Well, if, hypothetically, I knew with absolute certainty, via some supernatural source of information, that I was going to die next month, and that there was nothing I could do to either extend or shorten the duration of my life, I probably wouldn't bother looking after my health. Or at, least, my prioroties would be radically different than if I thought that my actions could have an impact on my lifespan.
So the real reason to try to figure out the timing of the Parousia is to determine if we need to take good care of the planet for a while, or can fuck it all to Hell now because it won't matter soon!

Hmm, I think you might be setting up a straw-man with your "...main reason..." there. It wouldn't be the main reason for determining the timing of the Parousia, but getting that particular bit of information would probably impact how we approach other issues.

The main reason I check the lottery numbers in the newspaper every day is not to determine whether I need to iron my shirts that week. However, if I see that I won 10 Million dollars, I might forego ironing my shirts, simply because I'm not going to be going into the office, or to any job interviews that week, or ever.

(fictional example: I don't play the lottery)

[ 03. December 2016, 15:42: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I find myself thinking that if the start of the 'Rapture/Tribulation' business in the 1800s had convinced lots of people to stop caring about the planet because "Jesus is coming any minute anyway" we could have been in an even bigger mess now some two centuries later....

As in, if we take such an uncaring attitude now, but Jesus doesn't return for another 200 years... [Help]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I find myself thinking that if the start of the 'Rapture/Tribulation' business in the 1800s had convinced lots of people to stop caring about the planet because "Jesus is coming any minute anyway" we could have been in an even bigger mess now some two centuries later....

As in, if we take such an uncaring attitude now, but Jesus doesn't return for another 200 years...

Well, yes, YOU would think that, as would I, because with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Rapture/Tribulation/Second Coming did not occur in the 1880s.

But I'm talking about the opinions that would be held by someone who thinks the R/T/SC are coming within the next few years, just as surely as most people think the sun will come out after it stops raining. From that POV, it makes perfect sense to not worry about whether our actions right now will have a detrimental impact on the Earth a couple of decades from now.

And, remember, I was responding to a post that compared certainty about eschatology to certainty about death, and saying that the latter WOULD in fact justify abandoning most concerns about one's health, if the death were known with certainty to be occuring within a matter of weeks.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Nick wrote:

quote:
This example makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Because the earth is doomed anyway there's no point in taking care of it? I might as well say "why worry about my health when I'm going to die one day anyway."*

Well, if, hypothetically, I knew with absolute certainty, via some supernatural source of information, that I was going to die next month, and that there was nothing I could do to either extend or shorten the duration of my life, I probably wouldn't bother looking after my health. Or at, least, my prioroties would be radically different than if I thought that my actions could have an impact on my lifespan.

Okay, I guess I can see that.

Personally, I have trouble reconciling that approach with Jesus's admonition that no one would know when he is coming, but maybe that's just me.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

So if I was to sum your criticism, you seem to object to dispensationalism per se on the grounds that it is an imposed reading involving the cut/pasting of verses together? To which I reply that pretty well every preacher does this in every sermon. The assumption is that one concept will reinforce another so if for instance the subject is faith, Romans 5:1 might be seen in tandem with Heb 11:1.

Why then is to juxtapose say 1Thes 1,2 with Matt 24 so bad when discussing eschatology?

I'd have thought the difference is that faith is an abstract concept that is supposed to be constant in all times and places (at least within a dispensation). So when St Paul and the writer of Hebrews discussed faith, we should assume they're talking about the same thing. Whereas pre-trib dispensationalism seems to be trying to splice together a narrative out of passages that on the face of it are talking about different things, e.g. Antiochus Epiphanes and Nero.

As a comparison: It wouldn't be obviously unreasonable to take Le Morte Darthur, Tirant lo Blanch, Parzifal, and Cantar de Mío Cid, and use them to write an earnest essay about chivalry in the Middle Ages. But if one picked out, say, all references to a serving-maid, and claimed that they all referred to the same serving-maid, and tried to construct a biography of her life - then I think one would be regarded as eccentric unless one could demonstrate that Malory, Joanot Martorell, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and the juglares were all conniving in this way.

[ 03. December 2016, 20:10: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, it's not just you.

I once heard a preacher make the point that, as far as he was concerned, fruitless speculation about eschatology was tantamount to the 'dissipation' talked about in the 'do not get drunk on wine' exhortation.

Ephesians 5:18 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A18&version=NASB

Just as over-doing the alcohol leads to dissipated effort, he felt that over-doing the eschatological speculation also led to dissipated effort - ie. it was a complete distraction.

I have a lot of sympathy with his view.

Sure, a belief in an imminent Parousia can lead to some fervent evangelism, but in my experience and observation it can also lead to a lack of engagement with society with the natural world, with art, culture, sport and a whole load of other wholesome things ...

It can lead us into holy huddles.

It can lead us into extravagant and exotic forms of belief.

It can blunt our witness by making us preoccupied with apparent signs and portents and indifferent to the sufferings of people around us ...

I'm not saying that dispensationalists are selfish gits or any more reprehensible than the rest of us - we all have our faults and besetting sins.

But as a system it seems to me to do far more harm than good.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Stetson;

quote:
But I'm talking about the opinions that would be held by someone who thinks the R/T/SC are coming within the next few years, just as surely as most people think the sun will come out after it stops raining.

Yes, and that's rather my point. OK clearly the Second Coming must now be nearer than in the 19th C or the first few centuries CE. But that's the thing - as far as anything in Scripture is concerned, everything in Scripture was just as applicable in C1 as in C19 and as now.

The error that turned reasonable watchful expectation of the Coming into the bizarre R/T/SC idea was the assumption that to be constantly watchful for the Second Coming meant an absolutely literal belief that the Second Coming must be 'any minute now' - despite the already 1800 years of waiting!

That error was Irving's, as I understand it. And it was that hyped enthusiasm for the absolutely 'here and now' coming that then led to misinterpretation of prophecy when their ongoing studies revealed awkwardly unfulfilled prophecy that didn't fit anywhere else.

That is, "didn't fit anywhere else" so long as you insisted that it MUST be possible for the Second Coming to be in the next few minutes. As I pointed out, Paul faced with similar ideas back in his time basically said that such unfulfilled prophecy meant "it's not yet"! Irving and his fellow prophetic students ignored that apostolic example and insisted on holding the 'any time NOW' interpretation come what may - and thus trapped themselves. They saw a 'paradox' in Scripture which actually isn't there in the first place; and when a resolution of the paradox was offered which found a 'hole' into which all those awkward unfulfilled prophecies could be fitted, they fell on it gleefully - not to mention hook line and proverbial....

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
From that POV, it makes perfect sense to not worry about whether our actions right now will have a detrimental impact on the Earth a couple of decades from now.

And, remember, I was responding to a post that compared certainty about eschatology to certainty about death, and saying that the latter WOULD in fact justify abandoning most concerns about one's health, if the death were known with certainty to be occuring within a matter of weeks.

I'm not sure either of these are true.

To the first, I have found Luther's "even if the world were to end tomorrow, I will plant my apple tree today" to be a nice good paradoxical maxim that perfectly encapsulates how we should behave.

To the second, I think a lot of people might just carry on as normal even if they knew death was inevitable. We are creatures of habit.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes.

At the risk of introducing too personal a note, my wife has incurable cancer. It's stabilised at the moment but we're told it will get her in the end. How long she has, we don't know.

Has this knowledge altered our lives? Yes, certainly. Has it changed our habitual patterns? No, not really. Life goes on pretty much as it did beforehand.

Obviously, there will come a time when it can't, but until then it's business as usual for both of us although with the constant awareness of mortality.

I suspect most if our ancestors lived like that. 'In the midst of life we are in death.'

Most OAPs will be the same. If you look at people in their 80s they are very much creatures of habit for the most part.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes.

At the risk of introducing too personal a note, my wife has incurable cancer. It's stabilised at the moment but we're told it will get her in the end. How long she has, we don't know.

Has this knowledge altered our lives? Yes, certainly. Has it changed our habitual patterns? No, not really. Life goes on pretty much as it did beforehand.

Obviously, there will come a time when it can't, but until then it's business as usual for both of us although with the constant awareness of mortality.

I suspect most if our ancestors lived like that. 'In the midst of life we are in death.'

Most OAPs will be the same. If you look at people in their 80s they are very much creatures of habit for the most part.

Very sorry to hear about that Gamaliel.
[Votive]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks Jamat. We're doing alright though, but it is early days.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I’ve been quite busy the last few days and only just noticed this thread.

Gamaliel, I had realised your wife is seriously ill, and am glad to hear there is a lull in the cancer's progress. [Votive]

Although it feels like a bit of an intrusion to take the thread back to the subject in the OP, I am with you on it, with Eutychus, and with Steve Langton’s historical exposition.

Jamat, I can’t see how one can describe speculation about dispensations and the rapture as a message of “transformative power”. It strikes me that it’s much more likely to become an excuse for not being transformed and not noticing that one isn't being.

I can't help thinking that the emotional roots of speculation about future chronology, the end times and belief in the rapture etc are very, very similar to those that underlie classic heresies like Gnosticism and Albigensianism. Rather than found one’s faith on belief in Christ, seeking to see him formed within us, loving the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and our neighbours as ourselves, it is founding it in knowledge, having the right opinions and choosing the right expert to depend on. Rather than shape one’s life by seeking to conform it to the nature of Christ, one would be shaping it by conforming it to some favoured munshi’s prescription as to how the future will play out.

I can’t say there won’t be a rapture. I don't know. But nor does anyone else. What I can say, is that I do not see any reason to believe there will be one. As has already been said, it is a doctrine invented in the C19. It is neither part of the universal tradition nor the faith once delivered to the saints. It is only possible to argued from scripture that it might, yet alone must, be going to happen, by mangling the text.

It may be very nice to imagine that we will be whistled up into the sky before things on earth get too nasty, but I also don’t see any reason to be able to deduce that. I’m fairly sure it’s bad theology.

[ 04. December 2016, 21:38: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, you're not being at all intrusive in bringing things back to the OP, Enoch. I thank you for your concern and I also, of course, concur with your views on the Rapture and dispensationalism being poor theology.

That doesn't mean that I think those who hold to these kind of views as nincompoops and theological illiterates ...

But as you say, it all too readily depends on one or two key teachers or gurus - and I'm always sceptical of anything that smacks of that.

On a different tack, I'd take the same line on those hyper-Calvinists who try to make out that the Church Fathers were 'Calvinistic' in tone when Calvin himself seems to have considered them inconsistent and with Augustine as the one who came closest to his particular views on issues like predestination ...

In such instances, the hyper-Calvinists out-Calvin Calvin and start reading their own theology back into the writings of their predecessors in a way that Calvin himself was sufficiently savvy to avoid.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
I can’t say there won’t be a rapture. I don't know. But nor does anyone else. What I can say, is that I do not see any reason to believe there will be one. As has already been said, it is a doctrine invented in the C19. It is neither part of the universal tradition nor the faith once delivered to the saints. It is only possible to argued from scripture that it might, yet alone must, be going to happen, by mangling the text.

It seems to me to come down to this 'mangling ' of the text.
Paul says in Thessalonians that we shall not all die and then proceeds to give a specific scenario, viz
The trumpet
The dead in Christ shall rise
We that remain shall be caught up to meet him in the air
Thus we shall always be with the Lord.
The word caught up is 'harpazo' usually taken as what is meant by rapture.

The controversy comes from the 18 century idea from Darby that this could refer to a coming before the coming if you like iow the second coming of Christ is a 2 part thing. In Act 1 he comes as it were secretly, for the church that await him; in act 2 he comes to rescue the Jews and judge the Antichrist at Armageddon.

We do have some very confusing messages in scripture and we always have had. We know now for instance that when Jesus came to Earth he was rejected because the Jews on the basis of the scriptures, were expecting a Davidic king and instead got a suffering servant. But BOTH messages were in there.

Now there is a mixed message also about the second coming in Matt 24. The disciples asked Jesus what is the sign of your coming and the end of the age. They got a paradoxical reply. He said on the one hand that as lightening flashes from east to west so shall the coming of the son of man be. This was the climax of huge turmoil in the Earth. However He also said that as in the days of Noah when it was pretty well business as usual then people would be taken by surprise. You obviously can read it yourself but Fruchtenbaum who is a pre everything scholar points out that in, I think, v36, there is a Greek contrastive phrase that is transliterated as 'Peri de'. This indicates a change of emphasis. It translates as ' Now concerning'.

I.e. "Now concerning that day and hour no one knows.".and he carries on with the scenario of the days of Noah and the narrative of one taken and the other left.
Essentially, you have in the first part of Matt 24:30, the second coming then v36, a change of topic signalled in the Greek but less obvious in the English translation. The coming mentioned in v37 is NOT the coming mentioned earlier in v30.
Now this ties in nicely with Paul's teaching in Thessalonians. He also describes apparently 2 scenarios, 1 thes 4:17 describes the Lord coming for the church and the first resurrection of the dead. However in 2 Thes 2, he says that Christ will come to bring an end to Antichist by the appearance of his coming. That is not mentioned in the earlier passage that talks about the coming.

Now obviously not all questions are answered about the second coming as all we're not answered about the first until it happened and I disagree with kooks that set dates etc as Jesus clearly said in the gospels that when it happens, the second coming will be unexpected. However what is unexpected? I think the 'rapture' coming is and thus the doctrine of imminence. The coming as a king is well described in Zechariah 14 :4 where it says all Nations will be gathered to battle against Jerusalem but the Lord will come as rescuer "In that day his feet will stand on the Mt of Olives".

That, essentially is how I see it but of course I do not know much really and some other 'mangling' might make better sense of it all.

[ 05. December 2016, 18:51: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Paul is writing poetry, not a recipe.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The word caught up is 'harpazo' usually taken as what is meant by rapture.

No, it's what dispensationalists take to mean "rapture" in their sense of the term.

"Harpazo" means "caught up" or "snatched", and we have already noted a number of instances of its use in that way in the NT.

What the dispensationalist system means by "rapture", is "Christians are caught up to be with the Lord and non-believers are left behind".

That is a much narrower, if not entirely different, meaning attributed here to the word "harpazo", and it is one imposed on the word by the system, not required by the word itself.

The biggest price you pay for imposing this special meaning is opening up the possibility, unmentioned anywhere at all in Scripture and running counter to several, of there being a possibility of being "saved" after the return of Christ for his people.

You have no real theological answer to this question beyond hand-waving; you certainly can't point to any Scripture that makes provision for this scenario.

As I have said before, this seems a high price to pay in terms of orthodoxy when it comes to making sense of these passages. Much too high a price.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
That is a much narrower, if not entirely different, meaning attributed here to the word "harpazo", and it is one imposed on the word by the system, not required by the word itself

This really does seem to me to be straining at gnats. there is no imposition of meaning on the word. It says what it says.

As you said, the word rapture is not in the Bible but what is denoted is the snatching away idea contained in the word 'harpazo'. As the story goes, the church is snatched away and unbelievers left.

Without revisiting what I said before, I think that this is not a problem. After the harpazo, people can still come to Christ. In that period of history though, it is likely to result in martyrdom as the left behind ones will need the mark of the beast to buy or sell if they take that they disqualify themselves from faith in Christ.

Interestingly, this is a point of issue for Reformed preacher John McArthur as when asked a question about whether mark takers could be saved, he ad-libbed that he thought they could. ISTM that cannot be correct.

Obviously this scenario does not sit well with the comfortable Christianity many of us presently enjoy. But Revelation does say lots of uncomfortable things.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Jamat, I regret you have not persuaded me. I agree with Gee D that Paul isn't writing a recipe. He also isn't writing a legal statute. It is misuse of his writings to treat them that way. Theological palaces, however magnificent, cannot be constructed on the single use of a particular tense.

I agree with your statement that,
"We do have some very confusing messages in scripture and we always have had."

However, one can't then make the jump:
'I have pointed out to you a flaw with X's explanation of this.
∴ what I'm now about to say must be right'.

If it did work, it would be a very useful dialectic tool. It would get one out of a lot of holes. It's also something one encounters quite often. That, though, does not rescue it from being a non sequitur.

Nor does not follow that, if when the day of the Lord comes, we who are then alive will be caught up to meet him in the air, then either,
a. that will precede a Great Tribulation which we will somehow escape, or
b. that we can be specific about a sequence of events which will happen after that to those who are not caught up. Paul doesn't mention that in the passage.

I agree with what Gamaliel and Eutychus have said since my last post. And, Gamaliel, it isn't only Calvin and the Fathers that neo-Calvinists treat that way, reading back into the original words what they think the writer ought to have meant, as though they know best. They do the same with Paul.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Nor does not follow that, if when the day of the Lord comes, we who are then alive will be caught up to meet him in the air, then either,
a. that will precede a Great Tribulation which we will somehow escape, or
b. that we can be specific about a sequence of events which will happen after that to those who are not caught up. Paul doesn't mention that in the passage.

I agree that both of these things are based largely on inference and could be said to be conjectural depending on who is debating whom.
That is why there is so much ink spilt amongst futurists over your a) as to whether the rapture is pre, mid or post, tribulation. To me that actually does not matter very much and your point b) relates to that. Essentially the sequence of events is inferred and people obviously differ.

For me, the scenario I outlined is the one that makes most sense from a futurist stance.
As a Christian, I am not looking for the beast or the tribulation, I am looking for the Lord to come for me. This is what I actually think Paul was telling the thessalonians to do.

If you are a preterist or a Historicist, then you will see eschatology quite differently and certainly both have good points in their favour. I do not think those completely preclude my reading which I got as I say from people like Ironside and latterly, Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Jacob Prasch.(both of whom are within google range) It is obvious, for instance, that AD 70 saw a historical fulfilment of a large part of what Jesus said in Matt 24. To me the discourse includes this but goes beyond it.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by jamat;

quote:
Without revisiting what I said before, I think that this is not a problem. After the harpazo, people can still come to Christ. In that period of history though, it is likely to result in martyrdom as the left behind ones will need the mark of the beast to buy or sell if they take that they disqualify themselves from faith in Christ.

So the 'catching up/harpazo' is described in I Thess 4; 16-18. In this passage Paul addresses the concerns of the Thessalonian Christians that those among them who have already died may somehow miss out on the subsequent return of Jesus. No, Paul says, when Jesus returns "with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God" (hardly a 'secret rapture'!!), "The dead in Christ shall rise first..." and then those still alive will be "Caught up/raptured together with them... to meet the Lord...."

In chapter 5, Paul moves on to consider how the rest of the world, the non-Christians, are affected by this return of Jesus.

quote:
Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 1 Thess 5:1-3 (NIV)

That 'the day of the Lord' will come like a thief in the night means it will be unexpected as a thief would hope to be - not 'secret' in the way the Rapture is usually represented in the 'Left Behind' kind of scenario. What Paul goes on to say in v3 makes clear that when the 'thief' arrives, at that moment destruction comes on these people, "and they will NOT escape". This is not a scenario to be followed by a 'second chance' over seven years of 'Tribulation' - this is the final coming, the END.

And then the 'killer' text...

quote:
But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief 1 Thess 5:4 (NIV)

This day that overwhelms the worldly, the unbelievers, with terminal destruction, is the same day that will see the rescue/rapture of the Christians. Paul is clearly talking here about the same day. Of course the Christians will not KNOW about it for sure till it actually happens, but they will be ready, prepared - even the round about a quarter of them who by normal averages will be literally physically asleep when Jesus returns; they'll be spiritually awake and ready.

And in II Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to the same 'day' again when he says it will not come "unless the rebellion comes first" - NOT that the rebellion happens after the 'Rapture' and only affecting the 'Left Behind'.

As I said above, various forms of 'mark of the Beast' are seen in the current era; and I think that where such a thing exists, it can be repented of. It does not appear to be the actual 'unforgiveable sin'.... Again, mangling it into the dubious 'Rapture/Tribulation' scenario distorts the teaching.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

In chapter 5, Paul moves on to consider how the rest of the world, the non-Christians, are affected by this return of Jesus.

quote:
Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 1 Thess 5:1-3 (NIV)
That 'the day of the Lord' will come like a thief in the night means it will be unexpected as a thief would hope to be - not 'secret' in the way the Rapture is usually represented in the 'Left Behind' kind of scenario. What Paul goes on to say in v3 makes clear that when the 'thief' arrives, at that moment destruction comes on these people, "and they will NOT escape". This is not a scenario to be followed by a 'second chance' over seven years of 'Tribulation' - this is the final coming, the END.

And then the 'killer' text...

quote:
But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief 1 Thess 5:4 (NIV)
This day that overwhelms the worldly, the unbelievers, with terminal destruction, is the same day that will see the rescue/rapture of the Christians. Paul is clearly talking here about the same day. Of course the Christians will not KNOW about it for sure till it actually happens, but they will be ready, prepared - even the round about a quarter of them who by normal averages will be literally physically asleep when Jesus returns; they'll be spiritually awake and ready.

And in II Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to the same 'day' again when he says it will not come "unless the rebellion comes first" - NOT that the rebellion happens after the 'Rapture' and only affecting the 'Left Behind'.

As I said above, various forms of 'mark of the Beast' are seen in the current era; and I think that where such a thing exists, it can be repented of. It does not appear to be the actual 'unforgiveable sin'.... Again, mangling it into the dubious 'Rapture/Tribulation' scenario distorts the teaching. [/QB]

Yes, Steve, but I think your comments are answered by the fact that the 'rapture' scriptures and the '2nd coming proper' scriptures must be distinguished.

One never sees the 'Day of the Lord' spoken of except in the 2nd coming proper scriptures. as it always refers to the judgement on the sinful world and on the Antichrist. Sometimes, it is also called the time of Jacob's trouble.

Anyhow, the 1Thes 5:1-9, reference is about the visible coming of the Lord not the secret one that would be the harpazo. It is also unexpected of course but it is a time of destruction IOW quite unlike the 1 thes 4 15-18.

Lest this seem a forced division, there is a 'Peri de' at the start of ch 5 suggesting a translation of "Now concerning.." This suggests a change of emphasis or subject even.

IOW, he speaks of the rapture I 1 thes 4:15-18 but then turns to a comment on The Day of the Lord, in Ch 5. The fact that he is now speaking of the 'Times and epochs' also tends to this view.

So essentially, I do not see the rescue of the church and the Day of the Lord which is a judgement scripture, occurring at the same time.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As you said, the word rapture is not in the Bible but what is denoted is the snatching away idea contained in the word 'harpazo'. As the story goes, the church is snatched away and unbelievers left.

Dispensationalists do not simply use "rapture" to denote "snatching away" or "caught up" which is what it means.

The contentious idea dispensationalists include in their use of the word "rapture" is the second part above: "unbelievers left".

This is contentious because it is simply not "how the story goes". It is taking a piece of Matthew, against the text, to inform a piece of Thessalonians. It is a constructed narrative where the Bible doesn't give one; one that posits a group of post-rapture believers who can't be the Church (which has already met the Lord).

Also, I would still like to know whether you think concern about the welfare of the planet is irrelevant given your eschatology.

[ 06. December 2016, 04:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As you said, the word rapture is not in the Bible but what is denoted is the snatching away idea contained in the word 'harpazo'. As the story goes, the church is snatched away and unbelievers left.
Dispensationalists do not simply use "rapture" to denote "snatching away" or "caught up" which is what it means.

The contentious idea dispensationalists include in their use of the word "rapture" is the second part above: "unbelievers left".

This is contentious because it is simply not "how the story goes". It is taking a piece of Matthew, against the text, to inform a piece of Thessalonians. It is a constructed narrative where the Bible doesn't give one; one that posits a group of post-rapture believers who can't be the Church (which has already met the Lord).

Also, I would still like to know whether you think concern about the welfare of the planet is irrelevant given your eschatology.

I've already said what I think is the position of the left behind ones. The main scripture for me is the 1 thes 4 one. Matt 24 is a support to see it in the light of. I am aware of your position i.e. That you consider that contextually, the left behind are the saved ones analogous to the flood story. I do not think your reading is necessarily correct since Jesus here is merely emphasising the suddenness of the change and the fact that there is a sharp distinction between saved and lost. Jesus goes on to the story of the wise and foolish virgins which has a similar theme. There, the wise are taken in to the wedding, the others shut out so there the message is reinforced I think. Once the harpazo occurs, there is no way to reopen that door so be ready, have the oil in your lamp.

If it is a serious question then yes, I care about the environment. I still have to live in it and since the early church thought the Lord was coming in their generation and he did not who knows how long this age of grace will extend. Imminence is not about time it is about possility.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I've already said what I think is the position of the left behind ones. The main scripture for me is the 1 thes 4 one.

This makes no sense at all. 1 Thes 4 says nothing at all about anybody being left behind.

quote:
Matt 24 is a support to see it in the light of.

No, Matt 24 is where dispensationalists erroneously get the idea of people being "left behind" from and then insert this into 1 Thes 4.

quote:
Jesus here is merely emphasising the suddenness of the change and the fact that there is a sharp distinction between saved and lost. Jesus goes on to the story of the wise and foolish virgins which has a similar theme. There, the wise are taken in to the wedding, the others shut out so there the message is reinforced I think. Once the harpazo occurs, there is no way to reopen that door so be ready, have the oil in your lamp.

I broadly agree with the above. But this contradicts what you have been saying so far and makes my point for me with these scriptures.

Hitherto you have consistently argued that after the harpazo occurs, it is indeed possible to "open the door" and you may not be "lost", since you apparently believe that people can be saved after Christ's return for his Church. I cannot see how you can take this message from the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, for instance.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

[QUOTE] [/his makes no sense at all. 1 Thes 4 says nothing about at all about anybody being left behind.QUOTE]

I really have no idea why whoever is left behind is such a big issue for you. The discussion is about the Rapture, if when and whether it occurs. To me the 'rapture is a term for the harpazo the snatching away of the church. Anyone not raptured is consequently not saved QED.

If I'm 'left behind', I was not a true believer but do I still have hope? Yes, if God grants me the gift of repentance. The gospel is still operative but God has switched gears in his modus operandi. Now his focus is switched to Natural Israel once more. The church age is over. This is the time of the 144k Jewish evangelists whom he will raise up. Up thread you asked if I counted the tribes of Israel in Revelation. Yes, there are 12 and I think Dan is missing? I do not know why this is,just that the number of tribes is always 12. There are 12 apostles but Paul is an apostle. Who knows maybe the number is more important than the name.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I really have no idea why whoever is left behind is such a big issue for you.

Because it introduces theological difficulties far in excess of what it claims to clarify.

quote:
The discussion is about the Rapture, if when and whether it occurs. To me the 'rapture is a term for the harpazo the snatching away of the church.

I can't see anyone arguing with believers being "caught up" to be with the Lord at the end of the age. But you are assuming (at least some of the time) that this "being caught up" is not at the same time as the eschaton. To put it another way, you believe in a "secret" rapture, which necessarily implies some people left behind until the "non-secret" return of the Lord happens. That is what is innovative and unhelpful.

quote:
If I'm 'left behind', I was not a true believer but do I still have hope? Yes, if God grants me the gift of repentance. The gospel is still operative but God has switched gears in his modus operandi. Now his focus is switched to Natural Israel once more. The church age is over. This is the time of the 144k Jewish evangelists whom he will raise up.

Wait, so if God's focus post-secret rapture switches back to Natural Israel, are you saying that only Jews left behind can be saved? Or are you, with the JWs, saying there is a separate category of salvation for believers in the gospel who are not part of the Church?

If you are, why stop at "rightly dividing" (sic) 1 Thes 4 aided and abetted by Mat 24? You might as well joint the JWs in going through the whole of the NT explaining how large chunks of it don't apply to us but to the future "dispensation" of the Kingdom of Heaven - the Sermon on the Mount, for instance. Can you not see why I feel this is creating far more problems than it solves?

quote:
Up thread you asked if I counted the tribes of Israel in Revelation. Yes, there are 12 and I think Dan is missing?

To me that is an indication that the number should not be taken literally, or applied strictly to "Natural Israel". To me it makes far more sense to understand that John first "heard" the 'great multitude' of the people of God (144k) and then "saw" a vision of the same people - from every nation tribe and tongue.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair, both the RCs and the Orthodox also believe that there is some kind of special category of salvation for believers who are not part of the Church (Capital C) as they both consider themselves to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church ... yet not the sum total of those who will be saved.

Indeed, you can be a member of the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church and not necessarily be ultimately saved ... witness the Popes, bishops, clergy, monks and nuns being cast into outer darkness and eternal hell fire in the scary medieval frescoes ...

As well as those who are received into Christ's eternal Kingdom of light ...

But I take your point, Eutychus.

For my money, forms of conservative evangelical dispensationalism and emphasis on a pre-tribulation rapture come perilously close to the kind of hermeneutic and exegesis employed by JWs and other 'marginal' groups such as those somewhat closer to home such as the Seventh Day Adventists.

Jamat clearly understands the 144,000 in a literal sense and interprets those references in Revelation to Jewish evangelists in a kind of post-Church age.

I really, really don't get that.

It's a source of complete and utter bewilderment to me how people can take such a literal line on what is clearly apocalyptic literature.

I've already outlined my difficulty with the idea of the Letters to the Seven Churches being in some way predictive. The only explanation/answer I get to that is that we should apply the same hermeneutical principle we apply to Daniel as the OT's example of apocalyptic literature ...

Well, the thing is, I don't necessarily see why we have to apply a literal, predictive element to Daniel either - at least, not at every point - and I'm perfectly comfortable with a late date for Daniel - and I'd be equally comfortable with it if scholars could conclusively demonstrate an early date for it too.

Either way, it makes no odds as it's apocalyptic literature, not a time-table or blue-print for how things will pan out at the end of the world.

If, as Jamat suggests, a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture doesn't lessen a believer's concern about the environment and the here and now, then it begs the question as to what it actually does achieve ...

As far as I can see, reading this thread, all it does is give people who like to have things neatly packaged a neat package into which they can tuck their eschatological speculations. 'There we are, into the nice neat box, sorted.'

Of course, it still leaves room for mystery - 'of that day and of that hour ...' etc. But by and large it simply seems like a way to reconcile apparently contradictory references - as if the purpose of Bible study is to tie-up all loose-ends and as if there is no possible scope for leaving anything dangling as it were.

That's why I'm suspicious of it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, both the RCs and the Orthodox also believe that there is some kind of special category of salvation for believers who are not part of the Church (Capital C) as they both consider themselves to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church ... yet not the sum total of those who will be saved.

Temporal Churches may have provisions for those who do not form part of their temporal Church, but that is hardly the same as having an entirely separate dispensation of salvation after the return of Christ for some who are explicitly not part of his people or the invisible Church universal.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
Yes, Steve, but I think your comments are answered by the fact that the 'rapture' scriptures and the '2nd coming proper' scriptures must be distinguished.

I basically don't accept that those two categories exist; Jesus comes once both to gather the Church and to bring judgement/destruction on unbelievers. I'm not aware of a single text that categorically shows these are separate events. Only of a history 19 centuries after Jesus in which some people made a bad interpretation which then led them to unnecessarily separate the 'catching up' of the Church from the coming in judgement.

Yes, on that day some are 'caught up' to meet their returning Lord and join his triumph, while others are 'left behind' - briefly, not for several years - to await the judgement. The several years of post-rapture tribulation are an artificial imposition resulting from the mistaken interpretation by Irving and his followers, not something from Scripture itself.

quote:
Anyhow, the 1Thes 5:1-9, reference is about the visible coming of the Lord not the secret one that would be the harpazo. It is also unexpected of course but it is a time of destruction IOW quite unlike the 1 thes 4 15-18.

Hummm? In the view you seem to be presenting, then, the 'day of the Lord' happens years after the supposed day of Rapture. Yet in a straightforward natural reading of I Thess 5, Paul writes as if the Church will still be on earth to be potentially surprised by the 'day of the Lord'. Just look at it

quote:
1 And concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need of my writing to you, 2 for yourselves have known thoroughly that the day of the Lord as a thief in the night doth so come, 3 for when they may say, Peace and surety, then sudden destruction doth stand by them, as the travail doth her who is with child, and they shall not escape; 4 and ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day may catch you as a thief; 5 all ye are sons of light, and sons of day; we are not of night, nor of darkness, 6 so, then, we may not sleep as also the others, but watch and be sober, 1 Thess 5:1-6 (YLT)

Look, Paul says, I don't need to discuss the date of this, the 'times and seasons' because you know that the 'day of the Lord' will be unpredictable like a thief in the night.

That is a natural phrasing if he is writing of an event his readers may be on earth to see; and not at all natural if he's referring to an event that they won't be around for but rather will already be with the Lord and returning with Him.

He points out how 'the world' will be carrying on as usual only to be unexpectedly overwhelmed by the destruction of Jesus' return in judgement. Then in v4

quote:
and ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day may catch you as a thief;

Again, a natural wording if his readers might potentially be on earth to be caught by the event; but strange wording if those readers are supposedly long 'raptured' and absent from the earth.

Put simply, if Paul is talking about the scenario Jamat and pre-tribulation-rapturists generally believe in, he's making somewhat of a confused dog's breakfast of it. But if he is portraying a single day in which both the Church is 'caught up' to meet their Lord, and the world is faced with unexpected destruction, then his words are completely appropriate....

And if we can't find the pre-tribulation-rapture in THE passage that clearly talks of the church being 'caught up' to meet the Lord, I can't see how we'd find it elsewhere....

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There are those who can shave and the one who can't.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Eutychus, yes, I get that ...

@Steve Langton, again, agreed on all points.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Why use the utterly non-intuitive complexities of particle physics in very simple textual analysis?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why use the utterly non-intuitive complexities of particle physics in very simple textual analysis?

I'm not sure if it's me you're getting at there; but I'm being elaborate because I'm not only having to interpret the original text but also unpick or unravel an absolute mountain of twisted and re-arranged stuff going back to that 19th C misstep - and I've previously learned that you have to do that unpicking pretty thoroughly to convince those caught up in the tangle and confused by it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No Steve, not you. Sorry. You're not making up complexities where simplicity is staring you in the face.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
I basically don't accept that those two categories exist; Jesus comes once both to gather the Church and to bring judgement/destruction on unbelievers. I'm not aware of a single text that categorically shows these are separate events.

In that case Steve you have quite a bit of dissonance to deal with. Take for instance the accounts of the parousia in Matt 24 that I referred to above. You also, though as you say they are not categorical, references like John 14. "I go to prepare a place for you and I will come again to receive you to myself"
There are passages like this that are consistent with a rapture idea.

There is little that IS categorical in this whole area when we are discussing subjects that extend into apocalyptic scripture. The knock down argument that comes up time and again is the fact that Darby invented the 2 stage parousia in 1832. It was never taught by any early Christian authority. While this is true, when one thinks of the weird and wonderful heresies that arose then, it is possible that this teaching did not come up because it was not controversial. It is also possible it was unknown as you and others say but maybe it was like many ideas such as baptism by immersion, lost in the mists of Catholic corruption of basic doctrine. How on earth did, for instance, the Lord's supper become the mass? Who knows how these beliefs evolved or what was lost. It still seems to me that a lot depends on the hermeneutics one adopts and sometimes, that is a matter of choice, sometimes preconceived ideas have a lot to do with it. If you decide you are NOT a literalist, for instance, then this frees you from the meaning and as Etychus said above, 1thes 4 the dead in Christ will rise first and we who are left will meet the Lord in the air, need not actually mean what it says, it can become a mere comfort scripture about the security of believers.

It is true that fashion is also a factor in hermeneutics and futurism does go in and out of fashion. However, as one who is in the minority of literalists on this forum, I still find that the Darby rapture, does make convincing sense without going through all the detail I.E., the 70th week of Daniel being held in abeyance till the church age is completed. For ages I was dismissive of all I heard about prophecy till I stumbled on someone who actually understood the viewpoint thoroughly. Since then, ISTM that many scriptures are comprehensible if seen in that light.

[ 07. December 2016, 18:35: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

But if, as you say, and I don't think anyone in this argument will disagree with you on this,

quote:
There is little that IS categorical in this whole area when we are discussing subjects that extend into apocalyptic scripture.

why should any of the rest of us be persuaded that your particular gnosis is the right one? And even if it were, why should that matter? How does that bear on how you, me or any of the others of us posting on this thread live out our Christian lives in fear and trembling?

If, for example, you were to say with confidence that "a king of fierce countenance" in Dan 8:23 or the "vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom" in Dan 11:21 who comes in "peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries", is not Antiochus IV but Donald Trump, why, when you have already accepted that there is little that is categorical in this whole area, should that interpretation be any more persuasive than any other? What gives one bundle of gnosis any more weight than any other?

Saying that something is what Darby says, or that it was possible that this teaching was lost because it was controversial, or got 'lost in the mists of Catholic corruption of basic doctrine" - for which, there is no evidence - or that you happen to have stumbled on somebody who you think "actually understood the viewpoint thoroughly", really doesn't take the rest of us any further. And the claim that we don't accept this because we're temporising non-literalists doesn't work either, because these interpretations do not automatically follow from a literal reading of the scriptures.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

A perfect, and I mean perfect, waste of breath our Enoch.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If this gal is right you guys won't need to debate this much longer. Also, it casts a new and fearful light upon the election of the Tiny Fingered One.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
John 14. "I go to prepare a place for you and I will come again to receive you to myself"
There are passages like this that are consistent with a rapture idea.

Please explain how this passage is consistent with a twofold return of Christ.

quote:
The knock down argument that comes up time and again is the fact that Darby invented the 2 stage parousia in 1832. It was never taught by any early Christian authority. While this is true

I rest my case.

quote:
maybe it was like many ideas such as baptism by immersion, lost in the mists of Catholic corruption of basic doctrine.

The root meaning of baptizo is to immerse. I think there's a bit more precedent there than for harpazo meaning "to snatch up prior to coming back to judge those left behind"

quote:
Etychus said above, 1thes 4 the dead in Christ will rise first and we who are left will meet the Lord in the air, need not actually mean what it says

Even if it means precisely and literally what it says, it says nothing at all about anybody being left behind, still less about them being evangelised by 144k Jewish evangelists (to form part of saved Natural Israel? You are silent on this point).

quote:
ISTM that many scriptures are comprehensible if seen in that light.

Indeed they are, but just because a theory makes some parts comprehensible does not mean it is right and says nothing about the parts it tramples all over.

I entreat you to consider whether the collateral damage of the hermeneutic - such as for starters, how people can be saved after the "rapture" in defiance of the teaching of parable of the wise and foolish virgins (which you yourself brought up!) and which salvific category into which those saved from among those left behind might fall into - is worth the candle.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But if, as you say, and I don't think anyone in this argument will disagree with you on this,

quote:
There is little that IS categorical in this whole area when we are discussing subjects that extend into apocalyptic scripture.
why should any of the rest of us be persuaded that your particular gnosis is the right one? And even if it were, why should that matter? How does that bear on how you, me or any of the others of us posting on this thread live out our Christian lives in fear and trembling?

If, for example, you were to say with confidence that "a king of fierce countenance" in Dan 8:23 or the "vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom" in Dan 11:21 who comes in "peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries", is not Antiochus IV but Donald Trump, why, when you have already accepted that there is little that is categorical in this whole area, should that interpretation be any more persuasive than any other? What gives one bundle of gnosis any more weight than any other?

Saying that something is what Darby says, or that it was possible that this teaching was lost because it was controversial, or got 'lost in the mists of Catholic corruption of basic doctrine" - for which, there is no evidence - or that you happen to have stumbled on somebody who you think "actually understood the viewpoint thoroughly", really doesn't take the rest of us any further. And the claim that we don't accept this because we're temporising non-literalists doesn't work either, because these interpretations do not automatically follow from a literal reading of the scriptures.

Regarding the Antichrist, I'd agree that Antiochus IV was certainly a type of the one who will appear at the end of the age. I also realise that If I'd been alive in the 1930's I might well of thought this was Hitler. This is why I do not set dates or suggest identities. In my living memory people were saying names like Kissinger. This is pretty dumb thinking IMV as the Bible does not cue us on that.

Regarding my particular 'gnosis', I have tried to explain how I think it is Biblical. The gnostics including all the modern ones all claim revelation beyond scripture but theories of eschatology are mainly based in scriptural inference. I am not a gnostic.

How you go forward is not for me to comment except perhaps to consider looking at the non negotiables that we all have. If Everything Biblical is to be interpreted as poetry or as historically past,for instance, then you hit the wall pretty early in trying to make sense of stuff like the book of Revelation.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
John 14. "I go to prepare a place for you and I will come again to receive you to myself"
There are passages like this that are consistent with a rapture idea.
________________________________________
Please explain how this passage is consistent with a twofold return of Christ.

It is often used as forshadowing the rapture but is not also inconsistent with the parousia as a whole

quote:
maybe it was like many ideas such as baptism by immersion, lost in the mists of Catholic corruption of basic doctrine.
________________________________________
The root meaning of baptizo is to immerse. I think there's a bit more precedent there than for harpazo meaning "to snatch up prior to coming back to judge those left behind"
quote:

You of course are entitled to your view.

quote:
Etychus said above, 1thes 4 the dead in Christ will rise first and we who are left will meet the Lord in the air, need not actually mean what it says
________________________________________
Even if it means precisely and literally what it says, it says nothing at all about anybody being left behind, still less about them being evangelised by 144k Jewish evangelists (to form part of saved Natural Israel? You are silent on this point).

But I never said it did. My point was always that the living can rise to meet the Lord in the air..literally. As always, when exploring doctrine we join scripture with scripture as alredy discussed above. The left behind ones are your preoccupation for some reason known only to yourself. IMV they are not Christians and not relevant .

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, that's far from the case. You don't hit a wall at all by treating the Book of Revelation as it should be treated - as Apocalyptic literature.

Why do you have this assumption that the NT is going to tell us whether Hitler, Kissinger, my next door neighbour or some geezer living in a third floor flat in downtown Manila, Montevideo or Melbourne is or isn't the Antichrist.

Just because something is allegorical or poetic doesn't mean it isn't true.

Of course, I'm suggesting we understand everything in the NT in some kind of allegorical or metaphorical sense - I do believe in the Resurrection as an historical event for instance. Nor am I dismissing the possibility of predictive elements, but by and large that's not how scripture operates, it seems to me.

The NT isn't there to provide a blue-print for how we work out how and when the world will end, it's there to make us 'wise unto salvation through Christ Jesus.'

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
John 14. "I go to prepare a place for you and I will come again to receive you to myself"
is often used as forshadowing the rapture but is not also inconsistent with the parousia as a whole

It might be talking about the parousia, but it says absolutely nothing about a twofold return. It talks pretty unequivocally of one. Your view requires two and this is what the rest of us are disputing.

quote:

quote:
The root meaning of baptizo is to immerse. I think there's a bit more precedent there than for harpazo meaning "to snatch up prior to coming back to judge those left behind"
You of course are entitled to your view.

It's hardly just my view. Whatever we believe about baptism now, the root meaning pretty incontrovertibly includes to submerge. Harpazo may mean "to snatch" or "catch up", but there is nothing at all in the word to indicate anyone being left behind or a second return after the "snatching".

Your theory hypothesises those things, and includes them in its understanding of "rapture", but (unlike getting the concept of "immersion" from "baptizo") it does not and cannot get them from the Greek word. These hypotheses are incontrovertibly recent in a way the lexical pedigree of baptism by immersion is not.

quote:
My point was always that the living can rise to meet the Lord in the air..literally.

The argument here is not predominantly about whether this is literal or not and if so at what altitude, but whether this meeting in the air, whether literal or figurative, is part one of a two-stage return of Christ in which stage two happens much later, after at least half if not a whole Tribulation. This two-stage return of Christ is the contentious aspect of dispensationalism and it is arrived at, not as you claim by a process whereby

quote:
we join scripture with scripture

but by injecting one piece of scripture slap into the middle of another with no regard for the integrity of the text.

quote:
The left behind ones are your preoccupation for some reason known only to yourself. IMV they are not Christians and not relevant.

Your comment encapsulates the reason for my preoccupation which I have stated multiple times.

They are my preoccupation because aside from a back-to-front interpretation of Matthew 24 according to which the saved are "taken", there is no mention of this body of people anywhere at all in Scripture, let alone their fate, despite which you blithely assure us that, notwithstanding the parable of the foolish virgins et al, once the door is closed it can somehow spring open again, they can be saved (they're just not Christians [Paranoid]

), and to make sure some of this "irrelevant" group are saved according to some soteriology on which Scripture is entirely silent (I'm still waiting to hear from Mudfrog on what it might mean to be "saved by covenant and not by grace"), you conjure up an army of 144k Jewish evangelists from a list consisting, if my sums from Revelation are right, of 132k Jews.

If you think all that's an irrelevant detail that can simply be brushed over, I'm left wondering what other irrelevant details you might be prepared to accommodate in defence of your position.

[ 07. December 2016, 22:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
But I never said it did. My point was always that the living can rise to meet the Lord in the air..literally. As always, when exploring doctrine we join scripture with scripture as alredy discussed above. The left behind ones are your preoccupation for some reason known only to yourself. IMV they are not Christians and not relevant .

I'd accept the idea that the living can rise to meet the Lord in the air literally; after all the angels told the apostles at the ascension that Jesus would return as they had seen him depart - ie, rising into the air. It is perhaps symbolically rather than absolutely necessary but it's a great symbol and will be a great experience for all of us (given that Paul says the dead in Christ will rise first and all then meet the returning Jesus!

The problem of the 'left behind' is a mix of "for what?" and "for how long a further history?" - and the answers to those questions are quite important in all kinds of ways - so our next question for you, Jamat, is how do you answer those questions....

In the view I espouse, and it seems also Eutychus and others discussing here, those 'left behind' are only left for a brief time before Jesus and the attending resurrected-and-still-living Christians will arrive on earth to summon the unbelievers to judgement - following which, the new heaven and the new earth. 'History' is ended, Eternity has begun.

In the common 'Left Behind/pre-Tribulation-Rapture scenario, the 'Rapture' is followed by Jesus with the Church going away for some years (usually seven) during which lots of 'left-over' prophecies about the 'man of lawlessness' and the conversion of at least most Jews are fulfilled, and it seems the 'left behind' get a further chance at repentance and faith before Jesus returns a second time, with the church, to initiate the Millennial kingdom - and even that isn't quite the End....

It seems to me quite important to be clear which of these options we follow - or perhaps Jamat is offering a clear third option...? Simply how the Jews are differently viewed in these different interpretations clearly makes important here-and-now differences in human politics.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think I might start another thread about hermeneutical assumptions.

Earlier on this thread, Mudfrog suggested that we interpret the Seven Churches of Revelation in a futurist sense because that is how we tackle the apocalyptic sections of Daniel, despite there being no textual indication within the Letters to the Seven Churches that they are to be understood that way.

That's the nub of the issue, I think, an insistence on trying to tie up apparent loose ends and to make things fit. If they don't, then we try to force them.

The Book of Revelation was written to encourage beleaguered believers - 'Hang on, this current world system will pass away ...'

It uses allegory and symbolism. The idea of interpreting the stuff about the 144,000 and so on literally makes as much sense to me as understanding the OT reference to God owning 'the cattle in a thousand halls' literally. What does this mean? That God doesn't own the cattle on the 1,001st hill or the 3,000th hill?

Taking these things in a literal way throws up all sorts of anomalies and only serves to illustrate the extent to which literalists misunderstand the apocalyptic genre or find it difficult to cope with allegory and symbolism in those places where it is clearly being applied.

Not only is it a faulty hermeneutic, it is one which fails to understand how ancient texts function.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

.. an insistence on trying to tie up apparent loose ends and to make things fit. If they don't, then we try to force them.

The Book of Revelation was written to encourage beleaguered believers

It uses allegory and symbolism. The idea of interpreting the stuff about the 144,000 and so on literally makes as much sense to me as understanding the OT reference to God owning 'the cattle in a thousand halls' literally.

Taking these things in a literal way throws up all sorts of anomalies and only serves to illustrate the extent to which literalists misunderstand the apocalyptic genre or find it difficult to cope with allegory and symbolism in those places where it is clearly being applied.

Not only is it a faulty hermeneutic, it is one which fails to understand how ancient texts function.

But Gamaliel apocalyptic is a term only invented for convenience so we have a category to pigeon hole stuff that deals with the spirit world and Revelation deals with things both on earth and in the spirit world and the interaction of the two. To say that a door is opened in heaven for instance is metaphor for some worm hole that John perceived but he did perceive it so his experience is literally what happened. He says he was 'in the spirit on the Lord's day.' Well OK,he was literally praying and in touch with the world of spirit guided by the Holy Spirit. His experience was literal.

If you want to distinguish literal ie real tangible from metaphor figure used to understand or contextualise an idea, then you confuse the reality of the idea with the mode of communication which is what a figure of speech is.

Allegory is different as it is not a means of understanding something real but an interpretive device that uses analogous narrative, Spenser's Fairie Queene is an allegory of The cosmic battle behind British politics of the time. His Gloriana represented the queen but was not the queen. If we say the spiritual forces depicted in Revelation are allegorical, then we are saying they are not real I.E. there was no angel who put his foot on the ocean and the land and blew a trumpet. (Or would do so in a future event.)

The problem is that Spenser knew exactly what he was doing, inventing a fiction with a moral lesson. I do not think John was doing this at all. He was recounting a literal experience where the spirit world interacted with him, where the glorified Jesus stood before him and spoke a message for him to write down.

A symbol is again a means of signifying something real. To the Jewish mind the trumpet blast was significant. The trumpet is a symbol because of what it communicates kind of like the PE teacher' s whistle. You don't here the whistle you hear the noise it makes and that communicates the message stop go or end or seat. But the teacher will say when you hear the whistle which is to say when this noise happens,I want you to react in a particular way. So once again, something symbolic suggests a literal reality, time to do something. If then the trumpets and the seals in Revelation are symbols then they are signifying real things.

My overall point is that It is overly simplistic to juxtapose literal and figurative in apocalyptic writing.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Jamat, if you don't mind my saying this and are not offended by this, I think you are making the assumption that what we cannot see is just like what we can see, except for its being invisible.

Part of the problem we all have with Revelation is that John is attempting to describe what cannot be described, but in language that is how a person of his generation expressed themselves. So taking it literally, as though the only difference between his vision and ours was that on one particular Sunday in the first century, God lent him some spiritual spectacles which enabled him to see what is unseen and he just wrote down what he saw, will ensure that we are bound not to get the point.

I'd also query how scriptural the idea is that there is a separate "spirit world".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Jamat, like Enoch I don't wish to offend you and hope you don't take offence at my response ... but I'm broadly in agreement with Enoch.

Of course the term 'apocalyptic' is a term of convenience - but you might as well suggest that the term 'novel' or 'play' or 'parable' or 'short story' are also terms of convenience.

As you are well aware, the term refers a genre of writing. It's a bit like heraldry in the visual arts - it relies on symbolism and particular conventions.

It isn't as though John tripped out on magic mushrooms on the isle of Patmos, nor - simply - that he had some kind of supernatural vision and then wrote down exactly what he 'saw' ...

I'm not obviating the supernatural element, but I'm less concerned whether John had literal visions or whether he was using literary conventions from the apocalyptic genre - and more concerned as to the import and content of what he was writing and what it was he was seeking to convey.

His experience may have been literal. That's not the issue. The issue is what he was wanting to communicate.

Even if his experience was literal, that doesn't mean that an angel with one foot on the earth and the other in the sea and blowing a trumpet should be taken literally.

And yes, for what it's worth then Spenser's Faerie Queen is analogous to what the allegorical elements in apocalyptic writings do.

Of course Spenser's Queen isn't literally Queen Elizabeth 1st, but then neither is a beast coming out of the sea with umpteen heads a literal hydra or sea-monster.

That's the whole point.

And why are you assuming that John didn't know exactly what he was doing in the same way that Spenser did? We aren't talking about automatic writing or some kind of unconscious outpouring.

Why do we have to assume that John wasn't writing apocalyptic literature (not fiction, that's a different genre) with a moral lesson?

For a kick off, he draws heavily on OT symbols and episodes - he was obviously steeped in the Hebrew apocalyptic tradition. Are you suggesting that he wasn't consciously drawing on the 'myth-kitty' as it were, the collective narrative of his own people, to draw out particular parallels and points?

That isn't necessarily incompatible with him having a literal vision of the glorified Christ who 'stood before him and spoke a message for him to write down.'

It could be another of these both/and things ...

Whatever the case, the issue isn't whether the vision was a literal one or something he used a literary device, or a combination of both - the point is what he was trying to convey.

As I said upthread I think, just because something is communicated in 'picture-language' it doesn't mean it's not true.

So yes, I am perfectly aware of how symbolism works and no, I don't think we have to take the trumpets and so on as literal trumpets - but they do signifying something - and something very, very real.

I don't necessarily see them as heavenly Platonic forms of earthly trumpets as it were.

From my perspective, I think that it isn't me who is being overly simplistic here.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

OK but my point is that the word literal is often used as a negative term sans definition.

Is literal a depiction of exactitude i.e. Denotative objective account, says what it means means what it says.
Or
Is literal a depiction of a greater reality by shatever means using the subtleties of language
Or
is literal a term to describe what someone understands and sees and recounts. E.g. Mummy a bee stung me.

If we judge Revelation by John's intention then this is stated in ch 1:1, it is a recount of a message that God have Jesus to tell to his bond servants. John was the first recipient, the channel if you like.

What are we to make of it? Well if it is revelation, then we have the burden to understand it. ISTM to put it in a genre category, apocalyptic, and make a whole lot of assumptions about apocalyptic, ( apocalyptic is open slather on meaning, so rich in imagery as to be without practical application,) is to stick it in the bottom drawer with all the other too hard basket stuff.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No offense. Lotta words guys. Lotta wasted breath. A lotta good breath after bad. I admire you for it GREATLY. It is a work of infinitely patient love that I don't have. ... Carry on.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

My apologies to those who've already frequently seen it, but I'm going to trot out Tyndale again.

The point at issue for now is what 'literal' means; like certain other words (rumble of hooves of Dead Horses...) it has in fact changed since the time of the Reformation and by the 19th C when the 'Rapture' misstep was made, it had come to mean something a bit different to what it meant in the time of the Reformers.

by Tyndale;

quote:
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”

As I've explained before, to the Reformers (and many medieval scholars) there was a distinctive 'sense' of Scripture which they called the 'literal' or 'according to the letter' sense. As Tyndale explains this does not mean a stiff wooden literalism; rather it means something like 'interpret the text like an ordinary book', and ipso facto make allowance for much use of literary devices, figures of speech, etc.

In 'literal sense' interpretation you may decide that a particular passage is not straightforwardly literal in the modern sense, but is an intentional allegory or whatever. In such a case you interpret it allegorically.

What is more questionable was the medieval practice of interpreting even straightforward texts in an allegorical manner that might then end up contradicting or otherwise detracting from the straightforward sense.

Revelation is clearly NOT a 'literal(modern sense)' account of actual events, past or future. Indeed it's not easy to pigeonhole at all. It seems to contain various levels of symbolism and allegory throughout. Yes what John describes bears some relationship to the ultimate reality - but not all that 'literally' in the modern sense.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What are we to make of it? Well if it is revelation, then we have the burden to understand it. ISTM to put it in a genre category, apocalyptic, and make a whole lot of assumptions about apocalyptic, ( apocalyptic is open slather on meaning, so rich in imagery as to be without practical application,) is to stick it in the bottom drawer with all the other too hard basket stuff.

Who is saying that apocalyptic is "open slather on meaning, so rich in imagery as to be without practical application"? That sounds like a straw man to me.

ISTM that understanding—not making assumptions, but actually understanding—the genre to which Revelation belongs is a first and indispensable step in the "burden" of understanding the message.

[ 10. December 2016, 01:25: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What are we to make of it? Well if it is revelation, then we have the burden to understand it. ISTM to put it in a genre category, apocalyptic, and make a whole lot of assumptions about apocalyptic, ( apocalyptic is open slather on meaning, so rich in imagery as to be without practical application,) is to stick it in the bottom drawer with all the other too hard basket stuff.
Who is saying that apocalyptic is "open slather on meaning, so rich in imagery as to be without practical application"? That sounds like a straw man to me

ISTM that understanding—not making assumptions, but actually understanding—the genre to which Revelation belongs is a first and indispensable step in the "burden" of understanding the message.

But Nick, the way the word literal is used derogatorily, without definition is also tending to straw men I think. My view on this thread is seen derisively and at the centre of it is the word literal "ha ha you couldn't seriously believe that John actually saw a door open in heaven and obeyed a summons to come up hither and be shown things that will transpire hereafter, I mean, seriously, demons with the appearance with horses that have stings in their tails?"

Regarding the definition of apocalyptic, there is contention. Mounce says: " modern scholarship has appropriated the term to describe a body of literature widely diffused in Judaism from about 200-100AD. It is pseudonymous,pseudo predictive( the writer places himself at some point in the past and by means of symbols, rewrites history under the guise of prophecy), and pessimistic. It deals with the final catastrophic period of world history when God, after mortal combat with the powers of evil, emerges victorious." (The book of Revelation , Robert Mounce p64).
If this definition is accepted, then apocalyptic writing is necessarily fraudulent. It allows Daniel, for instance, a later date and takes away the supernatural element.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Firstly, what Nick Tamen said.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My view on this thread is seen derisively and at the centre of it is the word literal "ha ha you couldn't seriously believe that John actually saw a door open in heaven and obeyed a summons to come up hither and be shown things that will transpire hereafter, I mean, seriously, demons with the appearance with horses that have stings in their tails?"

There might be some irony used in the debate here, on both sides, but I don't see any outright derision. On the contrary, I see a lot of people putting in hard work (or "wasting their breath" as Martin puts it...) to engage with you patiently, respecfully, and seriously.

If any of us stop doing that I'm sure a host will come and keep us in line, or if you have a substantive complaint you can make one to them.

That said, the fact is that literalism (or perhaps in view of Steve Langton's post we should say "literalistism") quickly leads to situations that attract derision.

For instance, I asked you how 144,000 (literal) people can be made to equal 132,000 (literal) people: the total number announced and the total of the tribes listed in Revelation 7. You haven't answered this. A literalistic reading of the text means you have to make 144,000 equal 132,000 (before devising an explanation as to why one tribe is missing). Step back a moment and try to consider why this might invite ridicule. Which is more likely, that God made two numbers that aren't equal equal, or that we should quite legitimately be reading this another way?

Secondly, I don't object to your literalism so much as I object to your constantly slippery definition of terms to suit your position, which is anything but literal (in the sense of "A" always means "A").

You have constantly tried to make "Rapture" mean both 'believers going to be with the Lord' at the end of the age (and deriding the rest of us for not believing that if we say we disagree with you about the rapture) and 'the entire end-time process involving a two-stage return of Christ, once to snatch away believers leaving others behind, and once after an extended period of tribulation to judge everyone else (except for those "saved" by some undefined process) in the meantime' (which everyone else here does seem to disagree with).

This is either confused or deliberately disingenuous, which is why I have spent pages trying to pin you down on it.

You are now attempting to do the same sort of thing with "literal" and "apocalyptic"; these are red herrings in my view.

As regards "literal", I'm with Nick and Steve that taking the text seriously involves taking due consideration of its style and integrity. We don't have to agree on what "inspiration" or any of the other related DH words mean to agree that Matthew was written by someone different to Revelation and in distinctly different styles, and that Daniel was written by someone different again in an entirely different era and language.

Indeed, as far as I'm concerned this diversity is one of the most persuasive arguments for the truth conveyed by the whole of Scripture.

That is why my big objection to your hermeneutic is its need to splice texts into one another without any regard for this context, producing theories that are a) more complicated than the text they seek to explain b) require still more complicated speculation to resolve the further problems they throw up (e.g. the salvation procedures applying to those "saved" after the return of Christ).

[ 10. December 2016, 07:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's like watching someone in the hypnagogic state where rationality is declining with exhaustion whilst futilely trying to integrate the chaotic complexity of overwhelming dreams.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@Eutychus
Apologies if you feel derided. No offence is intended. In my Bible there are 12 tribes mentioned which suggests 144 k so I don't see anything to answer. Dan is missing as is Ephraim but Joseph is given a tribe as is Manessah. The tribes mentioned are:
Judah,Reuben,Gad,Asher,Naphtali,Manessah,Simeon,Levi,
Issachar,Zebulun Benjamin and Joseph.
It seems the Holy Spirit is more interested in the number than the names but there are 12 there in my NASB. What version are you using?
Unsure about what you mean by the rest of this. I believe in a rapture of the church, I think that it is scripturally based. I have no idea when it will be and yes some people will be left on the earth afterwards. Whatever issues you see with that are not things that greatly concern me or perhaps I do not understand what those issues are and if they should concern me.
My last post was directed at Gamaliel really as well as Nick as I am unsure there is a clear dichotomy as suggested between my reading which tends to the literal and Gamaliel's whose view I am not sure of, but he seems to be saying this is apocalyptic and therefore you can' t take a straightforward reading. I would like to clarify what exactly is meant when he uses the term apocalyptic. ISTM to suggest we can pick and choose what we can take and what we can leave.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's like watching someone in the hypnagogic state where rationality is declining with exhaustion whilst futilely trying to integrate the chaotic complexity of overwhelming dreams.

Glad to be of service Martin. This all reminds me of how one can be so convinced one is right that a contrary view must be irrational. There can be no other explanation. 😬

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In my Bible there are 12 tribes mentioned which suggests 144 k so I don't see anything to answer.

Apologies, my assertion that the numbers cited add up to 132k is plain wrong (I was looking at this in the middle of a bible study arguing about why Ephraim and Manasseh are appropriated by Jacob as his own sons in Gen 48:5-6, and must have missed one out in my distraction).

However the basic maths problem if you take this "literally" is still there: since Manasseh is actually half of Joseph, some people are being counted twice, while Dan is apparently not counted at all (making, on the face of it, 138k people, 6k counted twice...).

All of this suggests to me that we shouldn't be taking either the exact numbers or the names literally, a suggestion further reinforced by the likelihood (in my view) that this bunch of people whose "number" and "names" John "hears" he then goes on to "see" in the next verses (Rev 7:9ff) a great multitude of every nation tribe and tongue; I think these are the same people i.e. the entire people of God.

Set aside your dispensationalism for a moment and tell me what's wrong with that approach.

quote:
Unsure about what you mean by the rest of this. I believe in a rapture of the church, I think that it is scripturally based

If by 'rapture' you mean "believers will go to be with the Lord" then I think we're all basically agreed here.

But if by 'rapture' you mean something including far more detailed, specifically including the notion that some will be left behind for an extended period, to be followed by a "second second coming" of Christ in judgement, then everyone else here disagrees.

In my case, not first and foremost because of your "literalism", but because of the "pick'n'mix" approach to Scripture this requires, notably plucking a piece out of Matthew to explain a text in 1 Thessalonians.

quote:
Whatever issues you see with that are not things that greatly concern me or perhaps I do not understand what those issues are and if they should concern me.

I can see that they don't concern you if you feel you are part of the Church and thus as sure as you can be of being raptured; who cares what happens after that?

But I think they should concern you:

- firstly, because as I have already said, the fruit of that particular dispensational view is in my experience not consistent with what I expect the fruit of good doctrine to look like, notably in the fear it engenders

- secondly, because this hermeneutic is far too dependent on authorities other than Scripture, so you are reading Scripture through the lens of a single hermeneutical system, which to me seems dangerous and in effect accepting a higher authority than Scripture itself (indeed, I well remember one chap who seemed to believe the notes in the Scofield Bible were as inspired, or as nearly so, as the text itself)

- thirdly, because this approach does not respect the integrity of the text for reasons already stated

- fourthly, because it creates considerable theological innovation. You dismiss the thorny issue of how one can be saved after the rapture on the basis that it doesn't concern you personally, but it calls into question a lot of broadly accepted understanding of salvation. In addition, history tends to suggest that innovative theology is bad theology.

quote:
Gamaliel's whose view I am not sure of, but he seems to be saying this is apocalyptic and therefore you can' t take a straightforward reading. I would like to clarify what exactly is meant when he uses the term apocalyptic. ISTM to suggest we can pick and choose what we can take and what we can leave.

It would be better to try and clarify what exactly is meant by "straightforward". I don't think your reading is straightforward at all.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
You have constantly tried to make "Rapture" mean both 'believers going to be with the Lord' at the end of the age (and deriding the rest of us for not believing that if we say we disagree with you about the rapture) and 'the entire end-time process involving a two-stage return of Christ, once to snatch away believers leaving others behind, and once after an extended period of tribulation to judge everyone else (except for those "saved" by some undefined process) in the meantime' (which everyone else here does seem to disagree with). I'm

This is either confused or deliberately disingenuous, which is why I have spent pages trying to pin you down on it.

As regards "literal", I'm with Nick and Steve that taking the text seriously involves taking due consideration of its style and integrity.

That is why my big objection to your hermeneutic is its need to splice texts into one another without any regard for this context..

Well I think I am guilty as charged on the two stage parousia but I think the rapture and the second coming are certainly separated by time but of course how much time I don't know. Fruchtenbaum whom I respect thinks that there is no way of knowing this as the rapture is not tied to anything that needs to happen first which is why we look to the coming of the Lord not in judgement but for his saints. As Corinthians says we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed at the last trump etc.

I do not agree with you that context is violated by the way, I'd like to see an example of how if that is the case. The two stage parousia makes sense of the doctrine of imminence as it is pretty obvious that the second coming itself i.e. The second stage of the second coming cannot be imminent. There has to be an Armageddon scenario in play which is nowhere in sight but of course that is more possible than it was a hundred years ago with a Jewish nation now extant. We have no antichrist and I dare to say the last week of Daniel has not begun but none of this affects the rapture.

While some futurists consider the rapture as it's beginning, the only scriptural indication of this (the beginning of Daniels seventieth week) is a contract made between the man of sin and Israel. The church could be raptured before that happens.

Regarding how scripture should be read in the light of its genre and style, I completely agree. Please show me how I am not doing that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
fourthly, because it creates considerable theological innovation. You dismiss the thorny issue of how one can be saved after the rapture on the basis that it doesn't concern you personally, but it calls into question a lot of broadly accepted understanding of salvation. In addition, history tends to suggest that innovative theology is bad theology

I actually thought I explained what I thought about this. If you take 1thes 4 as a rapture reference and see the 'Peri de' at the start of 1thes 5 as a contrastive, "Now concerning.." then he changes subject and moves into discussing the day of the Lord. That always refers to a time of tribulation or judgement. Paul is saying that day has not occurred nor yet will it till the man of sin is revealed. Scholars are divided on the nature of the restrainer mentioned here but many think it is the Holy Spirit in the true church that currently restrains evil from overpowering mankind which will be absent after the rapture as all true believers he I dwells will be gone.

Anyhow this all suggests that after the rapture of the church, a time of judgement ensues. During that time, there will still be preaching of the gospel. I do not see as Mudfrog suggested any other covenant. The gospel as Paul says in Romans is the power of God for salvation to all that believe. What changes is the consequences of conversion and its cost to the convert. This convert cannot take the mark if the beast and if he does he cannot be saved. In Revelation 6 we see the sealing of the bond servants of the Lord. It is obvious that God still will harvest a people from the earth at this time. There is specific mention in Revelation of the ones who came out of the great tribulation.

This does not seem to me innovative theology in fact lots of Christians see this as standard fare.

Your other point about the fear engendered by this belief and the fact that it is a single hermeneutic may well be true. I tend to think anyone who reads Revelation comes away with a bit of trepidation whatever ones hermeneutic. I do not think there is a way to read it as comforting. The only positive is that God wins. It is interesting that from from the start of chapter 4 to the marriage supper, 16 or so chapters, the church is not mentioned at all.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It won't be oneirically, irrationally, irreconcilably complicated. Irrational is as irrational is.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I think I am guilty as charged on the two stage parousia

Okay, well then can we agree that the topic of this thread, as outlined in the OP, is best referred to as the "two stage parousia"?

quote:
but I think the rapture and the second coming are certainly separated by time

And this is the contentious part of that.

quote:
we look to the coming of the Lord not in judgement but for his saints

I think we can agree that there is a tension in Scripture between the idea that the Lord can come for his saints at any time (cf the parable of the wise and foolish virgins) and the idea that a number of precursory and catastrophic events precede the end of the age (cf Matthew 24).

The question is whether we simply live with the paradox or try and resolve it.

I'm increasingly inclined to live with the paradox:

a) because I think I'm more likely to die than be raptured (possibly influenced by the oddly aptly-named Doomsday argument that states "supposing that all humans are born in a random order, chances are that any one human is born roughly in the middle")

b) because the practical outworking, "be prepared to meet the Lord at any time" [whether through death or being raptured], is the same either way

c) because the attempts to resolve the paradox are so unhelpful to any useful progress in the faith.

Attempting to resolve the paradox by splitting the parousia into two temporally distinct events creates more problems than it solves. This is evidenced by the fact that even dispensationalists cannot agree on whether the first stage takes place before or in the middle of the tribulation. If this really was a neat explanation that point should be unequivocally clear.

quote:
I do not agree with you that context is violated by the way, I'd like to see an example of how if that is the case.

I don't think there's anything in 1 Thessalonians that suggests a time gap between chapters 4 and 5. I don't think you'd spontaneously come up with that idea on the basis of the text alone. You yourself admit you are making the assumption

quote:
If you take 1thes 4 as a rapture reference

- by which I take you to mean the "first stage". You have imported a concept from outside this passage to impose a sense on it that isn't there. "Peri de", as far as I can see, refers to the issue of "times and dates" (NIV "now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you"), and not to a temporally distinct "second stage".

There is no reason that I can see in the text why the "coming of the Lord" in 1 Thes 4:5 should be at a different time to the "day of the Lord" in 5:2.

Indeed, the following exhortation "you, brothers, are not in darkeness so that this day should surprise you like a thief" (5:4) makes sense only if the brothers are still around, "alert and self-controlled" (5:6), in contrast to the non-believers who will be surprised.

You have interjected the idea of some being taken and others left from Matthew 24. But as has been pointed out, in Matthew those "taken" are taken in judgement, and there is no clear indication as to whether this "taking" is literal or figurative.

So this is a twofold violation of context. Firstly, you are taking the concept in Matthew against its use in Matthew. And secondly, you are violating the context of 1 Thes 4 and 5 by arbitrarily making a temporal distinction between the chapters on the mistaken grounds of Matthew 24.

quote:
We have no antichrist and I dare to say the last week of Daniel has not begun but none of this affects the rapture.

Similarly, I may be a bit hazy on this, but as I recall dispensationalism requires a "parenthesis" between the 69th and 70th "weeks" of Daniel - one that spans the entire church age. Again, this appears to be a wholly unjustified violation of the text - and one that in passing manages to turn the entire thrust of the NT, in which Christ emerges as the definitive revelation of God's New Covenant for all people everywhere, neither Jew nor Greek, forming his Church, into a footnote in some grander scheme for Israel.

This is the sort of thing I mean by "creating more problems than it solves".

As is this:

quote:
During that time, there will still be preaching of the gospel. I do not see as Mudfrog suggested any other covenant. The gospel as Paul says in Romans is the power of God for salvation to all that believe. What changes is the consequences of conversion and its cost to the convert.

Here you said (emphasis mine)

quote:
...there is a sharp distinction between saved and lost. Jesus goes on to the story of the wise and foolish virgins which has a similar theme. There, the wise are taken in to the wedding, the others shut out (...) Once the harpazo occurs, there is no way to reopen that door so be ready, have the oil in your lamp.

I simply cannot square your understanding of this parable, which I broadly share, with what your statements above.

If, once the first stage of the parousia has happened and "there is no way to reopen that door", how can there still be room for preaching of the gospel and conversions? If this is the same gospel that is "the power of salvation for all who believe", how on earth can the consequences be different? And if this salvation is by grace through faith, how on earth can the "cost" be different?

These problems cannot be simply waved away. The contradictions here are huge and the implications immense.

quote:
This does not seem to me innovative theology in fact lots of Christians see this as standard fare.

The fact that lots of Christians see it as standard fare does not mean it is not innovative. You have failed to come up with any evidence of a two-step parousia that pre-dates the 19th century.

Saying "the apostles might have believed it" a) does not count b) is not supported by a single thing they wrote (only, very marginally, by an imaginative cross-stitch of different things different apostles wrote in different contexts).

quote:
Your other point about the fear engendered by this belief and the fact that it is a single hermeneutic may well be true.

These are two points and the second one (a single hermeneutic) is the more serious challenge of the two in my view. You have not addressed it. As to the first...

quote:
I tend to think anyone who reads Revelation comes away with a bit of trepidation whatever ones hermeneutic.

Trepidation certainly. The eschaton is no laughing matter. But that is not the same as the relentless fear perpetrated by the likes of Jack Chick, apparently in an attempt to scare people into the Kingdom, squarely on the basis of a two-step parousia.

quote:
I do not think there is a way to read it as comforting.

I submit that this is the result of your hermeneutic, not the text. I used to think that way, but I don't any more.

As I said before, "blessed are..." occurs seven times in Revelation. "Cursed are" occurs only four. There are songs of worship on almost every page. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

As I say, I teach fairly regularly on this message of encouragement from Revelation. The people who show up hoping for cheap thrills and "delicious terror" tend to go away disappointed. It's a terrible indictment on the hermeneutic they've swallowed.

quote:
The only positive is that God wins.

What could be better than that?? Talk about being "glass half empty..."

quote:
It is interesting that from from the start of chapter 4 to the marriage supper, 16 or so chapters, the church is not mentioned at all.

That's what you think. As far as I'm concerned the following refer, in some measure, to the church universal: chapters 7 (the crowd whose number is "heard" and "seen"); 11 (the two witnesses I believe to represent the Church as a whole); 12 (the woman, who represents both Israel, "the stock from whence Christ came" and the Church which is protected in the desert throughout the present age and against whom the dragon makes war); 14:1 (the 144k again).

[ 10. December 2016, 13:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My case rests.

This is raving hypnagogia.

Like having to medicate my 86 year old Mum (thank GOD I've got all powers of attorney) who reads every label, every word on every package, all the arse covering crap on the leaflets inside detailing every possible side effect and tells you why you and the doctor are wrong. She tells the doctors to their faces. The best one is that she never forgets that Simvastatin kills your memory because the Daily Telegraph said. And forgets not to take it half the time. Her understanding of her finances is even more incoherent, she reads every word out loud and understands none of it but believes she understands all of it.

Bless.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

All I am saying, Jamat, is that we need to understand the genre in order to understand the message.

Which is pretty much the same point that Steve Langton and others have been making.

And yes, I think his Tyndale quote is well-chosen and apposite. As Steve also points out, Tyndale's view was also shared by others at that time, and previously.

So no, I'm not arguing against a 'literal' or straight-forward understanding of the text in the sense that Tyndale would have understood 'literal' - I'm certainly not calling for a return to the medieval habit of allegorising anything and everything.

No, but it's pretty obvious from the context that what we are dealing with in Revelation is apocalyptic literature - and that needs to be borne in mind when we approach it.

Which is precisely the reason why the Eastern Churches were the last to accept Revelation into the canon of the NT and why, to this day, the Book of Revelations isn't read liturgically in Orthodox Church services. They've got it in their Bible, though, of course.

Their reasons for that is because they knew darn well that people would concoct all sorts of flakey theories and indulge in fruitless end-times speculation based on their personal interpretations. Why? Because these people weren't necessarily reading it as apocalyptic literature and were failing to take into account the checks and balances required when dealing with this genre.

If you want to know my view, Jamat, it's that the Book of Revelation does what it says on the tin. It bills itself as a 'revelation of Jesus Christ', so it's what it tells us of our Lord Jesus Christ that is of prime importance.

What does it tell us?

All sorts of wonderful things. It tells us of his glorious rule and the prospect of its ultimate fulfilment. That's good news by any stretch of the imagination, particularly if you were a beleaguered and persecuted church in the late 1st century.

It does so in visionary and apocalyptic language - it's full of symbols and analogies. Which is why it's a mistake to treat it as some kind of literal, linear account.

I see nothing in the text, for instance, to lead us to conclude that the Letters to the Seven Churches should be understood in a futurist sense. Why should they be?

And if they were, how are we expected to know which 'age' we are supposed to be in?

It makes no sense whatsoever to approach Revelation like that.

The early Church knew that, which is why there was so much deliberation and delay in it being fully accepted into the canon. Indeed, the Book of Revelation was the last NT book to be universally accepted as canonical across the churches as a whole.

So, that's what I'm saying - I'm saying that to understand Revelation in an overly literal sense - a 'literalist' sense if you like - as in expecting to physically see an angel astride the sea and land blowing a trumpet or actual monsters with many heads and stings and so on - is to make a category error. It is to misunderstand the style in which it was written and to focus on the detail rather than on the overall message - which is essentially that Jesus is Lord and that he is in control.

That isn't to dismiss Revelation or consign it to the drawer marked, 'Difficult to undertand'. Rather it is to engage with it in a healthier and more fruitful way than to pore over its apocalyptic symbols seeking to apply them to whatever happens to be going on around us at the time.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gamaliel wrote:

quote:
Which is precisely the reason why the Eastern Churches were the last to accept Revelation into the canon of the NT and why, to this day, the Book of Revelations isn't read liturgically in Orthodox Church services. They've got it in their Bible, though, of course.

Which makes name and especially the coat of arms of the city of Archangel somewhat odd, since I would have to assume there was a lot of Orthodox influence up there.

[ 10. December 2016, 18:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Why is that odd, Stetson?

The Orthodox don't read Revelation liturgically in their services. That doesn't mean they never refer to it. There's an Orthodox shrine on the site where tradition holds that John received his visions on the Isle of Patmos.

Besides, Revelation finally became part of the NT canon among the Eastern Churches in the 5th century I think, which was a long time before Christianity in its Orthodox form reached Archangel.

I've seen imagery from Revelation in some Orthodox iconography I think.

But the point I'm trying to make is that the Church tended to treat Revelation very carefully in the first few centuries because they knew darn well that people would derive whacky ideas from it.

Of course, there was Millenarian panic across the Christian world around 1,000 AD because people thought it was the end of the world - obviously basing this on the millennial imagery in Revelation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gamaliel wrote:

quote:
Which is precisely the reason why the Eastern Churches were the last to accept Revelation into the canon of the NT and why, to this day, the Book of Revelations isn't read liturgically in Orthodox Church services. They've got it in their Bible, though, of course.

Which makes name and especially the coat of arms of the city of Archangel somewhat odd, since I would have to assume there was a lot of Orthodox influence up there.

Maybe I'm ignorant here, but does the word "archangel" only occur in the Revelation?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@Eutychus

The paradox of Jesus coming in 2 modes, for his saints and in judgement becomes a contradiction if it is not resolvable.

The issues of context you raised are in fact about hermeneutics. Context is not violated by linking the, Matt 24, 1thes 4 and 1 Corinthians:15,51 This is normal exegetical practice. I see Matt 24 in the one taken other left as the one gone as raptured. This fits with the parable following and with the point Jesus is making, sudden change, your interpretation differs but there is no context violation.

In 1thes 4 and 5, I showed that the Greek phrase Peri de allows for a change of subject as it does in Matt 24:36. There is no context violation,just the fact that in English,the change is not obvious.

Seeing Daniel's70 weeks as divided in time is an interpretive issue, again not about context at all. There are several other eggs of this in scripture most notably when Jesus reads in the synagogue Luke 4:18,19 and stops at a comma. In doing this he breaks with Jewish practice. He quotes from Is. "the spirit of the Lord is upon me ....to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" He does not add and the day of vengeance as that isn't yet at hand but there is a deliberate hiatus. Similarly in Dan 9. After 69 weeks the messiah is cut off and has nothing i.e. No kingdom. At that point God's purpose for Israel stopped, they had rejected him. The Lord as Paul so clearly taught operated through the church whereas before it was exclusively via nationalIsrael.
All of this is to show that no context is violated. Only an interpretation applied.

Finally you say imposing an idea on the text is wrong. But this is hermeneutics I think. You are merely making a choice here about which idea is imposed.

Finally finally, there are certainly people mentioned as saved between Revelation 4 and the marriage supper but I think that an appeal to context would say these are not the church as we know it. The 144k are Jewish evangelists. Again it is hermeneutical. In my thinking the church age is finished with the rapture. I do not have a category for tribulation saints but would say they are not part of the church which is the bride of Christ formed in this age or epoch.

[ 11. December 2016, 00:07: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The paradox of Jesus coming in 2 modes, for his saints and in judgement becomes a contradiction if it is not resolvable.

I think this is probably where we part company. Most bad theology/heresy emerges in an attempt to fully resolve paradoxes by reducing them to humanly explicable constructs. There are some things we just can't fully understand.

quote:
your interpretation differs but there is no context violation.

Can you give me an example of something you think is a violation of context?

quote:
In 1thes 4 and 5, I showed that the Greek phrase Peri de allows for a change of subject as it does in Matt 24:36.

But the change of subject is not to a separate return of Christ but to "dates and times".

quote:
Seeing Daniel's70 weeks as divided in time is an interpretive issue, again not about context at all. There are several other eggs of this in scripture most notably when Jesus reads in the synagogue Luke 4:18,19 and stops at a comma.

The difference is that it's Jesus doing it. Unless you think Walvoord et al are prophets on the level of Jesus, you cannot draw this equivalence.

quote:
Finally you say imposing an idea on the text is wrong. But this is hermeneutics I think. You are merely making a choice here about which idea is imposed.

As I said before, there are hermeneutics which allow the text to speak for itself, and hermeneutics which allow themselves to be informed by complementary hermeneutics, more than others. Dispensationalism is an overarching, monolithic hermeneutic which places its structure of Scripture over and above Scripture itself.

quote:
Finally finally, there are certainly people mentioned as saved between Revelation 4 and the marriage supper but I think that an appeal to context would say these are not the church as we know it.

Only if, as your use of "between" suggests, you think Revelation proceeds in solely in successive chronological order. Why should it?

quote:
The 144k are Jewish evangelists.

Where do you get this idea from?

quote:
I do not have a category for tribulation saints

That's hardly surprising considering the need for such a category is nothing more than the product of a defective interpretive theory. This gaping hole in your explanation, in which you claim "it all goes to bed nicely", should give you more pause for thought than it does.

quote:
but would say they are not part of the church which is the bride of Christ formed in this age or epoch.

Can you not see how utterly innovative and unsupported this idea is by Scripture? What are "saints" in the Bible if not members of the church (i.e. the people of God from all ages)? Why should this word suddenly mean something different in Revelation to everywhere else in the NT? What is the "bride of Christ" if not this same "people of God"? In what way are we to understand these "saints" ['set apart'] being set apart from God if not to belong to his people? How are they saved? If it is by the same work of Christ, why are the results not the same? If it's not by the same work of Christ, how on earth are they saved? Are you really going to require your theology to include a "New New Covenant" to provide, in some inexplicable way, for these "saints"?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Can you not see how utterly innovative and unsupported this idea is by Scripture? What are "saints" in the Bible if not members of the church (i.e. the people of God from all ages)? Why should this word suddenly mean something different in Revelation to everywhere else in the NT

No the saints are not always part of the church even in the NT.
Jude 14 cites Enoch saying "I saw the Lord coming with tens of thousands of his saints"

The saints referred to here not necessarily all from the church age though they may include them of course. ISTM that the church is a specific caregory of God's people. OT believers were not members of it. I don't know why this is an issue.

Eutychus, I think this comes down to the fact that you and I simply see things very differently. We have different concerns and you obviously see issues I do not in the pre trib rapture. I think many theologians have chewed the same bones.

There was a wonderful old saint I knew who thought Darby and Schofield put the emphasis in all the wrong places. He was a 'kingdom now' chap and dedicated his life to making the church a light for the world. I went to some studies he ran.He believed that the church was the kingdom and would grow to the point that it ultimately smothered the world and Christianised it.

I would have loved to believe that but then leaders started showing their feet of clay. There was no obvious generational building. Kids from church families walked away. The world is obviously not improving or being rescued despite the great efforts.

ISTM that that model could not be right. The problem for me was his theology. I say this as I suspect though you have not said so, that yours is similar.As I said I would love if it were true but have lived long enough now to see that it will never work.

I have only been a convinced futurist for a few years and only since I discovered Robert Anderson and latterly Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Jacob Prasch, both Jewish Christian teachers. Other views do not seem to me to be able to unify the scriptures. Of course, another approach is to have a tradition that takes care of all the theology. Well as a cradle Catholic I have also been on that road. Again would love the claimed authority to be genuine but no, not for me. Anyhow, having answered your criticisms as best I can, I think I have hit the wall so that's it from me.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Have tried to catch up over the weekend on this - from the perspective of one sitting in row H eating the popcorn, a very good discussion. Thanks to all (though wondering if there is a spoiler for the sequel half-way through the credits).

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Gamaliel;

quote:
Of course, there was Millenarian panic across the Christian world around 1,000 AD because people thought it was the end of the world - obviously basing this on the millennial imagery in Revelation.

It is my understanding that the "Millenarian panic" of 1000AD has been considerably exaggerated, and a quick Google check suggests that that is currently the prevailing scholarly view - that there was no special concern just because it was the Millennium compared to constant expectation of the Second Coming over many centuries in an age of upheaval.

I also understand that for many, the Millennium had been thought to start with the "victory" of the church in the 4thC CE; and it was actually the 14thC - the 1300s - which did see Millenarian concern. And a lot of that concern was based if anything on disillusion with that manifestation of the Millennium, a dissatisfaction with the RCC which helped to fuel the Reformation via 14thC precursors like Wycliffe.

Tangent though; let's stick to our point - though Millenarian concern in either 1000 or the 1300s does show a basic view of the Millennium as "The Age of the Church" rather than an "after the Rapture" future event....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, I can see what you are getting at, Steve Langton, but my tangent formed part of a broader point about how we interpret numbers and so on in apocalyptic literature ie not in the overly literal way that the dispensationalists do.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No the saints are not always part of the church even in the NT.
Jude 14 cites Enoch saying "I saw the Lord coming with tens of thousands of his saints"

No it doesn't. According to my Greek interlinear the word is "hagiais". This is not a noun. It is an adjectival form qualifying the following noun, "muriadis". It means 'I saw the Lord coming "with his holy" myriads', not 'with "myriads of saints" (holy people)'.

quote:
ISTM that the church is a specific caregory of God's people. OT believers were not members of it. I don't know why this is an issue.

It is the issue. The issue of whether or not all are saved on the same basis into a single community of believers. This is the question with which the go-to book on dispensationalism, Daniel Fuller's Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? begins.

As far as I'm concerned, the overriding message of the New Testament is that all those who are saved (both before the time of Christ, during, and after), are saved on the same basis which is that of justification by faith. As such they become the Church universal: in the words of Hebrews 12:22-24

quote:
Mount Zion... the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem ...the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven... to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant

Israel (however defined) might have a special place in God's purposes, but I believe that along with the rest of the NT, Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that he thinks they are saved on the same basis, and into the same inheritance as the Gentiles (into the same olive tree, to use Paul's expression, not two), forming together the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16).

A crucial theme in Acts and indeed the epistles is whether Christianity is a subset of Judaism or transcends it with a Gospel in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. This Gospel is the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom Hebrews 1 presents as the culminating revelation of God "in these last days".

The Church in the sense of the body of baptised believers in the NT is simply a fuller and more clearly understood expression of something that God has been doing right from the beginning. It is the ongoing outworking of his plan to form a people for himself, a New Jerusalem in opposition to the Babel/Bablyon of human organisation without God; and it comes to a culmination with the meeting of this city/bride (Rev 21:2) with her Lord.

To me this is the resoundingly clear and easy to understand message of Scripture as a whole. What could be clearer than Galatians 3:28

quote:
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

We have huge arguments about what all the implications of that verse might be in DH, but the central message of the singleness of the body of Christ is plain. As it is in Ephesians 4:4-6

quote:
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

and in the prayer of Jesus in John 17 ("that they may be one"). I could go on.

Against this you would set a decidedly shaky translation of a single verse in Jude, hardly the easiest of books to understand, to open up the possibility not just of two covenants, old and new, but further covenants post the return of Christ for his own, and multiple categories of "saint"!

To do so involves, again, taking a complicated piece of Scripture to rule your interpretation of simpler ones, rather than the reverse, which I submit overwhelmingly presents the case for a unicity, not a plurality, of saints.

Granted I have a hermeneutic and you have a different one, but I know which one is more likely to throw up a plethora of conflicting, speculative and heretical interpretations.

quote:
There was a wonderful old saint I knew who thought Darby and Schofield put the emphasis in all the wrong places. He was a 'kingdom now' chap and dedicated his life to making the church a light for the world.

I reject "kingdom now" theology too. Just how that makes dispensationalism right is beyond me.

quote:
Other views do not seem to me to be able to unify the scriptures.

Again, why is this such a compelling necessity? And is it really "unifying the scriptures" to invent whole swathes of doctrine (not just interpretive principles) that have no firm basis in the latter?

[ 11. December 2016, 12:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gamaliel wrote:

quote:
Which is precisely the reason why the Eastern Churches were the last to accept Revelation into the canon of the NT and why, to this day, the Book of Revelations isn't read liturgically in Orthodox Church services. They've got it in their Bible, though, of course.

Which makes name and especially the coat of arms of the city of Archangel somewhat odd, since I would have to assume there was a lot of Orthodox influence up there.
Maybe I'm ignorant here, but does the word "archangel" only occur in the Revelation?

No, in fact, the word itself doesn't appear in Revelation at all(I had to check this). The only two places where it does appear are 1 Thessalonians and Jude. In Jude, the Archangel is named as being Michael, the same as the angel in Revelation, and some translations of the Thessalonians refer to "the archangel", thus suggesting there is only one.

In any case, the coat-of-arms of Archangel clearly portrays Michael fighting the dragon, a scene from Revelation.

Incidentally, that line from Thessalonians is pretty much the entire basis for the Jehovah's Witness claim that Jesus is really just an avatar of Michael The Archangel. since how could Jesus have the voice of THE archangel, if there was more than one?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, we all have a favoured hermeneutic and we all have tradition - small t or Big T.

I submit that in exchanging the Big T Tradition of his RC upbringing for the small t tradition of conservative evangelicalism, Jamat has exchanged one source of infallible authority - the Papal Magisterium - for another - a conservative evangelical hermeneutic in its dispensationalist form.

As Eutychus says, dispensationalism presents an interpretative grid which is then imposed on top of the scriptures.

It is just as much a tradition as the Big T Tradition that it rejects.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Clearly the return of Jesus "for his people" and his return "in judgement" are logically distinguishable events. But the issue between interpreters like myself and the followers of Darby including later "Left Behind" advocates, is whether Scripture teaches that in practice those events take place more-or-less simultaneously - basically on the same day - or teaches that they are separated by several years of the Tribulation and other events.

As far as I can see there is no reason IN SCRIPTURE to believe in such a separation. The reason people believe it derives from the assumption made by Irving and his fellow Prophetic students that the only legitimate expectation of the Second Coming is that you must expect it to happen 'any second now'.

This in turn led them to find that there were unfulfilled prophecies with no time for them to be fulfilled before an 'any second now' Return, yet also with no appropriate place either in the period of the Judgement and Millennium after the Return. These would be events like the rule of the Man of Lawlessness, the conversion of the Jews, the return of the Jews to Israel, etc.

It was the attempt to solve this 'paradox' that led Darby and Co to espouse the idea of an intermediate period on Earth between the Second Coming 'for the Church' and the 'Day of the Lord' in judgement on unbelief, and then to gradually elaborate that idea with ideas drawn from all over the Scripture. But of course if the paradox was artificial rather than truly biblical, all the elaboration was unnecessary and would be misinterpreting Scripture rather than truly following it.

And again, as far as I can see, the paradox IS artificial. There were all manner of prophecies to be fulfilled before the Return - including the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world, which arguably had still not been fulfilled in the time of Irving and Darby; and of course Paul's specific reference to the 'Man of Lawlessness', which he clearly expected would be seen by whatever Christians were on earth when Jesus returned. Expectancy would always be for the future rather than 'any second now' while such prophecy was unfulfilled; so Irving's basic assumption that you must expect an any second now coming was always wrong.

The real alternatives were either to
1) believe that the Coming was 'not yet' because the prophecies were yet to be fulfilled; though it should be pointed out that the fulfilments could potentially happen over only a few years; or

2) believe in and be ready for a possible 'any second now' coming on the basis that while the prophecies didn't appear to have been fulfilled, you recognised that you might have misread the fulfilment in various ways.

Neither of those alternatives produces the anomaly of unfulfilled prophecy requiring a period for fulfilment after the 'Rapture' and before the return in judgement. In case 1, while remaining watchful you would go to 'Amber Alert' rather than Red while awaiting the fulfilments; in case 2, the prophecies wouldn't need to be fulfilled, the situation would be that they already had been but you had somehow misread it. And case 2 must be a somewhat qualified expectation of an instant Return, not the absolute certainty that is seen in the 'Left Behind' school....

And either of those options would be Scriptural, based on Paul's portrayal of the 'Man of Sin' prophecy in Thessalonians. Insisting on a Second Coming 'any second now' regardless of unfulfilled prophecy is clearly an unScriptural position....

We should also observe the psychology underlying the 19thC events. At that time, it seems that 'post-Millennialism' was the majority view in the Scots Presbyterian Church. That is, it was believed that the Millennium had not yet started, and that Jesus would not return till the end of the 1000 years. This of course is far from expecting an imminent return - indeed until you were sure the Millennium had started (and how would you know?), Jesus' return must be at least 1000 years off!

Irving rightly saw that the Scriptural presentation of the Second Coming didn't portray that way of looking at things; and he enthusiastically started preaching at the other extreme of an absolutely imminent Return. And, as I see it, got people so hyped up on the idea of that any second now event that they couldn't give it up when Scripture study revealed those awkward unfulfilled prophecies; they NEEDED an interpretation whereby they could still believe in the 'any minute now' Rapture while having a place for the awkward prophecies to be fulfilled.

Separating the 'Rapture/Coming for the Church' from the 'Day of the Lord/Coming in Judgement' appeared to offer that resolution, and was eagerly embraced. Yet it was always actually a false option, an artificial rather than real paradox....

THE event which shows how wrong the Irvingite interpretation was occurred in 1948. Up till then dispensationalist teaching had typically seen the recreation of a Jewish state as a consequence of the Rapture - but it happened in 1948 without the Rapture and now, the whole of my life later, we're still expecting the Rapture....

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Clearly the return of Jesus "for his people" and his return "in judgement" are logically distinguishable events.

Why? We're so used to seeing "judgment" in medieval legal terms because the people who crafted that part of our understanding of the Scriptures were medieval lawyers, or people who thought in the legal black-and-white terms that were the stock-in-trade of medieval lawyers (Aquinas, I'm looking at you). But if you look over the OT uses of "judgment" it mostly means "Make that rich guy give back what he stole from me." Which is for the saints.

[ 11. December 2016, 16:52: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Completely agreed, mt. And while we are at it, justice is about making things just, setting aright things gone wrong.

Steve Langton wrote;

quote:
THE event which shows how wrong the Irvingite interpretation was occurred in 1948. Up till then dispensationalist teaching had typically seen the recreation of a Jewish state as a consequence of the Rapture - but it happened in 1948 without the Rapture and now, the whole of my life later, we're still expecting the Rapture....

Ah - but this assumes the rapture has not already happened and you - I mean we - didn't notice it. How else do you explain Donald Trump, surely the man of lawlessness?

(Only joking...)

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

Steve Langton wrote;
quote:
THE event which shows how wrong the Irvingite interpretation was occurred in 1948. Up till then dispensationalist teaching had typically seen the recreation of a Jewish state as a consequence of the Rapture - but it happened in 1948 without the Rapture and now, the whole of my life later, we're still expecting the Rapture....
Ah - but this assumes the rapture has not already happened and you - I mean we - didn't notice it. How else do you explain Donald Trump, surely the man of lawlessness?

(Only joking...)

Well spotted, Ron! But it has been a fairly consistent part of the 'Left Behind' scenario from the beginning that the period of Tribulation etc will only be about seven years, not sixty-seven-or-eight! Also despite the constant reference to the 'Rapture' as 'Secret', even the tamest representations of it I've seen are not the kind of thing that could go that unnoticed!

Trump as the 'Man of Lawlessness' - just possibly, we'll have to see how things develop; but I think if so we're not in any version of the 'Left Behind' scenario but in Paul's depiction of the situation, with that apocalyptic figure being seen by those Christians living at the day of the Lord, before the Rapture and with no seven-year or whatever Tribulation to follow. This does make the point that the unfulfilled prophecies involved could come to pass remarkably quickly....

Here's a question - Trump... or Putin??

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Mousethief -

I take your point about how we interpret 'judgement'; in a different topic I'd probably be making a somewhat similar point myself. But in this case I'm arguing about an interpretation in which the "Second Second Coming" after the 'Tribulation' is generally depicted by its advocates as a coming in 'judgement' on unbelief as opposed to the coming that rescues the Church. I'm broadly expressing the view as it is stated by those who hold it....

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Against this you would set a decidedly shaky translation of a single verse in Jude

I completely agree that the basis of salvation is retroactive and has never altered. We look forward to the cross in the OT and back to it in the NT. this is evident in Hebrews where it states that the ones who died in the wilderness did so for their lack of faith in God's revelation.

Always, the basis is faith in God's word or the lack of it that justifies or condemns.

This however does not make all believers in all ages part of the church which is in institution created for this age alone. You have no church on the OT and you have no church AFAIK in the future Kingdom, but you do have a people of God saved on the same and only basis Christians of this age are,Christ's blood.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
You have no church in the OT and you have no church AFAIK in the future Kingdom,

I beg to very differ....

The word used for 'Church' in the NT is 'ekklesia', meaning something like the 'called-out assembly' or the congregation of God's people. And like other words we now see as primarily Christian, e.g., 'episkopos/bishop', 'ekklesia' still has a considerable secular meaning - for example in Acts 19; 32 where it is used of the 'assembly' of the Ephesian citizens....

And 'ekklesia' is also used in the OT - not in the Hebrew, of course, but in the Septuagint Greek translation. There is definitely an 'ekklesia/church' in the OT, just that before the Jew/Gentile partition is broken down by Jesus, it is an almost exclusively Jewish body.

The NT depicts the Church as continuous with the OT Jewish 'ekklesia/assembly/congregation', using the word not to distinguish the OT body from the Christian Church, but precisely to emphasise the continuity....

There is no 'Church' in the Future Kingdom because essentially the Future Kingdom IS the Church, no longer 'called out' because there is no longer a Godless 'World' to be called out of....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What was Israel then, if it wasn't the 'Church' of OT times?

Of course, prior to the Incarnation it would make little sense to speak of the Church as the Body of Christ, but although Pentecost marks the birth of the Church as we know it today, there was a continuum thing going on ...

I've seen Puritan references to 'the Old Testament Church' or Israel as a pre-Church Church as it were ...

Sure, we've got to be careful with all of that but God sees always to have been looking for a people to represent him, not just the odd individual here and there.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Against this you would set a decidedly shaky translation of a single verse in Jude
I completely agree that the basis of salvation is retroactive and has never altered. We look forward to the cross in the OT and back to it in the NT. this is evident in Hebrews where it states that the ones who died in the wilderness did so for their lack of faith in God's revelation.

Always, the basis is faith in God's word or the lack of it that justifies or condemns.

This however does not make all believers in all ages part of the church which is in institution created for this age alone. You have no church on the OT and you have no church AFAIK in the future Kingdom, but you do have a people of God saved on the same and only basis Christians of this age are,Christ's blood.

That is either complete ignorance or denial. Which?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This however does not make all believers in all ages part of the church which is in institution created for this age alone.

In addition to what Steve Langton and Gamaliel said...

The church is not depicted in Scripture as an institution. The biblical image that springs most readily to mind is that of the "bride of Christ", right up there with the "city of God"; as I said, both are identified as the same entity in Revelation 21.

Do you really think all the teaching on this "bride" and the "body of Christ" and all the comfort promised to her in Revelation in particular apply solely to an institution composed of a particular category of believers amongst a larger whole, all saved on the same basis but somehow not with the same inheritance?

The "city of God", the Church universal, the entity described in that chunk of Hebrews 12 I quoted, has been God's plan all along. The culmination of Revelation points to this and this only.

Are you seriously proposing to "add to the words of (that) book" by coming up with other categories of believer - in particular, after the culminating point at which the Lord has returned for his bride (and "the door cannot be opened again" remember?) - just because your theory (in which "it all goes to bed nicely", remember?) requires them to be assumed into existence in order to tie up its loose ends? If you are, how on earth do you explain these and similar passages that I referred to?

[ 12. December 2016, 20:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Martin, call it both, define it how you like.

There is a people of God in every age obviously. If you see it as ekklesia, surely you have to distinguish the entity instituted by the saviour himself otherwise you are confusing the church with the Jews. If you say Israel is the church, this is replacement theology. What about the many promises to Israel Are they now for the church? A cornerstone of dispensationalism is the separation of these two.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
If you say Israel is the church, this is replacement theology.

No, because the Church does NOT replace Israel; the Church is in continuity with Israel, with the Jew/Gentile barrier broken down. In effect, Gentiles who put trust in Jesus become part of the one 'ekklesia' going back to the OT, joining with faithful Jews; Jews who reject Jesus also reject their place in the covenant and in the ekklesia.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jamat;

quote:
If you say Israel is the church, this is replacement theology.
No, because the Church does NOT replace Israel; the Church is in continuity with Israel, with the Jew/Gentile barrier broken down. In effect, Gentiles who put trust in Jesus become part of the one 'ekklesia' going back to the OT, joining with faithful Jews; Jews who reject Jesus also reject their place in the covenant and in the ekklesia.

This only works after the cross but what about all the prophecies to Israel before it? I think you tie tourself in knots if you start applying OT prophesies to the NT church

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you say Israel is the church, this is replacement theology. What about the many promises to Israel Are they now for the church? A cornerstone of dispensationalism is the separation of these two.

Yes it is, and here we are veering into territory (ha ha) already covered at length by us all here.

While agreeing with Steve, I think this is a genuine problem that dispensationalism seeks to address. The starting point for Daniel Fuller's book mentioned above was when a young John Piper in his class asked him whether, when God said to Moses "the man who does these things shall live by them", he really meant it or not. In other words, was the Old Covenant a valid path to salvation?

There are also all the promises about the Land and so on which I can understand you thinking "Replacement Theology" (or better, "Church-and-Israel-as-continuum") do not address.

Without going over all the same ground as the other thread, my pragmatic answer - in addition to the overwhelming case as I see it for the NT teaching us that the Church is THE people of God as a whole - is that the theological damage done by the dispensationalist solution is far, far worse than that inflicted by seeing the Land promises as having a non-material, spiritual fulfilment in the "continuum".

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
If you see it as ekklesia, surely you have to distinguish the entity instituted by the saviour himself otherwise you are confusing the church with the Jews.

"Ekklesia" simply IS the Greek word translating in the LXX various references to Israel as the assembly or congregation of God's people. And the NT uses that word of the people of Christ. I repeat, it is not that we 'confuse' the Church with the Jews; the two are a continuum, in very real continuity one with the other. Remember that in the NT era the Church had a massive ethnic Jewish membership, including the Apostles; and did not see the contrast in the same way or from the same angle/viewpoint that we see it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Why shouldn't we apply OT prophecies to the Church? That happens in the Gospels, Acts and the NT epistles all the time.

Putting it crudely, the early Christians 'christianised' the Old Testament.

These things were a shadow of what was to come, they wrote, the reality is found in Christ.

The real tying up in knots happens when you use both the Old and New Testaments as a proof-text mine for eschatological speculation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin, call it both, define it how you like.

There is a people of God in every age obviously. If you see it as ekklesia, surely you have to distinguish the entity instituted by the saviour himself otherwise you are confusing the church with the Jews. If you say Israel is the church, this is replacement theology. What about the many promises to Israel Are they now for the church? A cornerstone of dispensationalism is the separation of these two.

Wow. So you're right and Luke is wrong. Awesome.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Consider I Peter 2; 9-10

quote:
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Here Peter applies very emphatically to 'The Church', Christians, a whole string of OT passages describing (originally) Israel. The passages are

Deut 10; 15

quote:
15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.

Deut 7; 6

quote:
6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Exodus 19; 5-6

quote:
5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

Isaiah 42; 16

quote:
16 I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth.

Hosea 1; 10

quote:
10 "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Hosea 2; 23

quote:
23 I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called 'Not my loved one. ' I will say to those called 'Not my people, ' 'You are my people'; and they will say, 'You are my God.'"

Now is Peter “Confusing the Church with Israel”? Or does he know what he is talking about in applying these passages rather emphatically to the Church??

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
is that the theological damage done by the dispensationalist solution is far

I'd really like to understand what theological damage you mean as I'd suggest it comes down merely to a matter of opinion.

It is OK to criticise dispensationalism but I like you to explain exactly what your overall hermeneutic is. I wonder if you could just state in what school of prophecy, if you like you pigeonhole yourself.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin, call it both, define it how you like.

There is a people of God in every age obviously. If you see it as ekklesia, surely you have to distinguish the entity instituted by the saviour himself otherwise you are confusing the church with the Jews. If you say Israel is the church, this is replacement theology. What about the many promises to Israel Are they now for the church? A cornerstone of dispensationalism is the separation of these two.
Wow. So you're right and Luke is wrong. Awesome.

Please explain Martin.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Consider I Peter 2; 9-10

quote:
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Here Peter applies very emphatically to 'The Church', Christians, a whole string of OT passages describing (originally) Israel. The passages are

Deut 10; 15

quote:
15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.
Deut 7; 6

quote:
6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
Exodus 19; 5-6

quote:
5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'
Isaiah 42; 16

quote:
16 I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth.
Hosea 1; 10

quote:
10 "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'
Hosea 2; 23

quote:
23 I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called 'Not my loved one. ' I will say to those called 'Not my people, ' 'You are my people'; and they will say, 'You are my God.'"
Now is Peter “Confusing the Church with Israel”? Or does he know what he is talking about in applying these passages rather emphatically to the Church??

I am not denying the spiritual inheritance, OR the fact that God has his people and In the OT they were natural Israel. The church has a spiritual inheritance but it is JUST that. When it comes down to the physical inheritance this is natural Israel's. The church is a bit different. Eph 1 speaks of the church having spiritual blessings in the heavenlies. Natural Israel still has the promise of the real estate. Peter as apostle to the Jews was actually addressing himself to Jewish Christians anyway though I do not deny that this letter applies to the church in general but the early church at the time of his writing was still mainly Jewish.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why shouldn't we apply OT prophecies to the Church? That happens in the Gospels, Acts and the NT epistles all the time.

Putting it crudely, the early Christians 'christianised' the Old Testament.

These things were a shadow of what was to come, they wrote, the reality is found in Christ.

The real tying up in knots happens when you use both the Old and New Testaments as a proof-text mine for eschatological speculation.

You can but take say, the injunctions vs idolatry. Our idols are different so we can get the message but acknowledge a local application. You know it is not that hard. When, however, it comes to land and future kingdom promises, it is a bit more difficult. Even in Jesus' words when he said for instance "when you did it to these my brethren you did it to me", what does he mean? ISTM he is referring to the Jews here.

When the angel Gabriel says to Daniel 70 weeks are determined upon your people etc in Dan 9, he clearly means natural Israel. You could never apply that to the NT church. It is that understanding that supports the idea of a time clock for the Jews that stopped after week 69 or after the crucifixion and will restart when the Anti Christ makes a covenant with natural Israel. This is why some are so excited about natural Israel, not that they are in themselves good but it is obvious that the 70th week is being set up in history.

Gamaliel, I think you are wrong about eschatological speculation. If it is not justified and confirmed in scripture, THEN it is speculation. If you think the dispensational view is speculative, you are mistaken. It can justify pretty well every idea with chapter and verse. Can your eschatology do this?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
is that the theological damage done by the dispensationalist solution is far
I'd really like to understand what theological damage you mean as I'd suggest it comes down merely to a matter of opinion.

I don't have much time right now, but I would say that the biggest piece of damage is the envisaging of multiple categories of inheritance for those saved on the same basis; overturning the idea that God throughout history is making for himself a single people making up his bride/city.

(Specifically including the idea that one can be saved after the return of the Lord for his own).

quote:
It is OK to criticise dispensationalism but I like you to explain exactly what your overall hermeneutic is. I wonder if you could just state in what school of prophecy, if you like you pigeonhole yourself.

I didn't read anywhere that one had to subscribe to a particular school. As far as eschatology goes I am basically a panmillenialist by which I mean I believe it will all pan out in the end. What we're doing on this thread is looking at the system that involves a two-step parousia, not comparing all the hermeneutics that don't.

My overarching hermeneutic, which suffices to lead me to very different understandings to yours, is, basically:

- to let the NT explain the OT
- to interpret hard-to-understand passages in the light of easy-to-understand ones
- to take account of the literary genre of the passage in question

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Even in Jesus' words when he said for instance "when you did it to these my brethren you did it to me", what does he mean? ISTM he is referring to the Jews here.

Oh and here's another piece of damage: excising all what Martin would call the "incarnational" bits of the NT and saying they applied to the Jews, not to us. Or put more broadly, we can ignore bits of what Jesus said at our discretion (which is precisely what the JWs do with their "earthly hope" and their "heavenly hope").

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
My overarching hermeneutic, which suffices to lead me to very different understandings to yours, is, basically:

- to let the NT explain the OT
- to interpret hard-to-understand passages in the light of easy-to-understand ones
- to take account of the literary genre of the passage in question

I do not quarrel with any of that. Nor would most dispensationalists. We may argue the toss over what is easy to understand I suppose. We may also argue HOW the NT explains the old, but no problem otherwise.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The reference passage for dispensationalists when it comes to interpreting world history is Daniel. The NT timeline is interpreted through that lens.

You are also letting all the OT prophecies about the Land take precedence over the message of the NT about a single people of God with the same inheritance.

[ 13. December 2016, 07:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, Jamat, thee and me have a somewhat different expectation in terms of what we anticipate scripture to tell us about these issues.

I am not operating with an eschatological schema that has to be neatly 'put to bed' nor one where I have to fit it all together like a jigsaw.

Why should it work that way?

Equally, I don't see any he need to belong to any particular 'school' of prophetic interpretation.

That is not a paradigm I use these days.

The issue here is one of treating apocalyptic passages of scripture, such as Daniel and the Book of Revelation, in an overly literal and futurist sense.

If I 'side' with anyone it's with the 'grand tradition' we find in common across the historic Churches and which, in this particular aspect, was also inherited by the Reformers.

It's only when we get to 19th century revivalists and millenarians that we find dispensationalism creeping in.

I'm with Eutychus in the belief that dispensationalism isn't simply a matter of opinion but something that is quite harmful as it fillets everything up in an unhelpful way, fuels unhealthy speculation and can lead to an other-worldly focus that is too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good.

Sure, it's not the only system that does that and there are worse things out there, but in essence I believe dispensationalism to be based on a flawed and faulty hermeneutic that creates more exegetical problems than it apparently resolves.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So you're right and Luke is wrong. Awesome.

Host hat on

This is a personal attack, which is a C3 violation. Stop it.

Host hat off

Moo

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The reference passage for dispensationalists when it comes to interpreting world history is Daniel. The NT timeline is interpreted through that lens.

You are also letting all the OT prophecies about the Land take precedence over the message of the NT about a single people of God with the same inheritance.

No, pretty well all the pundits I've heard,begin with the Olivet discourse.
No conflict is seen between OT and NT. It is certainly true that God will have a unified people in that they are all saved by the cross. However, they are categorised differently within that broad frame. There is the bride but there are also the wedding guests. When Jesus rose some OT saints were seen in the streets of Jerusalem. They were obviously not the 'church' were they? Daniel it is said will 'stand in his lot at the end of days', that 'lot is not the church obviously. Even in the epistles of Paul there is division within the church between gentiles saints and Jewish when in Gal6:16 he refers to the Israel of God meaning Jewish as opposed to Gentile Christians. Both groups are one on Christ, certainly, but there is still a distinction.

[ 13. December 2016, 15:52: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
it's not the only system that does that and there are worse things out there, but in essence I believe dispensationalism to be based on a flawed and faulty hermeneutic that creates more exegetical problems than it apparently resolves

So demonstrate how it is flawed. Show an alternative way of reading scripture consistently. Tell me another way that scripture answers the big questions about God's purpose in human history. Don't just shrug and say that is 'apocalyptic' or this is all already historically fulfilled. what terrible problems of exegesis do you see that cannot be resolved? Are they actually problems of exegesis or problems created by world view or assumptions brought to it. The biggest objection so far seems to be that it creates fear. Is that your view?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
pretty well all the pundits I've heard,begin with the Olivet discourse.

They might start there in terms of introducing the concept, but they are going try and fit it into the chronology of Daniel.

quote:
However, they are categorised differently within that broad frame.

This is the kind of thing I mean by running counter to the whole thrust of the NT which is about one body. You have not said how you account for any of the wealth of verses supplied above that point to this.

quote:
There is the bride but there are also the wedding guests.

In the parables yes but in Revelation no. Seeking doctrinal substance in every detail of parables is a hermeneutic option which leads to endless options, endless speculation, and endless confusion.

quote:
When Jesus rose some OT saints were seen in the streets of Jerusalem. They were obviously not the 'church' were they?

Why "obviously" and why "not"? They are part of the body of Christ i.e. the Church universal that spans the ages.

quote:
Daniel it is said will 'stand in his lot at the end of days', that 'lot is not the church obviously

Why is this obvious?

quote:
Even in the epistles of Paul there is division within the church between gentiles saints and Jewish

Do you seriously think the epistles present this as normative or desirable? I seem to remember something about Christ breaking down the wall of separation in Ephesians, and Galatians is all about not falling prey to Judaisers.

quote:
when in Gal6:16 he refers to the Israel of God meaning Jewish as opposed to Gentile Christians

What makes you think he's referring to Jewish Christians? Certainly nothing in the context. More likely you have to read it that way to fit your overriding hermeneutic which refuses to see Israel subsumed by the Church, which appears to me (again) to be the entire thrust of Galatians.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It is faulty because it relies on category errors and and a lack of understanding of how apocalyptic texts function.

To give you one example, you have cited the OT saints who rose at the time of the resurrection of Christ and observed how they were clearly not part of the 'church'.

Well, yes they were, in the sense that they were part of the OT 'church'. The mysterious account of their resurrection and appearance raises all sorts of intriguing questions - where did they go? Did they resume 'formal' life and die again, as Lazarus presumably did? We're they secretly raptured at the time of the Ascension?

Of course, we don't know. Scripture doesn't tell us.

Whatever we make of the story it is clearly there to establish a sense of continuity of the kind that Steve Langton and Eutychus are highlighting.

Otherwise, what does it tell us?

I don't have time now to go into detail but I've become convinced over the years that dispensationalism is not based on a plain, straightforward reading of scripture as its proponents believe, but is a kind of hermeneutic grid imposed upon scripture in an attempt to reconcile and tidy up issues that are either too mysterious for us to work out or where the intention is different from what they imagine it to be.

Sure, in the example where Christ refers to his 'brethren' it is obvious in the temporal context that he is referring to his brother Jews. But are we not also his 'brethren' who have believed in Christ subsequently?

Is the force and application of that particular parable and saying restricted to those who were around in 1st century Palestine?

That's one of the problems. It fillets everything into neat little chunks rather than looking at the overall thrust.

Not only that, I know of no serious theologian or scholar from an RC, Orthodox, Anglican or classic Reformed background who holds to dispensationalism in any way, shape or form.

The only people to do so come from a sectional segment within conservative and fundamentalist evangelicalism or Pentecostalism.

If dispensationalism were really such a big deal I'd expect it to be accepted more widely than that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Not only that, I know of no serious theologian or scholar from an RC, Orthodox, Anglican or classic Reformed background who holds to dispensationalism in any way, shape or form.

The only people to do so come from a sectional segment within conservative and fundamentalist evangelicalism or Pentecostalism.l

If dispensationalism were really such a big deal I'd expect it to be accepted more widely than that.

Most theologians especially the R C ones have large vested interests in supporting their various systems. Have you looked at it yourself in any depth? This filleting you talk about, if you mean trying to unnaturally force stuff together that doesn't go together I'd agree. I do not see this happening. The Dallas Seminary has had some pretty good theological minds most notably Walvoord. The History of the Niagara conferences in the 19 C make interesting reading too.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The Dallas Seminary has had some pretty good theological minds most notably Walvoord. The History of the Niagara conferences in the 19 C make interesting reading too.

I note you ascribe some degree of authority to a certain tradition...

Several of us have raised a whole host of objections to your compartmentalisation of those saved through the person and work of Christ into those lucky enough to be part of his bride, those who are mere guests, those wandering around in some unknown category having been raised at the time of Christ's resurrection, all with different inheritances ranging from the heavenly for (your idea of) the Church to the physical Land for Israel, plus a special separate one for Daniel apparently.

You have not addressed these passages or the thrust of argument they represent from across the whole of Scripture in favour of one single people of God. At all.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This filleting you talk about, if you mean trying to unnaturally force stuff together that doesn't go together I'd agree.

Filleting is not so much about unnaturally forcing stuff together as unnaturally splitting stuff apart (aka "rightly dividing the word of truth" for dispensationalists).

For instance: deciding the parable of the sheep and the goats doesn't apply to contemporary believers; bringing Daniel's ongoing chronology to a grinding halt after the 69th week and arbitrarily inserting the entire NT church age around which the NT revolves as an incidental parenthesis in God's ongoing plan for Israel which starts up again in the 70th week.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
pretty well all the pundits I've heard,begin with the Olivet discourse.
They might start there in terms of introducing the concept, but they are going try and fit it into the chronology of Daniel.
quote:
However, they are categorised differently within that broad frame.
This is the kind of thing I mean by running counter to the whole thrust of the NT which is about one body. You have not said how you account for any of the wealth of verses supplied above that point to this.
quote:
There is the bride but there are also the wedding guests.
In the parables yes but in Revelation no. Seeking doctrinal substance in every detail of parables is a hermeneutic option which leads to endless options, endless speculation, and endless confusion.
quote:
When Jesus rose some OT saints were seen in the streets of Jerusalem. They were obviously not the 'church' were they?
Why "obviously" and why "not"? They are part of the body of Christ i.e. the Church universal that spans the ages.
quote:
Daniel it is said will 'stand in his lot at the end of days', that 'lot is not the church obviously
Why is this obvious?
quote:
Even in the epistles of Paul there is division within the church between gentiles saints and Jewish
Do you seriously think the epistles present this as normative or desirable? I seem to remember something about Christ breaking down the wall of separation in Ephesians, and Galatians is all about not falling prey to Judaisers.
quote:
when in Gal6:16 he refers to the Israel of God meaning Jewish as opposed to Gentile Christians
What makes you think he's referring to Jewish Christians? Certainly nothing in the context. More likely you have to read it that way to fit your overriding hermeneutic which refuses to see Israel subsumed by the Church, which appears to me (again) to be the entire thrust of Galatians.

Daniel is pretty important but he is read in the light of the crucifixion viz the messiah will be cut off and have nothing etc.

I do not need to account for Paul's inclusiveness of gentile and Jew,I freely acknowledge it. However there are points of separation. Why did Paul circumcise Jewish converts but not gentile ones? There is an overarching people of God in the whole Bible certainly but the church is a category not the superset.

In Gal 6 it IS the context that demands the separation. Paul is addressing gentile Christians overall but makes reference in v10 to the whole household of faith. He then differentiates 2 categories those who walk by this rule (his target audience of gentile Christians) AND a separate category, the Israel of God who are obviously Jewish Christians.

[ 13. December 2016, 17:29: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Why did Paul circumcise Jewish converts but not gentile ones?

Bullshit. In Gal 5:11, slap bang in the middle of his argument on this subject, Paul says

quote:
Now brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

If your hermeneutic requires you to contradict what Paul says about himself to posit what he actually believed and practised, I think you're in problems.

(The single case of Paul circumcising Timothy was not out of legalistic considerations but out of pure expediency, so as not to place an unneccessary stumbling block in the way of his ministry to the Jews. As FF Bruce puts it (something like) Paul was so free from the law that he was free even to obey the law as it suited him.)

quote:
There is an overarching people of God in the whole Bible certainly but the church is a category not the superset.

We have a definition problem here as we had with "rapture". We can agree that the NT shows us a particular form of the universal Church which had heard and understood the Gospel, but the Bible I believe indicates that Christ came for the Church universal and by this I mean all those who belong to him from all ages who are united in the city of God/bride of Christ as seen in Revelation. And pointed to in the innumerable verses cited that you have so far failed to address.

quote:
He then differentiates 2 categories those who walk by this rule (his target audience of gentile Christians) AND a separate category, the Israel of God who are obviously Jewish Christians.

This interpretation is dictated by your hermeneutic and not by the text. There is no evidence at all that he is suddenly talking about two groups of people instead of one, except that he uses a turn of phrase "the Israel of God" which your hermeneutic forces you to see as separate.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Moisés Silva in the New Bible Commentary (p. 1219-1220) says about the "Israel of God" in Galatians

quote:
Paul adds, even to the Israel of God. The word translated even is literally ‘and’. According to some, Paul is drawing attention not only to the church, but also to the ethnic nation of Israel as recipients of the benediction. But if that nation, composed of both believers and unbelievers, can truly enjoy peace and mercy, Paul would seem to be contradicting the heart of his message: the true descendants of Abraham are those who believe in Christ and have been delivered from the law. The NIV is, therefore, most probably right in translating the word, even (or ‘namely’; this meaning is not uncommon)

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Eutychus, you might like to consider the following statement from Arnold Fruchtenbaum who is within google range if you are inclined.

"circumcision on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant is right and proper, and it is my conviction that it is still very much in effect for Jewish believers. Paul, who taught the Gentiles not to circumcise, did not so teach the Jews; this is clear from Acts 21:17-26, and from Acts 16:1-3 when he had Timothy circumcised. It was not circumcision per se that was ruled out, rather, circumcision on the basis of Mosaic Law."

The issue is fully expounded by him here

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Jamat:
He then differentiates 2 categories those who walk by this rule (his target audience of gentile Christians) AND a separate category, the Israel of God who are obviously Jewish Christians.

Eutychus: This interpretation is dictated by your hermeneutic and not by the text. There is no evidence at all that he is suddenly talking about two groups of people instead of one, except that he uses a turn of phrase "the Israel of God" which your hermeneutic forces you to see as separate.

It seems you prefer your own interpretation which is understandable. However, I clearly showed that context allows for two categories here. Incidentally you too have an interpretive lens but in this case the text seems clear enough.

[ 13. December 2016, 19:40: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
For instance: deciding the parable of the sheep and the goats doesn't apply to contemporary believers; bringing Daniel's ongoing chronology to a grinding halt after the 69th week and arbitrarily inserting the entire NT church age around which the NT revolves as an incidental parenthesis in God's ongoing plan for Israel which starts up again in the 70th week.

I did not decide anything except to say it seems Jesus us referring to the least of the brethren as the Jews. It could well apply in principle to believers. The injunction is that all will answer for actions. That is certainly an eternal message

Regarding the parentheses discussion it may be best to let Robert Anderson, Ironside and Walvoord as it but they argue that they are everywhere not just Daniel 9.

Parentheses

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course the Roman Catholic Church or any other church or grouping has a vested interest in maintaining its particular system.

How is that any different from Dispensationalists having a vested interest in maintaining their particular take on things?

[Confused]

The point I'm making is that however you cut it or fillet it or 'divide' it Dispensationalism is a purely sectional view-point. The rest of Christendom doesn't hold to it and other than certain highly conservative forms of evangelical Protestantism, I'm not aware of anyone else who does.

Even if we restrict ourselves to evangelicalism, not all evangelicals are Dispensationalists.

It's a hermeneutic that doesn't resolve anything, it simply ends up creating more questions and raising more awkward issues than it purports to solve.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Eutychus, you might like to consider the following statement from Arnold Fruchtenbaum who is within google range if you are inclined.

We are getting further and further off the point.

You asserted, on the basis (presumably) of the sole example of Timothy and against Paul's own assertion, that he circumcised Jews.

Whether or not it was expedient as part of a national identity is entirely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about whether God has one category of saved people or more than one.

To that question my answer is an unequivocal one. I am not interested in reading Walvoord et al. setting out why they disagree. We are discussing with each other here, not throwing our pet theologians at each other.

I would like to know what you have to say about all the verses that various people have cited that militate in favour of there being one people of God and not multiple categories thereof.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, I clearly showed that context allows for two categories here. Incidentally you too have an interpretive lens but in this case the text seems clear enough.

If you insist, it would seem the actual word used which you understand to mean "and" here allows for EITHER two OR one categories being considered.

However, as BroJames has pointed out, the context of Galatians as a whole means that for Paul, suddenly, right at the end to suggest there was a separate category of believer, "Israel", whereas he has been arguing all the way through along the lines of our (where "our" means first and foremost Jews, those "redeemed from under the Law") "mother" being the heavenly Jerusalem as opposed the to earthly Jerusalem whose children are still slaves, would be a complete reversal of everything he has said up to that point.

So given that the word here can be understood to mean "even" just as well as "and", the context shows us the most likely sense, which is "even", not "and".

So yes I have an interpretive lens, it is one that says to understand an ambiguous text, look first to its immediate context. You are of course free to adopt an alternative hermeneutic, including one which imposes meaning on selected chunks of text irrespective of context, but I am absolutely certain I could use a similar hermeneutic to demonstrate that the moon is made of green cheese.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Gamaliel: It's a hermeneutic that doesn't resolve anything, it simply ends up creating more questions and raising more awkward issues than it purports to solve.

In your view perhaps. Top me it resolved a large number of things. For instance where natural Israel fits in God's plan for humanity. I do think you have not seriously looked at its claims though as your comments are all of a general and dismissive nature. Every time I have 'filleted' as you put it I have done so with a justification. The awkward issues you say are present are not evident to me.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
the discussion here, which is about whether God has one category of saved people or more than one.

He has one category of saved people within which he has several other categories of saved people. What is clear is that all of these people are saved on the same basis, by grace and through faith. They are not all part of the same group though. A chinese is human, a European is human but a Chinese is not a European. (though when they marry they produce beautiful kids.) [Smile]

[ 13. December 2016, 23:00: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The precise reason I am sceptical about it is that I have looked into it. Heck, when I was a new believer, after my conversion, I could easily have got involved with Dispensationalist groups.

In fact, I hung around in such circles for a time and went to their Bible studies and so on. I wasn't convinced, so started looking into it for myself. I found that it didn't stack up.

I'm not saying I had everything else sussed at that time, nor now either - but as I read around I looked into church history and so on I realised that the whole Dispensationalist thing was highly sectional and very, very recent in the overall scheme of things.

You might find it convincing, but I'm afraid I didn't. I still don't.

And like Eutychus and like everyone else I am, of course, operating within a particular hermeneutical framework.

At least I acknowledge as much and don't pretend that I'm simply going by a 'plain reading of scripture' - whatever that means.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
However the basic maths problem if you take this "literally" is still there: since Manasseh is actually half of Joseph, some people are being counted twice, while Dan is apparently not counted at all (making, on the face of it, 138k people, 6k counted twice...).

All of this suggests to me that we shouldn't be taking either the exact numbers or the names literally, a suggestion further reinforced by the likelihood (in my view) that this bunch of people whose "number" and "names" John "hears" he then goes on to "see" in the next verses (Rev 7:9ff) a great multitude of every nation tribe and tongue; I think these are the same people i.e. the entire people of God.

Set aside your dispensationalism for a moment and tell me what's wrong with that approach.

Since you seem to think I'm ignoring the valid points you raise, let's deal with this one. There is no problem unless you think half a tribe should equal half the number of people. The great tribe is not the 144K but as you say, the heavenly saints en masse are mentioned and I am at a loss as to why you think one is the other.

Sometimes your points are a bit too many in a post but they are not deliberately ignored.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is no problem unless you think half a tribe should equal half the number of people.

The problem is that

a) the things being counted overlap: Manasseh is part of Joseph. If taken literally, it would mean the equivalent of "from my house [Joseph], three rooms; from my downstairs [Manasseh], three rooms", which seems odd. It's certainly no sensible way to count literally. I'm not about to make a deal with somebody who says "I'll sell you my car for $12,000 and $12,000 for the back half of it".

b) there is a tribe missing altogether: Dan.

Taken together, these two facts suggest to me that the list should not be taken too literally.

quote:
The great tribe is not the 144K but as you say, the heavenly saints en masse are mentioned and I am at a loss as to why you think one is the other.

As with "the Israel of God", we have a hermeneutical choice between, in effect, thinking that every different term or image may refer to something different and distinct (the "wedding guests" in a parable must be a different group to the "bride", as must the "saints" resurrected at the time of Jesus' death, each of the "horns" on the beast, etc.) or allowing for the possibility that different images may be used, loosely, to refer to the same thing, and not every detail of every image is fraught with meaning.

Allowing the first possibility may provide a neat explanation for some hard-to-understand parts of the Bible, but it also opens up an almost infinite variety of options for contrived explanations that obfuscate instead of edifying.

Allowing the second possibility provides, to my mind, simplicity and clarity.

Similarly, requiring the scriptures to proceed in strict chronological order might provide some useful explanations in some cases but becomes terribly contorted in others, whereas allowing for the possibility, as in any TV series, for flashbacks, flash-forwards, and views of the same event from different perspectives, provides scope for greater simplicity and clarity.

With all that in mind, to me it makes far more sense to understand John first "hearing" what amounts to a vast number of people ("144,000") and then "seeing" the same vast number of people.

You, meanwhile, not only insist on the 144k being a separate group, you have turned them into "Jewish evangelists". On what basis?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I was wondering why they 'had' to be Jewish evangelists, as well as why we have to take the numbers literally.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue of tribes within Judaism isn't an issue these days as far as I am aware - so the idea of 12 x 12 = 144,000 is more likely to be symbolic of completeness or some kind of totality or representativeness I'd have thought.

It's not as if Jewish people nowadays organise themselves into tribal groups. So why should there be some expectation that they will resume doing so in the future?

I keep coming back to the point that we are dealing with apocalyptic literature here and Jamat, to my mind, seems to want to elide that and interpret apocalyptic writings in an overly literal fashion.

I've been challenged about vagueness and sweeping generalisations, but surely the fundamental issue here is how we tackle texts that are obviously apocalyptic in tone - with all that entails in terms of symbolism, suggestion, parallelism and so on.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Back around 2000 years ago, people believed the Universe functioned by a system named after a guy called Ptolemy. In his system, the Earth was central, and everything else went round it. And everything beyond the Moon was 'The Heavens' and worked on different and more perfect principles to the humble and imperfect Earth. Thus, for example, all motion in The Heavens "must be" circular because a circle is a perfect form.

But as better observations became available, it also became clear that it wasn't quite that simple; to deal with anomalies/resolve paradoxes it became necessary to invent 'epicycles', a kind of circles on circles or wheels within wheels to explain everything while still preserving the assumption that motion in the perfect heavens must be perfectly circular.

Arguably, Copernicus was still making that assumption when he proposed his 'heliocentric' theory - putting the Sun at the centre actually allowed simpler circles, for example by explaining so called 'retrograde' motion of the outer planets. It was only later astronomers who, having taken the big leap of heliocentrism, could also see 'the Heavens' as not a special place but working by Earth's rules, and could accept, for example, elliptical planetary orbits.

Now it seems to me that both 'Dispensationalism' and the 'Left Behind' eschatology which it spawned are similar to this, in that they involve plausible but unfortunately wrong assumptions about how things "must be", which are then imposed unnecessarily on the interpretation of scripture, achieving the theological equivalent of 'piling epicycles on epicycles' with apparent consistency, apparently resolving paradoxes, and so on - yet the actual reality is far simpler and more elegant, and a far more straightforward reading of the Scriptures as well.

I'll come back to this idea later tonight....

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I keep coming back to the point that we are dealing with apocalyptic literature here and Jamat, to my mind, seems to want to elide that and interpret apocalyptic writings in an overly literal fashion.

I understand Jamat's position to be that "apocalyptic" is an artificial construct designed by people who don't want to take the Bible seriously, to dispense them from putting in the required effort to understand every detail and the significance it contains.

I'm not sure how one moves forward from that.

What I can say is that my dad, who I believe is following this thread with interest, sat at the feet of an ardent dispensationalist for some years with a bunch of other new believers before concluding as regards the neat, detailed, and intricate system in question, that "life just isn't like that". An assessment I respect and with which I concur [Smile]

[ 14. December 2016, 11:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I keep coming back to the point that we are dealing with apocalyptic literature here and Jamat, to my mind, seems to want to elide that and interpret apocalyptic writings in an overly literal fashion.
I understand Jamat's position to be that "apocalyptic" is an artificial construct designed by people who don't want to take the Bible seriously, to dispense them from putting in the required effort to understand every detail and the significance it contains.

I'm not sure how one moves forward from that.

What I can say is that my dad, who I believe is following this thread with interest, sat at the feet of an ardent dispensationalist for some years with a bunch of other new believers before concluding as regards the neat, detailed, and intricate system in question, that "life just isn't like that". An assessment I respect and with which I concur

Apocalyptic is merely the adjective derived from Apocalypse. If anyone made it up, then I guess that must include John, who wrote probably the most famous one - and had the temerity to call it such.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Sure, but the way apocalyptic literature is characterised (exaggeration, binary all good vs. all evil, etc.) means each detail is not taken literally or as having a precise meaning.

I agree with this approach, but I'm trying to restate what I see as Jamat's objections.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I don't understand Jamat's objections either, so really it is for him/her to expound further. But at least, since we have apocalypses, a starting point for "apocalyptic" would surely be "like them". From which we might ask "like them in what way?" There are any number of analyses around that do that of course. Maybe pointing to a consensus there? Anyone committed to a literal reading of scripture (as in "what the author intended when s/he wrote it") must surely make such an enquiry when faced with an unusual or unfamiliar genre of text.

(Just suggestions for taking things forward of course - I'm not quibbling with anyone here other than Jamat's concept of "rapture", based as it is almost entirely upon passages of an apocalyptic nature - Revelation, Daniel, the Olivet discourse...)

[ 14. December 2016, 14:31: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, and I'd agree with all of that, Eutychus - and 'Hi Eutychus's Dad!'

That's what I mean by a category-error. What Dispensationalists do is read and interpret apocalyptic literature as if it isn't apocalyptic literature but something that has to be taken apart and analysed in every detail, as if it's lifting the bonnet of a car.

It's an interpretation that fails to engage with the Middle-Eastern mind, if I can put it that way, and with the way that ancient writings work.

Everyone acknowledges Herodotus as the father of history, no-one thinks of Herodotus as writing a history in the modern sense.

I once went to hear Rowan Williams give an inaugural lecture as a visiting professor at the University of Chester. He was his usual erudite self. What struck me was that four people I knew who were there independently of one another all derived something very different from what he said. I wondered whether I'd been at the same talk!

Howbeit - one of the things he said and which a very, very liberal friend who is a classical literature buff took exception to, was that the Gospels are themselves a 'genre' - they are a form of literature without precedent in the classical world. Sure, they share features in common with other ancient writings, but essentially they form a corpus on their own that aren't directly analogous to anything else that was being written at the time.

So, they aren't a 'dialogue' as in Plato and so on, nor are they strictly speaking an account like that of Tacitus ... they combine all kinds of strands and elements.

In a similar way, I'd suggest that there is something unique about Daniel and Revelation and so on - and to suggest that they form part of a distinctive genre isn't to diminish their importance or to 'pull their teeth' as it were.

Rather, it's to try to understand the reason why they were written and the way they 'operate' as it were.

Otherwise we get into cloud-cuckoo land territory. I know I've said this before, but when I heard preachers seriously suggesting that the scary locust efforts in Revelation represented Russian assault helicopters ... I knew it was time to move on ...

I mean, I heard one preacher cite The Reader's Digest as an authority for his contention that an increase in the vulture population in the Negev Desert was an indication that the end was nigh - 'where there is a carcase, there the vultures will gather.'

I mean, how literal can you get?

[Help]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Eutychus: As I said before, there are hermeneutics which allow the text to speak for itself, and hermeneutics which allow themselves to be informed by complementary hermeneutics, more than others. Dispensationalism is an overarching, monolithic hermeneutic which places its structure of Scripture over and above Scripture itself.

OK let's examine this claim.
Darby, seems to be the key figure in this so what were his basic principles? The following from 'Christianity today.com'

"Darby saw history as progressive revelation and his system sought to explain the stages in God's redemptive plan for the universe. There was nothing especially radical about dividing history into periods. What separated Darby's dispensationalism was his novel method of Biblical interpretation, which consisted of strict literalism, the absolute separation of Israel and the church into two distinct peoples of God, and the separation of the rapture, (the catching away of the church) from Christ's second coming. At the rapture, he said, Christ will comfort his saints; and at the second coming, he will come with his saints"

The key issue here is whether these interpretive ideas are a structure placed over the scripture itself.

Steve Langton quoted Tyndale's definition of literalism above
"..scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense..nevertheless...that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth is ever the literal sense.."

This seems pretty clear. The way I have heard it stated is if the literal reading makes sense,seeks no other sense.So regarding the question of, say whether the 144k are Jewish, the literal reading is that they are all taken from Jewish tribes. As to whether they are part of the great crowd of witnesses as Eutychus seemed to suggest, the obvious reading is that they are separate. The 144k are called bondservants of the Lord, they are on the earth during a time of tribulation and they are male. There are 2 references to them in ch 7 and 14. The great crowd suddenly appear and my thought here is that they are people saved as a result of the ministry of the 144k. Whatever the case, they appear after the 144k and separately in Rev7:9
The problem is how to read this without confusion if you do not see it like this. Though this is apocalyptic literature, the meaning is clear.

Principle 2 was the separation of the church and natural Israel. One of the great sources of confusion IMV is to apply promises or adjurations directed to Israel to the church. This leads to rampant speculation and fanciful interpretation. Does the church have Babylonian captivity? What about the threats of judgement. Do we include them or ignore them in our schema? All is solved if you let Israel BE Israel and the church be the church. Replacement theology leads you up many more blind alleys than dispensationalism

Finally, the 2 part rapture. This is NOT imposed on scripture. It can be clearly discerned. All acknowledge the apparent difficulties with the way scripture depicts 2 seemingly different comings. Notably in Matt 24 when we have a climactic visible coming after a time of great tribulation on the earth on one hand juxtaposed with a days of Noah type coming when everything seems normal transmission on earth but it is sudden,unexpected and unheralded as the coming of the flood was. The question is whether Darby imposed his hermeneutic of whether the text freely invites such a reading. IMV it is clearly the latter.

The other great criticism of Darby's theology is it's negative fruit. Well It is true that many people have half baked views about it and argue the toss about who is the antichrist or if Armageddon is coming next Thursday or build survival bunkers etc. I' d suggest this is a consequence of ignorance. There will always be nuts in the jar. It is not Darby's fault and people like Walvoord and Prasch and Fruchtenbaum, people who actually know all the implications certainly do not encourage preparation for a post apocalyptic wilderness. I think therefore that whole line of argument is a straw man.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Darby, seems to be the key figure in this so what were his basic principles? The following from 'Christianity today.com'

"Darby saw history as progressive revelation and his system sought to explain the stages in God's redemptive plan for the universe. There was nothing especially radical about dividing history into periods. What separated Darby's dispensationalism was his novel method of Biblical interpretation, which consisted of strict literalism, the absolute separation of Israel and the church into two distinct peoples of God, and the separation of the rapture, (the catching away of the church) from Christ's second coming. At the rapture, he said, Christ will comfort his saints; and at the second coming, he will come with his saints"

The key issue here is whether these interpretive ideas are a structure placed over the scripture itself.

. . .

The question is whether Darby imposed his hermeneutic of whether the text freely invites such a reading. IMV it is clearly the latter.

(Emphasis mine.)

This is the first place I have trouble, Jamat. If the text freely invites the readings Darby gave to Scripture, how did everyone else before him miss it? Even the article from which you quote calls his interpretation "novel."

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Absolutely, and I also submit that you may have misunderstood the point Steve Langton was making with his quote from Tyndale.

There is a difference between taking scripture in its literal sense and taking it in a 'literalist' sense.

The quote you cite about Darby not only stresses what was 'novel' about his approach but also how extremely literal he was.

You insist on interpreting apocalyptic texts in as literal sense as possible - literal many-headed monsters and efforts with stings, an angel literally striding between sea and land and blowing a trumpet ...

I'm suggesting that is exactly not the way to interpret this form of literature, just as it would wrong to apply allegory where it isn't warranted.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Jamat, you would, I am sure, be horrified if somebody were in seriousness to cite the Reader's Digest as authority for anything, yet alone that the locusts represented Russian helicopters. However, it still seems to me that because you are yourself persuaded by them, you are evaluating both scripture and theology according to how they fit with what Darby, Walvoord, Prasch or Fruchtenbaum have decided they ought to say, interpreting scripture so that it agrees with their exposition.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

The three of you have avoided all the issues I raised here and defaulted to the 2 worn chestnuts
You can't believe literally in weird creatures like locusts with faces of men hair of woman and stings in the tail can you?
And
How could Darby be correct if no ancient source exists for his schematic.

As to the first, the issue is what John saw. Obviously,he saw spiritual entities and described them in terms familiar to him. But, did he see them in the spirit? Yes he did and were they on earth? No, they were part of his spiritual vision. So what he saw, he did see literally but they were not natural but supernatural entities. They were seen as affecting the earth as part of the judgement of the earth but in themselves they were not earthly. Were they real? Literal? Yes, was the angel Gabriel who appeared to Mary real? Well, it all resulted in a real outcome,the incarnation.

As to the second point. Who knows why if this is correct theology that it was not elucidated by ancient sources. Here we need to ask if scripture supports it. To that your mileage varies obviously after 5 pages of discussion but IMV yes. I know you say Gamaliel that you investigated and were not convinced. Well OK but what convinces another may not convince the one. This proves nothing. I'd however suggest several bones to chew.

First, is dispensationalism inconsistent with the earliest sources? Here I am not schooled but I found an article by Tommy Ice,admittedly a dispensatioal preacher where he suggested that it is not inconsistent with some statements of Irenaeus and others. Tommy Ice

Now, this is his view and obviously a far cry from Darby's theology and at best it is straw clutching and an argument from silence. I am not suggesting it is a king hit or anything just that there are dispensationalists that have considered this issue.

You could also argue as I have, briefly above that the early apostles who wrote scripture understood it but never elucidated it as it was not controversial. You could also speculate that the systems elucidated later by Augustine, the great replacement theologian, Origen and others that were adopted by Catholicism drowned out all other voices, but who knows. The fact that Darby was the discoverer of it in 1832 does not preclude it from being true. As a contrast what about the celebrated Darwinian theory that so many here are cheer leaders for? It too began in the1800s!

[ 14. December 2016, 21:37: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that Darby was the discoverer of it in 1832 does not preclude it from being true.

I am trying to forswear myself from this thread as I think I have run out of useful things to contribute, but I can't let this go.

What doctrine of inspiration might you hold to that allows wholly fresh revelation to be "discovered" in 1832?

On similar grounds, why not become a Mormon?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course Dispensationalist theologians have considered these issues.

My impression is that they tend to be highly selective in terms of what they take from the Fathers.

On the locusts thing, again, you are missing the point. Revelation is not reportage. John didn't simply write down what he'saw' like someone reporting on a tennis match.

It's clear that he is using tropes and imagery from the OT, dipping into the signs and symbols his readers would be familiar with. That doesn't mean he didn't have a vision, but scripture isn't dictation or a form of automatic writing.

As for comparisons between Darby and Darwin, again that's not comparing like with like. Darby was dealing with theology, Darwin dealing with the natural sciences.

It'd be like comparing Usain Bolt with Steve Davies the snooker player on the grounds that both are sportsmen.

I come back to earlier points, does the glorified Christ literally have a sword for a tongue? No, of course not. It's a way of denoting something about the power of his words as the Incarnate Son of God.

As for the locusts, well as real life locusts are rapacious and destructive, then clearly they are meant to demonstrate the seriousness of God's judgement - something that smarts and stings and which is inescapable perhaps ...

It's not as if John was granted some kind of newsreel footage of literal events in the literalist sense - like as if there was a film running in his head ...

I really don't get why we have to be so literalist about it when that's clearly not how apocalyptic literature works.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've just looked up that Tommy Ice piece. What a load of baloney.

If anti-premillenialists had deliberately suppressed Iranaeus's 'Against Heresies' until 1571 as he claims, then why didn't they also suppress the alleged pre-millenialism of Justin Martyr and the other Fathers he selectively quotes?

It's this restorationist thing again, everyone else messed it all up until [insert theologian or leader of choice] came along and put us all straight.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I've ended up getting home a lot later tonight than I had expected and I'll need to give some time to what's been posted meanwhile before I follow up my previous post.

See you sometime tomorrow I hope.... [Smile]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that Darby was the discoverer of it in 1832 does not preclude it from being true.
I am trying to forswear myself from this thread as I think I have run out of useful things to contribute, but I can't let this go.

What doctrine of inspiration might you hold to that allows wholly fresh revelation to be "discovered" in 1832?

On similar grounds, why not become a Mormon?

You have not established that it is wholly fresh and it is not because of Darby that I believe it but that as I keep saying, I CAN see it in the scripture as can many others. You keep saying it is a schematic artificially imposed on them. I reject that for reasons stated. Mormonism depends on revelation outside the Bible so that is not apples with apples is it?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Gamaliel: On the locusts thing, again, you are missing the point. Revelation is not reportage. John didn't simply write down what he'saw' like someone reporting on a tennis match.

It's clear that he is using tropes and imagery from the OT, dipping into the signs and symbols his readers would be familiar with. That doesn't mean he didn't have a vision, but scripture isn't dictation or a form of automatic writing.

OK, so if he is not reporting what he saw what is he doing?
I never suggested automatic writing. The thing I said was that what he saw in spirit, were spiritual realities which he depicted in earthly terms but he did so as a reporter using description familiar to his audience of the 1st century.
BTW, I did not notice Ice suggesting a cover up. He merely points out that those early writers believed in a millennium after a tribulation. It is a long way from Darby but consistent with it AFAICS.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The three of you have avoided all the issues I raised here and defaulted to the 2 worn chestnuts

I wasn't avoiding anything. I noted, quite honestly, what creates the initial barrier for me in finding any merit in dispensationalism—a barrier reflected in your post.

quote:
How could Darby be correct if no ancient source exists for his schematic.

That's not really the question I posed. You said the text plainly "invites" Darby's interpretation. I was asking what we are to make of the fact that so many (indeed, as far as we have any record, pretty much everyone) missed what Darby saw, if it is indeed so plain.

quote:
As a contrast what about the celebrated Darwinian theory that so many here are cheer leaders for? It too began in the1800s!

Apples and oranges. Darwin was offering a scientific theory, not an interpretation of Scriptural texts that Christians had been reading for 1700+ years. The parallel with Darby would be if Darwin had asserted that Scripture actually taught his theory.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
hat's not really the question I posed. You said the text plainly "invites" Darby's interpretation. I was asking what we are to make of the fact that so many (indeed, as far as we have any record, pretty much everyone) missed what Darby saw, if it is indeed so plain.

Sorry Nick, I interpreted that as ancient sources. The answer is I do not know. However, there are plenty of exponents since 1830. The most able is probably Robert Anderson. He is an interesting chap as he was famous as a founder of Scotland Yard. His book, "The Coming Prince" was immensely popular though now out of print.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I CAN see it in the scripture as can many others.

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see/
Some of them put there by you and by me"

People see Jesus in pieces of toast all the time. That doesn't mean he's there.

The question is whether the extent to which one's hermeneutic favours the emergence of what is actually there, warts, inconsistencies and all, or the mistaken recognition of features that match the hermeneutic.

The amount of extra-biblical explanation that goes into something like this or this, and the time spent understanding it, compared to the time spent actually looking prima facie at Scripture itself, does not prioritise the text and thus favours hermeneutical pareidolia.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The Wikipedia article (can't post link as there are parentheses in it) does not bear out the contention that Anderson was a founder of Scotland Yard - rather it suggests that it was well established by the time Anderson was appointed there. It also suggests to me that his career after his early successes in the campaigns against Fenians was rather less than successful. Usual disclaimers.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Hermeneutical pareidolia.

You might as well say that any hermeneutical theorising is pareidolia.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What was John doing when he wrote Revelations?

Primarily putting forward a 'revelation of Jesus Christ'. He is telling his readers something about Jesus.

He was writing something for the edification and comfort of beleaguered believers in the late 1st century and using an apocalyptic style to convey the sense that God is in control and that despite all setbacks the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ.

What he isn't doing is laying down a blue-print to help us set our watches for the final countdown.

You seem to have a thing about the 'spiritual world' as if there are some kind of Platonic forms thing going on here in some kind of literal sense.

As if the locusts exist in some kind of parallel dimension that John was somehow enabled to 'see'.

I don't particularly have an issue with the idea of 'thin places ' in the Celtic sense or times when we might become more aware of God's presence - but in talking about that sort of thing we have to resort to metaphor and symbolism - which is exactly what John does.

So, with the locusts he's saying something like, 'This judgement is so all pervasive that it's as rapacious as locusts, so sharp that it's like a deadly sting, so universal that it affects both sexes and all conditions of mankind.'

It doesn't mean he necessarily 'saw' locust-like hybrid human/scorpion creatures that are one day going to descend to earth.

It's like heraldry. No-one thinks that gryphons literally stand there supporting shields.

Ok, I know The Pilgrim's Progress isn't scripture, but do we take Bunyan literally when he tells us he dreamed the story of Christian Pilgrim on his journey to the heavenly city?

No, of course not.

Now, I'm not suggesting John was telling porkies or 'making things up' as it were, but neither do I think he simply wrote things down in a reportage sense.

That's not how apocalyptic literature works, that's not how the scriptures work.

He will have composed and marshalled edited his material in some way, just like any of the other scriptural writers. I very much doubt it was all written down sequentially in one go or as if he were simply making notes of something he had 'seen'.

Even if we understand the Letters to the Seven Churches to be some form of direct dictation from the Risen Christ, there is nothing in the text to suggest that we are dealing with predictions about seven distinct 'ages' of the Church.

As for Tommy Ice's accusation that there was some kind of anti pre-millenialist cover-up within the naughty, nasty RC Church, then that's exactly what he's claiming and it's there in the link you provided.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Hermeneutical pareidolia.
You might as well say that any hermeneutical theorising is pareidolia.

No, because some hermeneutics clearly favour this more than others. The question is whether you try to look at the text first and see if it overturns your presuppositions.

That's what I mean by a high view of Scripture, and it's what I mean when I say that a lot of so-called liberals actually have a higher regard for the text than a lot of so-called literalists.

For instance, when I was preparing my teaching sessions on Revelation I wondered what John might mean by the horses with snakes' tails in Rev. 9.

Having grown up with nightmares about them being Russian tanks I admit to not thinking that's what he was referring to, but I simply googled something like "snake tailed fire breathing horse".

I can't remember exactly what the search was, but I do recall that I quickly found the Chimera and more specifically this image.

I didn't know the Chimera was a mythical beast but I'm sure John did. It was very much part of the culture right when and where he was writing Revelation. There's no doubt in my mind that he borrowed this imagery, or something very like it, to describe what he saw in his vision.

This respects both the text and the context, and avoids all the madness to be seen in the diagrams on, say this page, which is as good an example of hermeneutical pareidolia as you could hope for.

The point of this anecdote being that I took what the text said and looked in as open a way as possible for an explanation, rather than start with the question "now, what piece of Tribulation war machinery might John be describing"?

Yes it's a hermeneutic, but I think it's more likely to prevent me simply from seeing in the text what I hope to find there.

[x-post]

[ 15. December 2016, 07:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?

What a load of cobblers.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?

What a load of cobblers.

Depends what you mean by 'this' Karl.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:

It doesn't mean he necessarily 'saw' locust-like hybrid human/scorpion creatures that are one day going to descend to earth.

Now, I'm not suggesting John was telling porkies or 'making things up' as it were, but neither do I think he simply wrote things down in a reportage sense.

That's not how apocalyptic literature works, that's not how the scriptures work.

Seems to be a bit of dissonance here. He did not see what he said he saw but he is not telling porkies
And
Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for "we do not have to take it seriously."
Sorry Gamaliel doesn't work for me. As for writing it down in one hit, whoever suggested that. John probably dictated it to a scribe over time.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
The question is whether you try to look at the text first and see if it overturns your presuppositions

Well, I do not know if John was using an image of the chimera with which he was familiar. Perhaps so. That comes down to opinion as does your assertion that dispensationalism is a hermeneutic that imposes itself on the text, something other hermeneutics, namely yours, do not do. Without going over old ground, that is pure speculation. All hermeneutics begin with scripture. Obviously we have to ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us as a library of writings by that many authors and over that time period is not going to be a linear narrative in any sense.

You could say the whole concept of a systematic theology is flawed on the very basis of your accusation against dispensationalism (how dare you seek a unified revelation in a random collection of ancient books and why do you leave some out and include others?)

The pages you cite by the way, are OTT but as I mentioned the fact of extremist views does not falsify anything.

Interestingly, what I have have discovered about Darby would suggest he did carefully reexamine scripture during a time of convalescence and came to his conclusions on that basis. There is no evidence I found to suggest he was influenced by Margaret McDonald or the Irvingites with. Anyhow, it seems this discussion is at a natural end now so that really is it from me.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for "we do not have to take it seriously."

Who here is not taking Revelation "seriously"? No one that I can identify. It seems to me that failure to take account of the kind of writing that Revelation is, and failure to ask whether some or all of it should be understood literally or symbolically, is failure to take Revelation seriously.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You misunderstand what I am getting at. Not taking it in as literal a way as you do doesn't mean I don't take it seriously.

Also, I didn't say that John didn't have a vision or didn't 'see' anything.

I'd still take it seriously even if he didn't and it was a piece of pious fiction.

However, I'm not suggesting it is, in the way that Jonah and Esther might be spiritual 'novels' on one level - although possibly with real life, historical characters and based to some extent on historic events.

I'm not suggesting that John wrote it as a work of spiritual fiction in the way that Bunyan wrote The Pilgrim's Progress or Milton wrote Paradise Lost.

But it is still apocalyptic literature and bears the hall-marks of that and there are obvious signs of 'composition' if you like, in the way it's layered and where symbols and imagery are paralleled or compared and contrasted.

So it's not like a reporter filing copy from a sports match or crime scene.

This does not in any way obviate the supernatural or visionary elements.

I don't see why it should. Nor that it comes down to a binary choice as to whether he was telling porkies or recording things in a literal kind of way.

It's analogous to a dream, I would suggest. Insofar that in dreams our subconscious mind deploys metaphor and symbolism in a way that goes beyond our capacity to find words or articulate what we 'see'.

So, as John was steeped in OT imagery, from Daniel and so on, it's hardly surprising that it comes into his vision. That was the raw material God the Holy Spirit worked with, if you like.

So, yes, I do believe that John had a vision, or rather a series of visions. I know you don't subscribe to a dictation model, so I'm not laying that to your charge.

I'm simply suggesting that there was more to the process than John summoning a scribe and saying, 'Guess what? I had a funny dream last night ... Get this down will you before I forget the gist of it ...'

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The Wikipedia article (can't post link as there are parentheses in it) does not bear out the contention that Anderson was a founder of Scotland Yard - rather it suggests that it was well established by the time Anderson was appointed there. It also suggests to me that his career after his early successes in the campaigns against Fenians was rather less than successful. Usual disclaimers.

Yes I am not sure of this. Wikipedia may be correct. I heard that in a sermon.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for "we do not have to take it seriously."
Who here is not taking Revelation "seriously"? No one that I can identify. It seems to me that failure to take account of the kind of writing that Revelation is, and failure to ask whether some or all of it should be understood literally or symbolically, is failure to take Revelation seriously.

Nick, I have never denied the type of writing this is,symbols figures and all. What I am not convinced about is whether Gamaliel's or Eytychus' approach is the best way to handle it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You could say the whole concept of a systematic theology is flawed on the very basis of your accusation against dispensationalism (how dare you seek a unified revelation in a random collection of ancient books and why do you leave some out and include others?)

Indeed. I cordially dislike systematic theologies. God left us the Scriptures, not a systematic theology, which bear witness to his Son, through the illuminating work of the Spirit. You don't need a systematic theology to learn that.

quote:
Interestingly, what I have have discovered about Darby would suggest he did carefully reexamine scripture during a time of convalescence and came to his conclusions on that basis. There is no evidence I found to suggest he was influenced by Margaret McDonald or the Irvingites

I have on my desk an English translation, privately commissionned as I understand it by the UK Exclusive Brethren, of a book in Italian by Massimo Introvigne and Domenico Maselli. Introvigne is a leading sociologist of religion. The manuscript was revised in translation by Timothy Stunt who is probably one of the world's leading living authorities on the Brethren. I corresponded with both Introvigne and Stunt while working on the English translation.

After tracing the connections between Lacunza, Irving, and Darby, the book states

quote:
Newton and Darby emphasised the importance of studying the book of Revelation, something they themselves had undertaken in the wake of the studies by Lacunza and Irving. The latter studies held that apart from the opening chapters, Revelation announced events which were to take place in the near future and which would be related to the manifestation of the Kingdom of God. Darby and Irving attempted to harmonise this view with several passages of Scripture which hinted at a two-stage return of Christ...

For these scholars there is absolutely no doubt about the pedigree of Darby's ideas.

In discussing the influence of Lacunza, a footnote also adds:

quote:
On the origins of the millenarian interpretation in Great Britain in the 19th century and the process which led to the founding of the Plymouth Brethren, see Harold Hamlyn Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 1825-1850, Pickering and Inglis, London, 1967, pp. 12-17

[ 15. December 2016, 20:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nick, I have never denied the type of writing this is,symbols figures and all. What I am not convinced about is whether Gamaliel's or Eytychus' approach is the best way to handle it.

And that's perfectly fine if you're not convinced that their approach is the best way to handle it.

But what you said that I was responding to was: "Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for 'we do not have to take it seriously.'" The clear implication there is that those who approach Revelation as a particular genre—apocalyptic writings—and who are saying something along the lines of "it should/shouldn't be read this or that way because it's apocalyptic" are not taking Revelation seriously, and are using "apocalyptic" as their excuse for doing so. And I think that blanket statement is both dismissive and wrong.

I'll grant that it may be true for some people—those who might say that Revelation is just impossible to understand because it's apocalyptic, so never mind it. But I don't think Eutychus, Gamaliel, or anyone else in this thread has done that.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Nick. I'm certainly not saying that Revelation is so obscure as to be incomprehensible.

But it is easy to get the wrong end if the stick with it. Which is why the Eastern Churches were tardy in accepting it into the canon. They knew very well that people could go off onto tangents with fanciful interpretations.

Interestingly, I had lunch with an Orthodox priest today and we discussed their approach to Revelation. Interesting. They see it as speaking of the heavenly banquet - of the Lamb upon the throne and how eucharistic worship on earth combines in some mysterious way with worship in heaven ...

As an aside, one of the observations he made was about the image in scripture that recurs of taking the scroll and eating it ... Not reading it out or sharing the contents with your pals, but eating it, ingesting it ...

A hint of eucharistic theology there, if course ...

One could argue that's a bit extravagant but as a figure or image, I can see the point and make that kind of connection - and again, that's something that apocalyptic literature with its allusiveness, allows us to do.

However we understand it, Revelation is a revelation of Jesus Christ.' It is a revelation of our risen and glorified Saviour Jesus Christ, the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the earth and must reign until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.

That's the point of it. It's not about working out times and epochs. It's not about reading predictive elements into the Letters to the Seven Churches in order to make them fit some putative schema.

It's about Christ.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nick, I have never denied the type of writing this is,symbols figures and all. What I am not convinced about is whether Gamaliel's or Eytychus' approach is the best way to handle it.
And that's perfectly fine if you're not convinced that their approach is the best way to handle it.

But what you said that I was responding to was: "Apocalyptic is a blanket statement for 'we do not have to take it seriously.'" The clear implication there is that those who approach Revelation as a particular genre—apocalyptic writings—and who are saying something along the lines of "it should/shouldn't be read this or that way because it's apocalyptic" are not taking Revelation seriously, and are using "apocalyptic" as their excuse for doing so. And I think that blanket statement is both dismissive and wrong.

I'll grant that it may be true for some people—those who might say that Revelation is just impossible to understand because it's apocalyptic, so never mind it. But I don't think Eutychus, Gamaliel, or anyone else in this thread has done that.

well that ws not my intention. The goal was to get Gamaliel in particular to define what he meant with more precision. He has done so to some extent though and I still disagree with him but there you go, who is surprised?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Returning to my point about Dispensationalism and the 'two-stage Second Coming' being based on superficially plausible but ultimately mistaken assumptions similar to the assumptions behind Ptolemaic cosmology....

I don't think Jamat has yet answered my point that the key assumption in generating the 'two-stage Second Coming' business was the idea, which started with Irving but which Darby & Co never seem to have challeged, that

living in expectation of the Return of Jesus meant not only being aware of that possibility and watching the 'signs of the times', but that it actually meant a permanent state of belief that the Return might literally be 'any second now'.

And, as I pointed out, in the fevered expectation created by Irving, that state of belief 'had to be' maintained even if they found things in Scripture itself that should have made them think twice. For example Paul's rather clear point that the Return was not to be expected till after the man of lawlessness was revealed, with a very clear implication that even if not the original readers, Christians on earth at the time would see that some time BEFORE being caught up to meet Jesus at his return.

By ignoring the example and underlying principle that Paul stated there - Paul's 'hermeneutic'? - the 19thC 'prophetic students' laid themselves open to an interpretative problem which gave them massive difficulty but which was no more 'real' in Scriptural terms than the anomalies which gave rise to the piling of epicycles on epicycles to maintain the Ptolemaic system.

Deeply emotionally committed to the ideas of an 'any moment now' Return and the Millennial Kingdom to follow, When they found 'awkward' prophecies that had not yet been fulfilled, but which didn't fit into the Millennial Kingdom either, they felt there 'must be' an understanding which found room for those prophecies after the Return but necessarily before the institution of the Millennium.

They were not emotionally willing - and so could not take the rational step implied by Paul's hermeneutic - to consider the possibility that such unfulfilled prophecy meant the Return was 'not yet' but might be some years away. And it was this unreal anomaly, this actually artificial paradox, that generated the 'need' for the whole idea of a 'Post-Rapture' Tribulation period, NOT because Scripture requires it, but because their own assumption of a necessarily any-moment-now Return required it.

The other 'return' - of Israel to the Land - provides an interesting test-case. I'm not absolutely sure that Scripture does require that return; but as I see it, the point back in the 1800s should have been that "If that prophecy must be fulfilled and clearly hasn't been, then the Return of Jesus is 'not yet'".

The 19thC prophetic students, had you spoken to them, would simply not have believed what has actually happened - that about 150 years on from their interpretation, not only has Jesus NOT returned, but the Israelites are back in their land decades before a yet-to-occur 'Rapture'!!

No, to them, the return of Israel would 'have to be' after the 'Rapture' and to some extent caused by it, as part of the Tribulation events. History has shown them spectacularly wrong - but they still seem unable to revise their faulty assumptions and their anti-Pauline hermeneutic....

I'll come back tomorrow (actually 'much later today' now!) to deal with the ideas of 'Dispensations'. But meantime can I suggest that in relation to Israel and the place of the Jews in the scheme of things, it's not just about Revelation - there's a great deal in the Epistle to the Hebrews which seems to me to speak quite forcefully against the Dispensationalist ideas on the subject....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, it's not a surprise that's there's daylight between Jamat and myself on these issues.

I don't tend to do precision on issues like this because I don't think in those terms when it comes to the apocalyptic writings and heck, some of the Gospel accounts are fuzzy and contradictory enough without playing hermeneutical Twister in order to link them all together or awkward attempts to stuff them into a grid.

It's more like an Impressionist painting rather than a draughtsman's drawing.

FWIW my own take is fairly close to that of Steve Langton, Eutychus and Nick Taken. I go with the broad thrust of small t tradition, with some Big T elements overlapping ... And yes, I believe that to be closer to the scriptural accounts than some fervid 19th century over-egged expectation that fails to understand the nature of prophetic and apocalyptic texts and treats them like some kind of neat Meccano set construction and framework for the end of the world.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?

What a load of cobblers.
Depends what you mean by 'this' Karl.

Your entire dispensationist fantasy. But you knew that. It makes a great story; puts me in mind of some Sci-Fi classics (Foundation springs to mind) but as reality? I really can't take it seriously.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So let me get this straight, Jamat. This was discovered by Derby in the nineteenth century, yet you can see it in the Scripture, and it's the plain meaning, yet no-one noticed it for 1800 years prior to Darby?

What a load of cobblers.
Depends what you mean by 'this' Karl.
Your entire dispensationist fantasy. But you knew that. It makes a great story; puts me in mind of some Sci-Fi classics (Foundation springs to mind) but as reality? I really can't take it seriously.

All good Karl, Have been a sci fi fan in my time.
Maybe am one still.
Seasons greetings.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
well that ws not my intention. The goal was to get Gamaliel in particular to define what he meant with more precision. He has done so to some extent though . . .

Got it. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I misread.

quote:
. . . and I still disagree with him but there you go, who is surprised?

Ah well, you can't have everything. [Biased]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Umm.... "Dispensations..."

It seems to me that the 'dispensationalism' thing is a distortion of a sound basic idea - that in his dealings with sinful humanity God progresses.

He organises something to get one point across, or to deal with a particularly problematic situation, and lets it run while the lesson is learned, then he takes things a stage further, with new ideas and provisions.

Much of this progress is slow and regular, but there are also decisive moments of major advance. "Dispensationalists", it seems to me, exaggerate those points of major advance, but at the same time end up 'disconnecting' them a bit, seeing too much of the difference and not enough of the coherent advance.

One of the striking examples of this which seems very relevant to the "Rapture" business is that they make the 'Church Age' over-separate from what came before, and treat it as a parenthesis which can end and things go back as they were before.

NO!! In Jesus, God has 'broken down the wall of partition' between Jew and Gentile, and reunited the human race in faith in Jesus as King of the Jews AND divine King of the world/cosmos/universe. There is no intelligent way to go back from that.

The Church is in continuity with the OT 'congregation' of Israel, and 'Israel' doesn't have a truly separate existence after that; though God deals as graciously as they will allow with those who have rejected the 'new covenant' in Jesus. But He isn't going backwards; the ultimate salvation of 'Israel' will be in union with the Church, in faith in the Christ and his atonement.

Again, the notion of the things after the 'Rapture' depends on a questionable understanding of this process.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Nick. I'm certainly not saying that Revelation is so obscure as to be incomprehensible.

But it is easy to get the wrong end if the stick with it. Which is why the Eastern Churches were tardy in accepting it into the canon. They knew very well that people could go off onto tangents with fanciful interpretations.

Interestingly, I had lunch with an Orthodox priest today and we discussed their approach to Revelation. Interesting. They see it as speaking of the heavenly banquet - of the Lamb upon the throne and how eucharistic worship on earth combines in some mysterious way with worship in heaven ...

Which is what Madame and I agreed ages ago. We read Revelations for the beauty and poetry of the images, but not as a part of our bible study - far too easy to fall into error. We leave the formal study to those who may well know how to go about it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think Steve Langton's talking sense and also have some sympathy with the view that we read Revelation for its beauty and poetry, but it doesn't stop there, of course. It's a Revelation of Jesus Christ.

I don't think we should shy away from studying it. Neither do the Orthodox. It's just that they don't read it liturgically in their services, although they base a lot of their liturgical understanding upon it.

Studying it isn't the problem. Studying it appropriately is the issue, taking into account its particular nature as apocalyptic literature.

So far, I'm afraid, to my mind, Jamat has not demonstrated that he understands how we should approach and interpret those kind of scriptures but seems to treat it as if it were a newspaper report. Heck, we don't even treat newspaper reports like that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Steve Langton: living in expectation of the Return of Jesus meant not only being aware of that possibility and watching the 'signs of the times', but that it actually meant a permanent state of belief that the Return might literally be 'any second now'.

Paul's rather clear point that the Return was not to be expected till after the man of lawlessness was revealed, with a very clear implication that even if not the original readers, Christians on earth at the time would see that some time BEFORE being caught up to meet Jesus at his return.

But Steve if you accept my distinction which you obviously don't, that the term Day of the Lord implies the tribulation or time of God's wrath and that the rapture passage in 1Thes 4:15-17 though contiguous, is not contextually linked to the scripture concerning times and epochs in 1thes 5, then Paul IS speaking of 2 different things. The separating signal here is the Greek "Peri de" or 'now concerning.'

quote:
19thC prophetic students, had you spoken to them, would simply not have believed what has actually happened - that about 150 years on from their interpretation, not only has Jesus NOT returned, but the Israelites are back in their land decades before a yet-to-occur 'Rapture'!!

No, to them, the return of Israel would 'have to be' after the 'Rapture' and to some extent caused by it, as part of the Tribulation events. History has shown them spectacularly wrong - but they still seem unable to revise their faulty assumptions and their anti-Pauline hermeneutic....

Another way to look at this Steve is that they were were spectacularly right! Israel is now a nation. You can be essentially right as to fact but wrong as to detail. Think of how the Jews missed the first coming of Messiah because of preconceptions about how it would or wouldn't happen?

quote:
"Dispensationalists", it seems to me, exaggerate those points of major advance, but at the same time end up 'disconnecting' them a bit, seeing too much of the difference and not enough of the coherent advance.

One of the striking examples of this which seems very relevant to the "Rapture" business is that they make the 'Church Age' over-separate from what came before, and treat it as a parenthesis which can end and things go back as they were before.

NO!! In Jesus, God has 'broken down the wall of partition' between Jew and Gentile, and reunited the human race in faith in Jesus as King of the Jews AND divine King of the world/cosmos/universe. There is no intelligent way to go back from that.

First, I think the scripture clearly shows dispensations. I do not think we over-egg them. God is the same in each one and so is humanity. The difference is that each shows a clear change in the way God handles stuff or relates to man. For instance, it was fine for people to offer sacrifice themselves until the Mosaic system came along, now a priest has that function. After the cross they are redundant as the supreme sacrifice has been made and is accessed continually by faith as Hebrews teaches.

Secondly, Jesus has indeed broken down a wall of partition. This has little do with the point of parenthesis. It is the Jew/gentle access to the father that both now share by faith in Christ. In this age both Jew and gentile are part of Christ's church.

However, the concept of parenthesis in the scripture relates, according to Fruchtenbaum (Jewish Christian) and Robert Anderson (19C author of The Coming Prince), to the times of rebellion of the Jews. These times are very specific in the Bible. For instance during the times of the Judges when Israel backslid, they were given into the hands of enemies like Midian, Moab etc. When they repented and a Judge arose, God gave them victory again, the time of disfavour were parentheses in God's purpose. During them the clock stopped.

The biggest up to the present era was the captivity in Babylon which Jeremiah wrote was to be 70 years of disfavour during which they lost their political autonomy till they repented.

The same pattern is evident in the common era. Daniel talks about the 'times of the Gentiles' foreshadowing Jesus' words in Like that Jerusalem is subject to humiliation till the 'times of the gentiles' be fulfilled.

In keeping with this Paul clearly teaches in Romans 9-11 that Israel is not being treated separately from the church in the present era. But he also states here that they will be restored at some point to their proper place as God's special people.

All this to say that the point where Jesus entered Jerusalem as its king but was not accepted by Israel as that king and subsequently crucified, was the end of the 69th week of Daniel's prophecy.

The 70th week has not begun as no history answering to the events of that week has yet occurred.

The 'parenthesis' is thus the gap between where God deals with Israel directly in blessing and where he does not. Clearly, in this church era or epoch, he is not dealing with them as a nation.

The church though is not an afterthought or a plan B, It is the opportunity for us gentiles to partake of the spiritual blessings of the Jewish covenants. This however does NOT mean we have taken them over. Steve Langton: living in expectation of the Return of Jesus meant not only being aware of that possibility and watching the 'signs of the times', but that it actually meant a permanent state of belief that the Return might literally be 'any second now'. 19thC prophetic students, had you spoken to them, would simply not have believed what has actually happened - that about 150 years on from their interpretation, not only has Jesus NOT returned, but the Israelites are back in their land decades before a yet-to-occur 'Rapture'!! "Dispensationalists", it seems to me, exaggerate those points of major advance, but at the same time end up 'disconnecting' them a bit, seeing too much of the difference and not enough of the coherent advance.

[ 19. December 2016, 00:39: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Apologies, Bolded portion of post above was unintended but missed edit window.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The separating signal here is the Greek "Peri de" or 'now concerning.'

To make your interpretation at this point work you have to make what precedes refer to the first stage of the parousia - and what follows refer to the final stage. The subject of 'peri de' is not directly any "final stage" but "times and dates", and what follows would be irrelevant to the recipients of the letter if it pertained to a time after they had been raptured.

quote:
However, the concept of parenthesis in the scripture relates, according to Fruchtenbaum (Jewish Christian) and Robert Anderson (19C author of The Coming Prince), to the times of rebellion of the Jews.

The problem with this approach is that it is incompatible with seeing the Church as the culmination of God's plan and desire to have for himself one people. The latter view does not require inserting stops and starts in Scripture; it appears to me to be the whole overarching story.

Again, you have not addressed any of the multiple passages in Scripture that point to this.

quote:
In keeping with this Paul clearly teaches in Romans 9-11 that Israel is not being treated separately from the church in the present era. But he also states here that they will be restored at some point to their proper place as God's special people.

He certainly says the former, and indeed this is another example of my contention that God is after one people, not two. But Exactly what in Romans 9-11 do you see saying the latter? Don't you find it odd that Paul doesn't, for instance, reiterate the promises about the Land here?

quote:
All this to say that the point where Jesus entered Jerusalem as its king but was not accepted by Israel

I think one of the big questions dividing us here is whether, when Jesus began his ministry, he made as it were a genuine offer to the Jews to be their Messiah on the basis of existing covenants - and only went over to "plan B" of salvation for the Gentiles when the Jews rejected him as such.

This seems to be an important concept in dispensationalism.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
In keeping with this Paul clearly teaches in Romans 9-11 that Israel is not being treated separately from the church in the present era. But he also states here that they will be restored at some point to their proper place as God's special people.

NO, emphatically! Look back to Paul's imagery of the olive tree. The unbelieving Jews have been 'broken off' and Gentiles 'grafted in' to the same tree, and Paul's wording if anything emphasises that neither group is a 'special people' compared to the other.

The unbelieving Jews may, by the grace of God, come to believe, and be 'grafted back into their own olive tree' - but NOT to be "God's special people" in contrast to the Gentiles, simply to be part of the same tree in which Jews and Gentiles are alike "God's special people", equal heirs of the promises in contrast to unbelievers.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, that. What Steve Langton says.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Hey! I said that too! More than once! [Waterworks]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Sorry Eutychus - I wasn't claiming priority on the comment or anything, just answering Jamat's rejoinder to me... as again this;

by Jamat;

quote:
Another way to look at this Steve is that they were were spectacularly right! Israel is now a nation. You can be essentially right as to fact but wrong as to detail. Think of how the Jews missed the first coming of Messiah because of preconceptions about how it would or wouldn't happen?

No, they were still spectacularly wrong. "Israel is now a nation" may or may not be prophesied; but the difference here is more about the "when" and certain assumptions about that "when" which appear to distort the prophecies.

Me, I'd be cautious about whether the return of Israel is actually prophesied - even now it's happened I'm not sure about it! But I would always have said that Jesus' return is clearly "The End" to be followed by the Judgement and the new heaven and the new earth in which all promises receive eternal fulfilment greater than human imagining; thus IF the return of Israel were clearly prophesied, I would have applied to it Paul's principle relating to the "Man of Lawlessness" ... if that must yet be, then "The End" is not yet!

Whereas in the scheme derived from Darby, the conclusion reached - and clearly wrongly - was that since their basic scheme demanded an 'any minute now' Return of Jesus, the return of Israel 'had to be' after the Rapture in this unnecessary post-Rapture period artificially created to be a home for such prophecy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, your good self as well,Eutychus.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Eutuychus: "times and dates", and what follows would be irrelevant to the recipients of the letter if it pertained to a time after they had been raptured.

But the relevance is to all and particularly to those who might ANTICIPATE getting raptured. It is reassuring to them that the day of the Lord is something THEY need not anticipate since THEY are not appointed to God's wrath as the unbelieving world is.
Thank you for the acknowledgement of the 'Peri de' point which I, not being a linguist like yourself, got from Fruchtenbaum.

quote:
The problem with this approach is that it is incompatible with seeing the Church as the culmination of God's plan and desire

Sir Robert Anderson elucidates this in Ch 12 of the Coming Prince. It is too long to quote and I think you'd be lucky to find a copy but as a taster he says:
"The cross has levelled all distinctions ...how then if there IS no difference, can God give blessing on a principle that implies there IS a difference...the question is of immense importance"
He then proceeds to state:
"although grace stoops to the gentile, it does not confirm him in his position of a gentile but lifts him out of it and denationalises him for in the church of this dispensation there is neither Jew nor gentile Gal 3:28. Judah's promises on the contrary, imply that blessing will reach the Jew as a Jew not only recognising his national position but confirming him in it"
What he says in other words is that the greater category is the covenants of Israel WHICH THE GENTILE CHURCH NOW PARTAKES OF. However, It is obviously best to do ones own reading. It turns ISTM on the basis on which God's covenant people is founded. Prasch says, for instance, that the church has no covenant. It participates in Jewish ones.

quote:
my contention that God is after one people, not two. But Exactly what in Romans 9-11 do you see saying the latter? Don't you find it odd that Paul doesn't, for instance, reiterate the promises about the Land here?

No because the land is the subject of the covenants. It is inclusive of them. When he mentions the covenants one may infer he includes all the land promises.

quote:
one of the big questions dividing us here is whether, when Jesus began his ministry, he made as it were a genuine offer to the Jews to be their Messiah on the basis of existing covenants - and only went over to "plan B" of salvation for the Gentiles when the Jews rejected him as such.

I think the clearest indication of it is when he changed from preaching that the Kingdom was at hand, to veiling his teaching in parables after Matt 12 when they essentially said that he was demonised. This was the sin against the Holy Ghost and it was after that that his emphasis markedly changed. It was as if the offer of the kingdom was now withdrawn. (My source on this is Fruchtenbaum)
I do not see this as a plan B in that he was taken by surprise as it was all signalled in prophecy long before,

quote:
Steve Langton: The unbelieving Jews have been 'broken off' and Gentiles 'grafted in' to the same tree, and Paul's wording if anything emphasises that neither group is a 'special people' compared to the other.

I think this is answered above Steve. The branches were broken off but the root remained intact as it were. The covenants were and ARE Jewish covenants. The church has not in Paul's teaching replaced Israel but participated in Israel's covenants.

quote:
No, they were still spectacularly wrong. "Israel is now a nation" may or may not be prophesied; but the difference here is more about the "when"

I disagree. One can be right as to fact and wrong as to timing. Anderson clearly saw the need for national Israel's restoration. He states this categorically in the coming Prince, at a time when the Ottoman empire was still intact. He was right, spectacularly so as to fact, as history has proven. Some of his interpretive comments are incorrect but he saw the regathering as necessary so that prophecy could be fulfilled. He writes in ch 7
"..though eighteen centuries have elapsed, the restoration of the Jews seems still but a chimera of sanguine fanatics.."
(remember he was a Victorian policeman.)

quote:
Me, I'd be cautious about whether the return of Israel is actually prophesied - even now it's happened I'm not sure about it! But I would always have said that Jesus' return is clearly "The End" to be followed by the Judgement and the new heaven and the new earth in which all promises receive eternal fulfilment greater than human imagining; thus IF the return of Israel were clearly prophesied, I would have applied to it Paul's principle relating to the "Man of Lawlessness" ... if that must yet be, then "The End" is not yet!

This is assuming that the second coming is NOT a 2 act drama as I think scripture shows. If I am right then Christians will witness the end of the man of lawlessness from a heavenly vantage point.

quote:
Gamaliel: in the scheme derived from Darby, the conclusion reached - and clearly wrongly - was that since their basic scheme demanded an 'any minute now' Return of Jesus, the return of Israel 'had to be' after the Rapture in this unnecessary post-Rapture period artificially created to be a home for such prophecy.

This artificiality is continually asserted. It is not so. Look at the many scriptures that denote the second coming and judge for yourself if there is a consistent harmonious picture. It simply is not the case. There are clearly different irreconcilable scenarios. eg in Matt 24. Explain them if you can. You already know how I do.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is reassuring to them that the day of the Lord is something THEY need not anticipate since THEY are not appointed to God's wrath as the unbelieving world is.

The text does not say anything about them not needing to anticipate.

quote:
Thank you for the acknowledgement of the 'Peri de' point

I don't know what you think I've acknowledged. It may mark a change of subject, but there is nothing in the text to say the change of subject is from stage one of the parousia to stage two.

quote:

quote:
"although grace stoops to the gentile, it does not confirm him in his position of a gentile but lifts him out of it and denationalises him for in the church of this dispensation there is neither Jew nor gentile Gal 3:28. Judah's promises on the contrary, imply that blessing will reach the Jew as a Jew not only recognising his national position but confirming him in it"

And this is what I have against dispensationalism. The eschatalogical vision of Revelation sees one people of God united by the New Covenant, of which the Church is the fullest expression, an inclusive prospect which as far as I can see is hinted at from Genesis onwards.

quote:
The branches were broken off but the root remained intact as it were.

The question is what Paul has in mind as the root. The argument that the root consists of the covenants to Israel runs counter to the entire argument of the rest of Romans, which is that believers ever since Abraham have been justified by grace through faith, the point of Rom 4 being that this was the case before there was even the covenant of circumcision. According to Paul himself the root appears to be justification by faith.

quote:
The covenants were and ARE Jewish covenants.

Keep on down that line and pretty soon you will have no need for the work of Christ at all: "if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Gal 2:21) "if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Gal 3:21)

quote:
Look at the many scriptures that denote the second coming and judge for yourself if there is a consistent harmonious picture. It simply is not the case. There are clearly different irreconcilable scenarios.

As I have asked before, why this overwhelming need to harmonise everything?

Only the most contrived efforts can make the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection harmonise perfectly. Does that lead you to believe there was a multiple-stage resurrection?

And the fact is that your "harmonisation" is not actually harmonisation, because to achieve harmonisation it adds speculative extra-biblical pieces.

[ 20. December 2016, 05:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
don't know what you think I've acknowledged. It may mark a change of subject, but there is nothing in the text to say the change of subject is from stage one of the parousia to stage two.

I don't think it shows stage 2 of the parousia, It shows the time of the tribulation. Jesus returns as Judge when this is at its climax, the Jewish remnant have at last acknowledged their true Messiah (see Zechariah 12 and 13 "they shall look on him whom they pierced")and he returns to rescue them after two thirds of the nation have perished. I think by the term Day of the Lord, Paul is signifying that this is the final 42 months of the 70th week of Daniel. Jesus returns at the climax of the destruction as he says in Matt 24, if those days were not shortened no one would survive. Incidentally, I am not suggesting this is imminent. It could be many years, just that the scenario of Armageddon needs Israel in their land and we do see that since 1948.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
don't know what you think I've acknowledged. It may mark a change of subject, but there is nothing in the text to say the change of subject is from stage one of the parousia to stage two.
I don't think it shows stage 2 of the parousia, It shows the time of the tribulation.

My point is that none of this can be concluded from "peri de".

As I understand it, "peri de" means "now, with respect to...". It does not mean "and now we turn to look at what happens next".

The immediate subject in the text is the general one of "dates and times", and as I understand it the issue to which Paul turns by using this phrase is one of not being hung up on dates and times.

That is all.

You cannot infer a series of chronologically distinct events merely from the phrase "peri de".

[ 20. December 2016, 07:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
keep on down that line and pretty soon you will have no need for the work of Christ at all: "if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Gal 2:21) "if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Gal 3:21)

The covenants of Israel are not the law. They are the contracts God made first with Abraham Isaac and Jacob primarily. The point here is that as father of faith, Abraham is the key figure and of course we gentile Christians are faith sons and daughters of Abraham through our faith in Christ. I certainly do not believe we must all become Jews and keep the Mosaic law. It was only an indicator of Gods righteousness and our sinfulness. Paul specifically asks what is the benefit of being Jewish and answers, much and in every way because theirs were the covenants by which he meant that pre Christ, one had to be Jewish to be acceptable to God, post the cross, the spiritual blessings of those covenants are open to us gentiles but they do remain Jewish covenants which is the point Anderson implies. The issue is who is joined to whom. The answer is that we are joined to God via the covenants. In that sense they are the rootstock of God's people and we are the fruit from being grafted in.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

I

quote:
you cannot infer a series of chronologically distinct events merely from the phrase "peri de"

Agreed. I am suggesting only that it is a contrastive. Paul from discussing that they need not panic about their loved ones who have died in the Lord, 1thes4 15-17, now goes on to mention times and seasons, a different subject 1thes 5:1-5. This is really further reassurance as someone had obviously been telling them that the day of the Lord had already come.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
As I have asked before, why this overwhelming need to harmonise everything?

Only the most contrived efforts can make the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection harmonise perfectly. Does that lead you to believe there was a multiple-stage resurrection?

And the fact is that your "harmonisation" is not actually harmonisation, because to achieve harmonisation it adds speculative extra-biblical pieces

Well it either makes some coherent logical sense or you cannot call it a revelation. If we have to live with dissonance then tell me why we refuse to do this in our normal lives. To me, there are no extra biblical speculations it is a case of two scenarios of the second coming. One seems to be a coming for his own the other seems to be a coming as an avenging warrior. Which is it? How is it both?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I
quote:
you cannot infer a series of chronologically distinct events merely from the phrase "peri de"
Agreed. I am suggesting only that it is a contrastive. Paul from discussing that they need not panic about their loved ones who have died in the Lord, 1thes4 15-17, now goes on to mention times and seasons, a different subject 1thes 5:1-5. This is really further reassurance as someone had obviously been telling them that the day of the Lord had already come.

In which case it offers no prima facie evidence at all of either a two-stage rapture or a post-rapture tribulation.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well it either makes some coherent logical sense or you cannot call it a revelation.

I think the overall revelation makes some coherent logical sense, but that this is not the same thing as needing every detail of that revelation to be harmonised (my mum used to worry about one or two items of Temple cutlery having been lost between, as I recall, Numbers and Ezra, if you read the lists...).

At the risk of straying into DH territory again, this is a lot easier if you take the Scripture as inspired, but consisting of human attempts to get a handle on what God is doing, rather than divine dictation perfectly correct in every detail.

(Which I think is more respectful of Scripture and inspiration, not less).

quote:
If we have to live with dissonance then tell me why we refuse to do this in our normal lives.

I'm not sure we do refuse to do this. Life is full of paradoxes. The whole point is that it isn't a neat system and that's why an overly-detailed neat system is the wrong way to understand it.

quote:
To me, there are no extra biblical speculations it is a case of two scenarios of the second coming. One seems to be a coming for his own the other seems to be a coming as an avenging warrior. Which is it? How is it both?

Already "two scenarios" is a lot more acceptabe than "two chronological stages". Call them "two perspectives" (on what might be a single event, like the Resurrection, for which we have four perspectives) and your dissonance is resolved.

I see no incompatibility between Christ coming to enact judgement on the unbeliever and to take his Church to be with him in a single eschatalogical event.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The point here is that as father of faith, Abraham is the key figure and of course we gentile Christians are faith sons and daughters of Abraham through our faith in Christ

The mistake here is "gentile". The whole point of Romans 4 is that when God called Abraham, he was in effect a gentile himself; there was no covenant of circumcision and no such thing as a Jew.

God certainly went on to have a specific plan for the Jews, but at least by the epistles Paul has come to understand this plan as secondary to his plan for all nations, not the other way round.

Of course this is not an easy conundrum to resolve, still less for a Jew, and you can feel Paul struggling with it himself in Romans 9-11, but to my mind there can be no question about which way round it was resolved not only by him but by the New Testament Church, not only in practice (believing Jews as a subset of the Church, see in particular Acts 15) but also in theology (believing Jews as a subset of God's unique people, depicted as his city/bride in Revelation at the end of all things - with the foundations of the city including both the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes)

quote:
pre Christ, one had to be Jewish to be acceptable to God

That is nonsense.

You are implying that at one time, righteousness could come by the law. As I say, Abraham wasn't acceptable on the grounds of his Jewishness, and the OT is festooned with non-Jews who were acceptable to God. The idea of a people of faith as opposed to an ethnic people runs right through the Bible.

Certainly there were (potentially) benefits to being Jewish and having direct access to all that legacy, but as Paul goes on to say, it didn't do them much good because "their zeal was not after knowledge".

quote:
The answer is that we are joined to God via the covenants.

Where do you get that from in the Bible?

quote:
In that sense they are the rootstock of God's people and we are the fruit from being grafted in.

Again, you are going to have to argue that explicitly verse by verse from Romans 11 for me. I don't think you can.

Paul does not say exactly what the "rootstock" is (remember, this is just an illustration, and as so often in Paul, illustrations are not totally consistent...) but I contend, per Rom 4, it is the community of those justified by faith.

What is beyond doubt is that there is ONE olive tree, not TWO.

If you think the olive tree is the Jewish people in this illustration, you are into all sorts of problems.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

ISTM that what we're seeing here is the development of the idea from a tribal God, who's only on the lookup for his own people, and may be actively hostile to others (in other words, embodying the attitude of the tribe) and a universal God who is creator and Lord of all. The gods of other nations go from being rival gods to gods who are much weaker (my God's bigger than your god!) to being not gods at all - effectively demonised.

The place of the Jews in this therefore changes. At the beginning they're the only people who matter - how else could you have the Joshua genocide narratives if you considered the Canaanites as people rather than Enemies Of My Tribe? Then they become a chosen people amongst other peoples who are also created by God but don't know it or know God. Ultimate the idea that one group is by virtue of their ethnicity somehow superior or special is one that has to fall; from our viewpoint it's basically racism and it's surprising to me that there are still Christians in this day and age who want any truck with it. This is my understanding of John the Baptists ranting about children of Abraham and God being able to turn rocks into children for Abraham. It doesn't matter. No-one is special; no-one gets special dispensation.

At least, that's how I see it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't remember John the Baptist 'ranting' about that ... [Confused]

Meanwhile, whilst I can understand Jamat's argument and his concern to 'make sense' and reconcile things - and indeed to find scope and place for the Jewish people who have so often been side-lined and persecuted during the 'dispensation' of Christendom (if we can put it that way) - the 'times of the Gentiles' - I'm not convinced it resolves anything.

All it does is beg further questions.

For instance, not all Jewish Christians understand these things in a dispensationalist/pre-millenial way. You'd assume, from Jamat's line of reasoning, that they might be tempted to do so because it would be in their interests to do so ...

But they don't.

That's just one of several anomalies.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't remember John the Baptist 'ranting' about that ...

Well, you weren't there ... nor was I!!! [Cool]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ha ha ... I had anticipated that some wag might say that ...

But you know what I mean.

If we're going to post in Kerygmania then at least we should check our references ... [Cool]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Eutychus;

quote:
I see no incompatibility between Christ coming to enact judgement on the unbeliever and to take his Church to be with him in a single eschatalogical event.

Agreed.

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't remember John the Baptist 'ranting' about that ...

Luke 3:7-9

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, got you, I'd forgotten about the stones reference in that quote.

Thanks.refd

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

That's the thing about us faithless Christian Agnostics - we tend to know our Bibles quite well. That's how we ended up Agnostic. Too often we've read it and said "Well I don't know about that!"

[ 20. December 2016, 21:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
again, you are going to have to argue that explicitly verse by verse from Romans 11 for me. I don't think you can

Ro 11:1 The Jews are not rejected or supplanted
11:12,13 their fulfilment,their acceptance is anticipated
11:17 gentiles are partakers of the rich root of the olive tree
11:24 the natural branches shall be grafted into their own olive tree (whose?)
11:29 the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable(ie the promises to the Jews are not revoked)

Where do I find in the Bible that we are joined to God by the covenants?

I think Romans 4:13 is a good place to begin.
The promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be HEIR OF the WORLD..was through the righteousness of faith. The import here is that God made a covenant with Abraham and his offspring the Jews. He has extended this to include not only Jews but ALL who believe. Christ was sent, remember to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but then later God demonstrated in Acts in the incident of Cornelius, that it was not only to Jews that the Holy Spirit was given.
It is clear then that gentiles are also partakers. The link of all this to Abraham's covenant is summed up in the word faith; Ro4:16 the promise may be certain..to those..who are of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all.

However, the real point of issue is who the NEW covenant is with. Jesus at the last supper spoke of the new covenant in his blood. There is only one NEW covenant in scripture found in Jeremiah 31:33. It is with the house of Israel,NOT the church. This covenant was about heart change in for Israel. I believe that the inauguration of this will be the trigger of the second coming see Zech chs12,13. This poses the question of whether the present church, obviously mainly Gentiles, participate presently in new covenant blessings. I think we do as shown in Hebrews 12:22-24 where it says we have come to Mt Zion on the basis of the sprinkled blood. We therefore benefit now but there is a future inauguration when the entire remnant of Israel will enter into this covenant as well.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
ISTM that what we're seeing here is the development of the idea from a tribal God, who's only on the lookup for his own people, and may be actively hostile to others (in other words, embodying the attitude of the tribe) and a universal God who is creator and Lord of all. The gods of other nations go from being rival gods to gods who are much weaker (my God's bigger than your god!) to being not gods at all - effectively demonised.

The place of the Jews in this therefore changes. At the beginning they're the only people who matter - how else could you have the Joshua genocide narratives if you considered the Canaanites as people rather than Enemies Of My Tribe? Then they become a chosen people amongst other peoples who are also created by God but don't know it or know God. Ultimate the idea that one group is by virtue of their ethnicity somehow superior or special is one that has to fall; from our viewpoint it's basically racism and it's surprising to me that there are still Christians in this day and age who want any truck with it. This is my understanding of John the Baptists ranting about children of Abraham and God being able to turn rocks into children for Abraham. It doesn't matter. No-one is special; no-one gets special dispensation.

At least, that's how I see it.

Yes I see your point. It is interesting that the Yhwh of the OT specifically claims not to be tribal but to be the creator of all and the dictator of all which means he claims management of history entire while limiting himself to a particular tribal group, Jews, for the purpose of demonstrating his character to the wider body of humanity. Incidentally, you know my thoughts from afar about his alleged genocidal predilections but we need not go into that here.

I think in one sense no one is special but in another, specialness is dictated by one's heart. The hardness or softness of heart towards the Lord is one's own choice it seems to me and he accepts or rejects all on that basis certainly not on the basis of ethnicity. " If you should today hear his voice do not harden your heart " as it says in Hebrews.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Jamat, it seems to me that you are just not coming to terms with what I'm saying about the 'Rapture' issue.

There is only one reason to believe in the scheme of a 'Rapture of the Church' followed by several further years of earthly history before a further separate 'Day of the Lord' return of Jesus.

That reason is NOT a reason drawn from Scripture itself, it arises from the *assumption*, initially made by Irving and followed by Darby & Co, that we are positively required to expect the Second Coming 'any minute now'.

IF accepted, that in turn leads to the necessary conclusion that there 'must be' a further/extra period of history after the Rapture in which prophecies can come to pass which have not been fulfilled already but don't belong after that 'Day of the Lord'.

I don't accept that view. I accept the view implied by Paul's interpretation of the 'Man of Lawlessness' that if such unfulfilled prophecies exist, then "the end is not yet". The prophecies in question may still be fulfilled in a very short time, especially in our modern world with its speedy travel and communications, so there is no cause for complacency as Christians await that ONE day of fulfillment.

I might also make the points that
1) There is enough uncertainty about some of those prophecies and what would constitute a fulfilment that it is still possible that Jesus might return almost 'any minute now'; but again, as a single event, not the double event separated by years that is envisaged by dispensationalists and the 'Left Behind' school of thought. And
2) We in any case need to be ready for the possibility that we may personally die unexpectedly 'any minute now' long before Jesus returns. I've been particularly conscious of that possibility since being knocked down by a car while crossing a road a few years ago; again, no cause for complacency....

I can find no reason in Scripture to separate the day of Jesus' return for his people in I Thess 4 from the 'day of the Lord' in I Thess 5. That phrase 'peri de' is used elsewhere in Scripture and simply means 'but concerning....' It is simply not strong enough to require chs 4 and 5 to be about totally different subjects.

It is a perfectly natural reading to see Paul in ch4 dealing with the event in terms of Jesus coming for his people, and then to move on in ch5 to point out that He doesn't really need to give them information on times and seasons - they 'already know' that this event will come 'like a thief in the night'. Disastrously for the unbelieving world, but no such shock and terror for God's expectant people.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
I can find no reason in Scripture to separate the day of Jesus' return for his people in I Thess 4 from the 'day of the Lord' in I Thess 5. That phrase 'peri de' is used elsewhere in Scripture and simply means 'but concerning....' It is simply not strong enough to require chs 4 and 5 to be about totally different subjects

I think this turns on the word assumption that can suggest imposing an idea not inferred from the text. Well we are enjoined and the apostolic church expected a quick return. It is interesting though that Jesus said in Acts that it was not for his closest friends to know times and seasons that the father alone knows. He said earlier that not even the son knows and here we are in the 21st century. Paul says in 1 thes 5,
"Now concerning the times and seasons.."
These times and seasons are an interesting thing as they obviously pertain to God's intended actions. It seems that the assumption here is about things not revealed. We do not know when the setting up of the Kingdom will be. We DO know that it will come at a climactic turbulent time in history. We also know from Zechariah that it will take the form of a rescue of national Israel and a judgement of evil.
We are told in John 14 that Jesus will come for the church to receive it unto himself. We are told in 1Cor15:51 that we will not all sleep but we shall all be changed. This change is also is signalled in 1Thes 4:15-17. But it is not signalled in 1Thes 5:1-5.
On what basis do you say The words "Now concerning" are not strong enough? How 'strong' must it be to suggest; 'I've dealt with that point ,now I'm moving the discussion along'? ISTM that Paul is doing just that. He has dealt with the fear of death question the Thessalonians had. Now he is dealing with the statements of mischievous false teachers that the 'Day of the Lord' has come already.
My question is how how is that unreasonable? Where is the unwarranted assumption I am making to read it that way?

[ 21. December 2016, 18:15: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On what basis do you say The words "Now concerning" are not strong enough? How 'strong' must it be to suggest; 'I've dealt with that point ,now I'm moving the discussion along'? ISTM that Paul is doing just that. He has dealt with the fear of death question the Thessalonians had. Now he is dealing with the statements of mischievous false teachers that the 'Day of the Lord' has come already.
My question is how how is that unreasonable? Where is the unwarranted assumption I am making to read it that way?

There is nothing unwarranted at all in the way you put it there.

What is unwarranted is your insistence, on the sole basis of the phrase "peri de", that this "day of the Lord" is a chronologically separate event from the parousia.

"Peri de" means, as I understand it, and you seem to too, "now, about...". Nothing more, nothing less.

(I've seen your comments on Rom 11 but for various reasons have not had time to address them yet, I will try to do so soon)

[ 21. December 2016, 19:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
I think this turns on the word assumption that can suggest imposing an idea not inferred from the text. Well we are enjoined and the apostolic church expected a quick return.

Yes, by using the word 'assumption' I did indeed mean that Irving and Darby following him "imposed an idea not inferred from the text".

Yes we are enjoined to be watchful and expectant; yes, the apostolic church expected a quick return of their Lord. But equally clearly

a) there is a level of such expectancy which actually harms the effectiveness of the Church in its mission in the world - as had happened to the Thessalonians requiring Paul to write to them.

b) As Paul pointed out, there is an issue of the prior unfulfilled prophecies like that of the 'Man of Lawlessness' - and Paul clearly expects that the church on earth at the time of the Rapture will have seen those events, and there is nothing in his actual words to suggest that they will only see them from heaven after being raptured; it's "You will see that and until you see it you can be sure the end is not yet".

c) The 'assumption' in question is that we are not merely to expect a 'quick return', but we are to live in constant 'red alert' expectancy of a return 'any minute now'. And that assumption goes way beyond anything in Scripture especially when you factor in Paul's words about dealing with unfulfilled prophecy.

The problem is that if, like Irving and Darby, you insist that expectation can only be in terms of something that must be able to happen 'any minute now' then you also force on yourself that (apparent!) necessity to create a 'post-Rapture' period in which the unfulfilled prophecies can happen. Whereas the principle to be derived from Paul's advice and his hermeneutic is precisely to be aware of the prophecies, pull back from 'red alert' while by no means becoming complacent, and let the prophecies be fulfilled in their due time - in the case of the prophecy of Israel's return to the land, in 1948.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
What is unwarranted is your insistence, on the sole basis of the phrase "peri de", that this "day of the Lord" is a chronologically separate event from the parousia.

Well it may be or not. I do not know. Personally, I doubt it. The second coming is ISTM a totally predictable event. We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin,a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them, a repentant national Israel and a wrecked world, BEFORE it can occur.

Steve, I do not understand imminency in terms of time or timing. The rapture is imminent because no prophetic event is scheduled to occur beforehand. Thus, imminency means it could have occurred any time since the day of Pentecost. Obviously it hasn't and lots of Jesus' parables seem clearer in that light. EG. The story of the landowner that goes on a long journey and leaves servants in charge but then returns demanding a reckoning.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
What is unwarranted is your insistence, on the sole basis of the phrase "peri de", that this "day of the Lord" is a chronologically separate event from the parousia.

Well it may be or not. I do not know. Personally, I doubt it. The second coming is ISTM a totally predictable event. We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin,a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them, a repentant national Israel and a wrecked world, BEFORE it can occur.

Steve, I do not understand imminency in terms of time or timing. The rapture is imminent because no prophetic event is scheduled to occur beforehand. Thus, imminency means it could have occurred any time since the day of Pentecost. Obviously it hasn't and lots of Jesus' parables seem clearer in that light. EG. The story of the landowner that goes on a long journey and leaves servants in charge but then returns demanding a reckoning.

Yes, the 'Second Coming' requires certain prophecy to be first fulfilled, though the exact day will still be uncertain till it actually happens. But the watchful and expectant Christians who are present on that day will not be catastrophically taken by surprise in the same way that the disbelieving world will, when what the world may see as their moment of triumph is suddenly reversed by Jesus' return.

And as far as I can tell from Scripture, the "watchful and expectant Christians who are present on that day" are so present because there will NOT have been an intermediate event that removes all the Christians from the world. The 'Rapture' and the 'Second Coming' are the SAME EVENT, occurring on the same day. On that day believers will be caught up to meet Jesus, and unbelievers will despair.

Some believers will presumably, in the natural course of events, be literally asleep at that Return, and will be briefly disconcerted till they fully awake and realise what is happening; I don't think Paul's reference to sleep in I Thess 5 refers to that natural sleep, but rather to the spiritual sleep of unbelief.

Likewise I suppose there may be some Christians who haven't been totally watchful and will be considerably disconcerted by the event; but again, once they realise what's happening, no problem - or not comparable to the problem faced by unbelievers!

And I guess there will be many nominal Christians for whom the event will devastatingly reveal the unreality of their faith, and they will realise they are lost; and a major point in the call to be watchful and expectant is also a call to make sure that your faith is the real thing, and not a complacent worldly nominalism.

But the point is precisely that the Second Coming is a SECOND Coming; it is not, as the 'Left Behind/Rapture' interpretation represents it, a 'Third Coming' years after the supposed 'Rapture of the Church'. Ipso facto, the events that must be fulfilled for the Second Coming to be possible must also be fulfilled before the 'Rapture', precisely because that is NOT a separate event but an integral part of the Second Coming.

The natural reading of I Thessalonians is of a single event, occurring on one day; and I know of no Biblical passage that contradicts that interpretation. The alternative "Rapture years before the 'Day of the Lord'" interpretation only needs to exist because the text has had imposed upon it that assumption, going back to Irving, that the Second Coming 'must be any-minute-now', and those holding that belief have been forced to hypothesise an intermediate post-Rapture period to accommodate assorted so-far-unfulfilled prophecies.

IF we are the generation alive at the last days we will see the 'Man of Lawlessness' and the other prophecies fulfilled before Jesus returns.

I do, mind, have a query about this...

quote:
We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin,a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them, a repentant national Israel

As I've said, I think it highly probable that there will be a mass turning of Jews to their Messiah/King Jesus before his return. I'm much less certain that that event actually requires an earthly nation of Israel; though I can see how disillusion with the reality of the earthly nation may be a considerable factor in pointing Jews worldwide to Jesus.

quote:
a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them

I'd need Scripture references for that detail, especially in view of my next comment....

quote:
We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin

Do we need literal armies surrounding a literal Jerusalem in a literal nation of Israel? In Hebrews 12; 22, the writer tells converted Jews that they have

quote:
come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Heb 12:22-24 (NIV)

Here, in line with other teachings of the epistle about the relationship of ethnic Israel to Jesus, 'Zion/Jerusalem' is identified with the church/ekklesia, the body of Christians. Is the 'man of sin' and his armies attacking a literal Jerusalem in the literal land of Israel? Or is he in fact attacking the church, worldwide, God's holy nation in this age?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Jamat, I'm sorry it's taken me some time to get back to you about Rom 11.

The way I read it hinges on verses 23-24:

quote:
23 And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

The crucial part of this to my mind is "if they do not persist in unbelief". This tallies with what Paul says in verse 5, echoing the faithful prophets in Elijah's time, "there is a remnant, chosen by grace", and verse 7, "Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened".

In other words, Paul points to the fact that throughout Israel's history, there were those who believed (by faith) and those who were hardened, fell away, and did not believe (v20).

There has always been a "remnant" of the "elect", all the way through history, distinct from any external organisation be it the people of Israel or the earthly expression of the Church.

This is what I and others here mean by the "Church Universal" or the "city of God/bride of Christ" or the "heavenly Zion", spanning all ages.

From this it follows that the "root" or "natural olive tree" is that of justification by faith, a "tree" made up of those who "walk with God".

As I see it Paul is saying that in some ways this ought to be part of natural Israel's "DNA" because they have a whole legacy of God dealing with them and with particular individuals in their midst to draw on; they ought to "get it" more easily.

I believe the "gifts and calling of God" not to apply mechanically and legalistically to every last person who calls themselves a Jew but to those of Israel who Paul foresees turning to Christ on a massive scale before the end comes.

As argued before by me and others, similarly I see the promises regarding the land to be subsumed in the better, spiritual inheritance of which the land was only a type or shadow.

Admittedly Paul's argument is hard to follow and open to diverse interpretation. As I said you can sense him struggling with the very paradox we are arguing about himself, although I think he comes down firmly on the side I prefer [Biased]

.

Sorry not to do this more justice but that's all I have time for right now.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Paul is at the beginning of the trajectory of Jesus. Of salvation. We don't, can't think like him now. He feared that Jews who rejected Christ were damned beyond this dim scintilla of a life. They weren't. They aren't. They won't be. Nobody will be. Paul did an excellent job, the best possible job of wrestling his way part way out of the chrysalis of his culture, to crack it open from the inside at least, trying to find a way to see salvation for his people. Thanks to his efforts, we can see much further. Through a glass brightly.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Paul is at the beginning of the trajectory of Jesus. Of salvation. We don't, can't think like him now.

So how is it I can follow his train of thought, at least in part?

I simply don't agree that thought processes are so totally culture and context-bound as you seem to think.

The Bible and its reasoning might be hard to understand properly and impossible to understand fully, but they are not completely opaque to us.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Martin - you would be able to follow Paul a lot better if you did not assume that he held to some form of double predestination. I realise it forms some part of your history, but reading that back on to him is hardly helpful here.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This will be good H Ron B, Eutychus. But it'll take me a while!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Martin - you would be able to follow Paul a lot better if you did not assume that he held to some form of double predestination. I realise it forms some part of your history, but reading that back on to him is hardly helpful here.

I realize now there's no need for a full study here of Romans 8-11 and Ephesians 1, although I'm more than happy to do that if necessary.

What makes you think I've ever thought that? I never have. I see Paul struggling with damnationism and mainly overcoming it. So as I have never ascribed any form of double predestination to Paul, what in my history made you think I did? And what is the form you adduced? And as I didn't, what yet lacks in my following of Paul?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Paul is at the beginning of the trajectory of Jesus. Of salvation. We don't, can't think like him now.
So how is it I can follow his train of thought, at least in part?

I simply don't agree that thought processes are so totally culture and context-bound as you seem to think.

The Bible and its reasoning might be hard to understand properly and impossible to understand fully, but they are not completely opaque to us.

I don't see the problem. I'd like to see any evidence that expressed, articulated thought processes transcend culture - apart from Jesus' of course! And I completely agree with the paragraphs either side shorn of the false dichotomy, the false syllogism. The fact that we don't think like him doesn't mean we can't understand him. We aren't damnationists. He had feared for his people, that they were damned. We know they aren't.

... and in the final analysis I don't think he did either. He may never have done in fact, but his complex writing may encapsulate, recapitulate his own journey.

Although there is a caveat for salvation or rather damnation still in Paul:

Romans 11:23 (NIVUK) And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Unless his imagination allowed for postmortem salvation.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Message received Martin. Will need to get back to you (which I shall try to do) later as may need to go out shortly.

(PS your mailbox is full!)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd like to see any evidence that expressed, articulated thought processes transcend culture (...) The fact that we don't think like him doesn't mean we can't understand him.

In the absolute we obviously can't be sure we think like our next-door neighbour let alone someone a couple of thousand years ago. But indeed, we may well understand them.

How much we can or should dismiss what we think they're saying on the basis of their time and context is beyond the scope of this discussion.

The point in this discussion that has taken us to Rom 11 is whether Paul envisages a destiny for the Jews separately from the NT people of God.

As outlined in my post before last, I understand Paul to see both believing Jews and Gentiles as being justified by faith, forming part of the same, single body of Christ/city of God, and not two separate entities or categories of God's people as dispensationalism claims.

In short, I believe Rom 11 does not offer support for dispensationalist views.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I really don't see what the problem is in Paul.

“Have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (11:11-12)

verse 23, “And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”

So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” (verses 25-27)

God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (verses 32-33)

So despite what looks like a caveat for damnation in v. 23, Paul is reaching for universal salvation for the Jews and therefore for everyone.

That cannot possibly be achieved in this ignorant scintilla of existence. Postmortem salvation is implicit here, on the trajectory. So yes, God's plan in which there is NO historical damnation of the Jews except contingently, despite Paul and the prophets all reading that in to history, let alone on Judgement Day, is to save all beyond the little flock.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I really don't see what the problem is in Paul.

The "problem" in Paul, in the context of this thread, is that it has been alleged, mistakenly in my view, that Rom 11 offers evidence of the Jews being God's original chosen people and beneficiaries of salvation, with the Gentiles being a temporary adjunct to that people following the Jews' rejection of Jesus. That is all.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ohhhh. Is that all? It's not in there at all.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That is all that is relevant in the context of this specific discussion, which is whether Romans 11 offers convincing support for a dispensationalist hermeneutic. In my view it does not.

I'm not being drawn into discussing anything else it might or might not mean here.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Good for you that man! Aye, dispensationalism is Ptolemaic un-Occamian shit we make up.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

In the three to seven dispensations the cart of the evolving, cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is put before the horse of ineffable, immutable God by historical-grammatical interpretation coupled with progressive revelation as seen in the historical development of the covenants.

It is quite astoundingly idolatrous.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Martin - you would be able to follow Paul a lot better if you did not assume that he held to some form of double predestination. I realise it forms some part of your history, but reading that back on to him is hardly helpful here.
I realize now there's no need for a full study here of Romans 8-11 and Ephesians 1, although I'm more than happy to do that if necessary.

What makes you think I've ever thought that? I never have. I see Paul struggling with damnationism and mainly overcoming it. So as I have never ascribed any form of double predestination to Paul, what in my history made you think I did? And what is the form you adduced? And as I didn't, what yet lacks in my following of Paul?

(Back again - apologies for the delay. Blame the New Year)

I guess it hinges around this use of "damnationism".

The thread is about the rapture, and whether this can be accomodated by Jewish thought as well as the NT.

Jews didn't believe the world was coming to an end. What they did believe was that the coming of the messiah would bring The Day of the Lord, whence injustice would cease and God would reign over the whole earth. (Very short-form version of course).

So I don't think Paul struggles with damnationism. What he probably does struggle with is understanding what The Day of the Lord (having understood Jesus to be the messiah) could mean in the context of a world that continued with palpable injustices. The usual way of explaining it is the "here yet not yet here fully" sort of thing. More specifically that since belief is a gift from God, those that believe already possess the Spirit of God who is the giver of life. So not so much about God damning people but that the believer should not imperil themselves by throwing the gift of life away. (The Pauline letters are all written to believing communities).

Put bluntly, I'm struggling to see where the concept of damnationism can come from other than double predestination. I had thought that from earlier posts of yours that you had formerly been in rather evangelical circles, and I had assumed that that was the form of damnationism you were rejecting, hence my comments. Naturally, if I have misconstrued the situation then I apologise.

Though I can't see where else damnationism may arise, save for the medieval catholic church which had a separate strain of that, which seems unlikely.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You are a gentleman and a scholar and not for the first time.

Although I tried to embrace Anglican evangelicalism for a handful of years, I never embraced any form of predestinarianism, thanks to inoculation by, of all things, Armstrongism for a quarter of a century, which despite getting everything else wrong, got the big-mindedness of God right.

I see damnationism throughout the NT, starting with Jesus Himself of course, who threatened even the disciples with Hell for not being evangelical. Typical hyperbole on His part I'm sure, but there's more than an edge of belief to it I reckon. As in PSA. One cannot pretend to be mad for long without going mad: One cannot use the language, beliefs of a culture without meaning them, even when transcending them. Paul couldn't not have imbibed these late Jewish beliefs, reinforced by Jesus whilst incidentally transcending them, as in twice promising Sodom and Gomorrah a more bearable judgement than the obviously still bearable judgement of disbelieving Jewish cities. All in the same context of threatening the disciples.

Coherency wasn't a big deal.

So I see it implicitly here: Romans 11:23 “And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”. If Jews (or anybody else) do persist in unbelief, they will not be grafted in. Unless of course Paul was only talking about this life. As in the next, even Sodom and Gomorrah are grafted in.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You are a gentleman and a scholar and not for the first time.

Host hat on

Martin, refrain from personal remarks, even complimentary ones.

Host hat off

Moo

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ma'am.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Eytychus:This is what I and others here mean by the "Church Universal" or the "city of God/bride of Christ" or the "heavenly Zion", spanning all ages

Yes, I am aware you see "church" anywhere in the Bible you see "saints" "people of God" or "Israel".
This is certainly a common hermeneutic but not one that stands up to contextual scrutiny. Jesus said in Matt 18
"I WILL build my church" He did not anywhere suggest that he would continue to build what was there already but that he would (future tense) create a new entity. This duly happened in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit fell upon that group of 120.
There IS certainly a people of God spanning all ages but this does not necessarily mean they are all in one category. Why should they be?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In the three to seven dispensations the cart of the evolving, cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is put before the horse of ineffable, immutable God by historical-grammatical interpretation coupled with progressive revelation as seen in the historical development of the covenants.

It is quite astoundingly idolatrous.

Martin, this sounds like a new kind of Gnosticism where you speculate on the nature of God, the nature of Judaistic thinking, none of which you can be sure of apart from the scriptures which you divorce your thinking from. Then you proceed to extrapolate from this very dubious basis a universalist conclusion that flies in the face of most of what Jesus taught about the consequences of sin.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm sorry mate, I don't see the connection.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Eytychus:This is what I and others here mean by the "Church Universal" or the "city of God/bride of Christ" or the "heavenly Zion", spanning all ages
Yes, I am aware you see "church" anywhere in the Bible you see "saints" "people of God" or "Israel".
This is certainly a common hermeneutic but not one that stands up to contextual scrutiny. Jesus said in Matt 18
"I WILL build my church" He did not anywhere suggest that he would continue to build what was there already but that he would (future tense) create a new entity. This duly happened in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit fell upon that group of 120.
There IS certainly a people of God spanning all ages but this does not necessarily mean they are all in one category. Why should they be?

I might agree if 'church' were a totally new term in NT times; but it ain't. OK, the Greek word for it, ekklesia, is newish, but as we discussed a page or so back, it was the LXX OT word for the 'congregation' of Israel, and could also apparently be used as a word for 'synagogue'. Our use of the differently derived word 'church' (from 'kuriakos', "the Lord's", abridged from 'the house of the Lord) to translate [I]ekklesia[I] disguises this and can distort our interpretation.

Another distorting factor is that our relationship to the Jewish people has changed since NT times; in all kinds of ways.

To Peter - a Jew himself - it is clear that Christians were seen (I Pet 2; 9) as a body continuous with the OT Israel, of which he uses OT descriptions about the chosen people, the holy nation, etc. Yes, the ekklesia now includes Gentiles, and it is the ekklesia of the Messiah/Christ Jesus - but it is simply God's people, not a separate entity.

As Paul expresses it, some of the ethnic Jews have stumbled at this and have disinherited themselves while many Gentiles have joined the faithful Jews who do follow King Jesus. By God's grace many of them continue to be saved - but by grace and love, not covenanted right; and there will, at least in some prophetic interpretation, come a time when the mass of the Jews will return to God in Christ. But the idea of the Church as a separate thing discontinuous from the OT people is contradicted over and over by texts which stress the continuity.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Sorry Steve, but the various semantic reasonings are beside the point. Can you deal with the fact thatJesus clearly stated his intention to create a future entity?
As for Peter, he sees the church as an analogous group to Israel, one with similarities and certainly principles in common such as the importance of trust and obedience but this is not a continuous group unless you make some pretty big assumptions.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
this is not a continuous group unless you make some pretty big assumptions.

Can you list what you think these assumptions are?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.

What steps? There is no alternative to cultural evolution but magic. I have no faith in that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.
What steps? There is no alternative to cultural evolution but magic. I have no faith in that.

But to say so, ie that an OT prophet or Paul or The Lord Jesus himself is talking out of a frame of which they were unaware and cannot possibly apply now is a huge assumption. It also gives you the power to decide what parts of what they said cannot apply. These subjective decisions of what to include and what to ignore are the hidden steps. You are denying the ability of God himself, in framing his words in the Bible, to step out of culture. I'm minded of the sentence in Psalms, "Thy word is forever settled in heaven."

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
this is not a continuous group unless you make some pretty big assumptions.
Can you list what you think these assumptions are?

That the saved Jews under Mosaic law are in the same category as NT believers? If so then they are part of the bride of Christ which cuts across Paul in Ephesians.
The big one is that the various watersheds of Biblical history signalled by the covenants God made at those critical points create a single group of people. How can one say Abraham or Enoch or Noah is a member of the church when at that point there was no church? Obviously, all are part of God's people for their time but not part of the same groups as each other or ourselves or whatever future groups occur like the tribulation saints. To say so ignores the contextual covenants that set rules for their relationship to God. Abraham had to circumcise his males for instance but do we?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That the saved Jews under Mosaic law are in the same category as NT believers?

What do you mean by "saved under Mosaic law"?

Do you mean "saved by virtue of the Mosaic law?" If so, you are arguing against the entire New Testament and notably Romans 4, as I have pointed out before.

quote:
If so then they are part of the bride of Christ which cuts across Paul in Ephesians.

How does it cut across Paul in Ephesians when he explicitly says the work of Christ is to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile? The bride of Christ is simply an image of the people of God, all saved on the same basis, that of justification by faith, throughout the ages.

quote:
To say so ignores the contextual covenants that set rules for their relationship to God.

Again, you are implying there are multiple paths to salvation and that justification by faith is just one. Is that what you believe?

quote:
Abraham had to circumcise his males for instance

Not for the purposes of being justified as Romans 4 makes abundantly clear.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.
What steps? There is no alternative to cultural evolution but magic. I have no faith in that.
But to say so, ie that an OT prophet or Paul or The Lord Jesus himself is talking out of a frame of which they were unaware and cannot possibly apply now is a huge assumption.

The only possible assumption (unless the rocks lie, unless God lies), which, as you demonstrate, is huge in its impact. Everybody is talking out of a frame of which they were unaware even if they are aware of it in theory. Quite a pit of cognitive dissonance that you're staring in to there isn't it Jamat? Scary.

quote:

It also gives you the power to decide what parts of what they said cannot apply.

Of course it does. Genocide does not apply. Murdering homosexuals does not apply.

quote:

These subjective decisions of what to include and what to ignore are the hidden steps.

The subjective is real and that which is hidden is revealed. I hide from nothing.

quote:

You are denying the ability of God himself, in framing his words in the Bible, to step out of culture. I'm minded of the sentence in Psalms, "Thy word is forever settled in heaven."

I deny no such thing. His words aren't in the Bible. Ours are.

[ 06. January 2017, 09:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
As for Peter, he sees the church as an analogous group to Israel,

I don't think I can agree with that. Peter actually addresses his fellow church members as "A chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people". He isn't saying that they - including ethnic Jews like himself are merely 'analogous to' Israel - he is describing them as Israel. Gentile and Jew are together God's people, inheriting the promise to Abraham as Paul also says.

There is certainly a new element in the church with the incorporation of the Gentiles - but it is still the continuity that the NT emphasises, and the breaking down of the division between Jew and Gentile in ways it simply doesn't make sense to reverse.

I can't recall how much has been made of it in this thread, but there is sometimes talk as if the church era was a 'parenthesis', a kind of extra to a temporarily failed main plan for Israel. But as I read it, going right back to Abraham and the promise to bless the nations through him, it is almost (though not quite!) Israel which is the parenthesis, a period in which God, while not totally ignoring the rest of the world, concentrates his purpose on Israel in order to clarify and show his plan to save all, not just as an abstract idea but as something seen in a specific history, with historic evidence of its preparation and consummation.

In effect, the main thread, the overruling and key thread, is resumed with Jesus.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Steve, the epistle of Peter is specifically directed those who reside as aliens throughout Pontus, Capadocia,Asia, Galatia and Bithynia. IOW to Jewish Christians not gentile church members. This does not mean it applies only to them but it does suggest a bias towards them, consequently the understandings of chosen race,royal priesthood, holy nation etc are probably Jewish expectations primarily. The church as a whole is not usually seen as a nation for instance. I think a good case can be made as stated above, for Jewish Christians being a bit separated from ,though not privileged above, gentile ones. Paul seemed for instance to circumcise Jewish converts but not gentile ones.
Fructenbaum, whom I highly rate, takes this line in his commentary on 1 Peter. The following is a comment by a third party on this.

"The Ariel Bible Commentary incorporates the Messianic Epistles. One of the Commentaries in that volume is 1 Peter by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. It is a well-written exegesis of the original language of 1 Peter. Fruchtenbaum does not analyze every verb tense, voice and mood, like A.T. Robertson, but sufficiently addresses the most important and helpful interpretive issues.

With Fruchtenbaum’s Jewish background and doctoral studies, he is well-equipped to highlight the Jewish nature of this epistle, which was written to the elect in the Diaspora."

[ 07. January 2017, 08:36: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The church as a whole is not usually seen as a nation for instance.

Unless you were moving in Evangelical or Charismatic circles in the 1970s. The church as a nation was pretty standard teaching for them then.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
the epistle of Peter is specifically directed those who reside as aliens throughout Pontus, Capadocia,Asia, Galatia and Bithynia. IOW to Jewish Christians not gentile church members.

Now that (second sentence and especially the second half of the second sentence) is a massive assumption. Nowhere does it say the text is directed at Jewish Christians alone.

Even if it were, there is nothing to suggest they have a separate inheritance or destiny from the people of God as a whole.

quote:
With Fruchtenbaum’s Jewish background and doctoral studies, he is well-equipped to highlight the Jewish nature of this epistle, which was written to the elect in the Diaspora.

Precisely. To the "elect", not just the Jewish elect.

Or are you once again playing with separate categories of the "elect"?

quote:
Paul seemed for instance to circumcise Jewish converts but not gentile ones.

We have discussed this before, and you have not come up with a single instance apart from the exceptional case of Timothy, or explained Paul's vehement denial of preaching circumcision.

Note that as far as I can see, Fruchtenbaum argues for ongoing circumcision for Jews on the basis of national identity, not as playing any part in salvation or eschatology.

I would also like some answers to my questions here.

[ 07. January 2017, 11:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Jamat

The ball's in your court from me too.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Jamat, Paul in Ephesians gives us the same message as Peter - only he indisputably in the context is addressing Gentiles about this New Covenant unity of God's people;

quote:
11 Wherefore, remember, that ye were once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, 12 that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; 13 and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ, 14 for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace, 16 and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, 17 and having come, he did proclaim good news--peace to you--the far-off and the nigh, 18 because through him we have the access--we both--in one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, 20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner -stone, 21 in whom all the building fitly framed together doth increase to an holy sanctuary in the Lord, 22 in whom also ye are builded together, for a habitation of God in the Spirit. Eph 2:11-22 (YLT)

GOD has broken down that wall of separation to bring Jew and Gentile together - and I think that there's a text from a different context which is nevertheless thoroughly applicable

quote:
what therefore God did join together, let not man put asunder.' Mark 10:9 (YLT)

On top of which, as far as I can see the ONLY reason for 'needing' to separate Jew and Gentile in the present has to do with the supposed different destinies in the 'Rapture/Tribulation' scenario which I can't find in Scripture and which I know historically is owed to clear misinterpretation by early 19th century figures. Without that dodgy interpretation, this joint destiny of believing Jews and Gentiles, and the continuity of God's Old and New Testament people, is all that is needed.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Steve, that just isn't arbitrarily verbosely complex enough! Not by a country mile! That's a bluddy great chunk of Ephesians mind.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@Eutychus

quote:
Do you mean "saved by virtue of the Mosaic law?"

No, I mean saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance. As Stated before, the clear teaching of Paul is that no one can be justified by the works of the law.

quote:
How does it cut across Paul in Ephesians when he explicitly says the work of Christ is to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile? The bride of Christ is simply an image of the people of God, all saved on the same basis, that of justification by faith, throughout the ages.

We disagree here as to the bride. I do not know how to visualise a corporate bride but see a special category of believers, the true church, in a relationship with Christ in the future kingdom that will necessarily exclude other categories of true believers.

quote:
Again, you are implying there are multiple paths to salvation and that justification by faith is just one. Is that what you believe?

I am not implying multiple paths to salvation. There is one path, by grace through faith and all saints past,present or future look back or forwards to the cross as the pivot of the deal

quote:
not for the purposes of being justified as Romans 4 makes abundantly clear

Agreed. Circumcision was merely a sign he accepted the deal. It was done as an act of faith. In itself or done for any other reason, it holds no significance.

quote:
..that (second sentence and especially the second half of the second sentence) is a massive assumption. Nowhere does it say the text is directed at Jewish Christians alone.

Even if it were, there is nothing to suggest they have a separate inheritance or destiny from the people of God as a whole.

Only Jews would be part of the dispersion would they not?
Your second point is incorrect. Jews are promised a preeminent place in the future kingdom in multiple places in the OT. Many scriptural references are possible but for starters, Is9:7 "there will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace on the throne of David and over his kingdom"

quote:
Precisely. To the "elect", not just the Jewish elect.

Or are you once again playing with separate categories of the "elect"?

I think elect is used here to distinguish believing from unbelieving Jews.

quote:
We have discussed this before, and you have not come up with a single instance apart from the exceptional case of Timothy, or explained Paul's vehement denial of preaching circumcision.

Note that as far as I can see, Fruchtenbaum argues for ongoing circumcision for Jews on the basis of national identity, not as playing any part in salvation or eschatology.

I think that that one instance, establishes a principle here, Paul circumcised Jewish converts to protect his reputation and to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. It was decided by the council of Jerusalem in Acts that gentiles need not be circumcised but the Jewish converts however were to undergo it. See Acts 15:19. There is an inference here that the two were separate categories of believer in the thinking of the apostles.

quote:
n top of which, as far as I can see the ONLY reason for 'needing' to separate Jew and Gentile in the present has to do with the supposed different destinies in the 'Rapture/Tribulation' scenario which I can't find in Scripture and which I know historically is owed to clear misinterpretation by early 19th century figures. Without that dodgy interpretation, this joint destiny of believing Jews and Gentiles, and the continuity of God's Old and New Testament people, is all that is needed.

Steve, I agree that Christian Jews and gentiles are both in the church. I think scripture shows though that there are some differences not of course as to value before the Lord but I think the passage you quoted from Ephesians shows God including Gentiles into Jewish covenants. There is NO covenant between God and the church and gentile Christians have not superseded this role explained by Paul. The church was primarily a Jewish entity. Jesus was a Jew who came in response to Jewish prophecies to fulfil Jewish expectations. Pity they did not recognise their messiah but they will one day. You do not seem to be able to refute the idea of different categories of Gods people but only to assert what you think, i.e. One continuous people. This makes OT people members of a church that does not yet exist and it also devalues the role of Israel when 70 percent of the Bible is about Israel.

Without rehashing the idea that you think Darby was a 19th century heretic, I think that without his insights which are now accepted by large numbers of reputable people and establishments who have refined them to create a coherent,inclusive theology, e.g. Robert Anderson,Walvoord, Fruchtenbaum,Chuck Missler, Jacob Prasch, Dallas T Seminary included, all we have is confusing questions. I'm sorry he wrote in 1830 but so did Charles Darwin.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Eutychus

quote:
Do you mean "saved by virtue of the Mosaic law?"
No, I mean saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance. As Stated before, the clear teaching of Paul is that no one can be justified by the works of the law.

If no one can be "justified by the works of the law", how can being saved by faith be a consequence of being part of a remnant that "demanded Mosaic observance"?

Your statement here characterises the inherent contradiction in your position.

quote:
I do not know how to visualise a corporate bride but see a special category of believers, the true church, in a relationship with Christ in the future kingdom that will necessarily exclude other categories of true believers.

The "bride" is a metaphor. Visualising it is no more critical than visualising, say, the "bosom of the Father". The question is what this metaphor refers to. There is nothing at all to suggest that it "necessarily excludes other categories of true believer".

quote:
There is one path, by grace through faith and all saints past,present or future look back or forwards to the cross as the pivot of the deal

You keep asserting that, but saying that for some people it also "demanded Mosaic observance" or that some categories of "true believer" are excluded from the "bride" (which quite clearly represents all those for whom Christ died) very much suggests otherwise.

quote:
Circumcision was merely a sign he accepted the deal. It was done as an act of faith.

As far as I can see it was done as an act of obedience. Can you point to anywhere it is said to be an act of faith, or required of Jewish believers as an act of faith? I think not.

quote:
Only Jews would be part of the dispersion would they not?

The word dispersion is not in the text. 1 Peter 1 addresses the epistles to "God's elect, scattered...". It is an argument from silence to say they are only Jews, and if you make that assumption you have also to assume that only the Jews are God's elect. The text can quite simply mean all believers scattered throughout the region. This holds good even if Peter's main focus is Jewish believers.

quote:
Your second point is incorrect. Jews are promised a preeminent place in the future kingdom in multiple places in the OT.

The overriding problem we both have is that this reading is countered by the straightforward reading of the NT, such as the passage in Ephesians Steve Langton cited (which you'll notice also refers to strangers and pilgrims and quite unequivocally refers to both Jew and Gentile as such).

As I see it there are two ways of resolving this tension.

Either we take the NT as introducing more revelation by virtue of which the disciples and early church came to grips with the realisation that God's plan was in fact for all nations, and that the promises to the Jews had in fact a greater, non-physical, broader application than their forefathers had anticipated (even if the Jewish people were still to have a special place in God's heart), such that they were subsumed (and not "replaced by") into a much bigger, more diverse, even more glorifying-to-God people of every nation tribe and tongue.

Or we choose to interpret the NT in the light of a certain understanding of the OT and come up with a system which has the advantage of maintaining a "straightforward" reading of OT promises to the "house of David", "people of Israel" and about the Land, and so on, but which has the disadvantage of making the NT incredibly complicated to understand, with multiple categories of believer, etc., and generally running counter to its overwhelming message.

For instance...

quote:
I think elect is used here to distinguish believing from unbelieving Jews.

What grounds, other than the fact that this interpretation is required for your hermeneutic to work, do you have for this assertion?

quote:
I think that that one instance, establishes a principle here, Paul circumcised Jewish converts to protect his reputation and to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.

That is not just speculation, it's the opposite of what the Scripture says.

As I have pointed out twice already, in Galatians Paul dismisses the rumour that he preached circumcision saying that if he did so, he would not be being persecuted for preaching Christ. And when he circumcises Timothy, Acts 16 indicates this is so as not to be a stumbling-block to the Jews he was trying to reach, not to "fulfil a covenant".

Paul further points out in Galatians 2:3 that Titus, who was travelling with him, was not required to be circumcised.

quote:
It was decided by the council of Jerusalem in Acts that gentiles need not be circumcised but the Jewish converts however were to undergo it. See Acts 15:19.

This is total bullshit.

Acts 15 says nothing at all about Jewish converts having to undergo circumcision. Acts 15:19 is talking about Gentile converts!

The upshot of the debate is to place a minimum of restrictions on non-Jewish believers, restrictions imposed as I understand it to prevent them being stumbling-blocks to Jewish believers.

In other words, on grounds of respecting others' consciences, not grounds of fulfilment of any covenant.

quote:
There is an inference here that the two were separate categories of believer in the thinking of the apostles.

There were two separate categories of believer in terms of ethnic and religious background: those from a Jewish background and the Gentiles.

To me a major theme in Acts and most of the epistles is how the early church comes to terms with this state of affairs and realises that God's New Covenant is indeed New and for those from any and all backgrounds.

To argue the opposite, as you are doing, is a travesty of the Good News.

quote:
There is NO covenant between God and the church

quote:
The church was primarily a Jewish entity.

Only because most of the first converts were Jews. See above.

quote:
Without rehashing the idea that you think Darby was a 19th century heretic, I think that without his insights which are now accepted by large numbers of reputable people and establishments who have refined them to create a coherent,inclusive theology

Dispensationalists are a tiny proportion of those professing to be Christians. The innovative nature of Darby's ideas should give major cause for concern when it comes to testing for orthodoxy - a test which does not apply to Darwin.

[ 08. January 2017, 07:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Maybe somebody can help me out here. What on earth is "circumcizing Jewish converts" supposed to mean? If they were Jewish and male, they were already circumcized.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
youur statement here characterises the inherent contradiction in your position.

No, it means you don't understand it. The observance of the law for them was a demonstration of faith

quote:
the "bride" is a metaphor

I agree it is metaphor but disagree it is merely metaphor. Metaphor portrays literal realities. Obviously that reality is at present unknowable

quote:
some categories of "true believer" are excluded from the "bride

Not so. The church is the bride but OT saints are not part of the church so not part of the bride.

quote:

As far as I can see it was done as an act of obedience. Can you point to anywhere it is said to be an act of faith, or required of Jewish believers as an act of faith? I think not.

Any act of obedience is also an act of faith.

quote:
The text can quite simply mean all believers scattered throughout the region

contextually I think it is most likely that the scattered ones are Jewish Christians. Of course you can disagree if your hermeneutic demands it.

quote:
Or we choose to interpret the NT in the light of a certain understanding of the OT and come up with a system which has the advantage of maintaining a "straightforward" reading of OT promises to the "house of David", "people of Israel" and about the Land, and so on, but which has the disadvantage of making the NT incredibly complicated to understand

Well, to me this is just an excuse not to take Jewish references in the OT seriously as it does not suit the chosen hermeneutic. Nothing counter to the thrust of the NT is suggested. This is overgeneralising and vague. BTW what comes first? new or Old?

quote:
What grounds, other than the fact that this interpretation is required for your hermeneutic to work, do you have for this assertion

It follows from the context. The epistle of 1 Peter is written in the first instance to Jewish Christians. You may not agree but it is.

quote:
that is not just speculation, it's the opposite of what the Scripture says.

No, he deals with the circumcision question as does the church by agreeing Jewish believers keep circumcision but gentile believers are free from this obligation. If he did not circumcise Titus, it was because he was not Jewish he was Greek as the text clearly states.

quote:
Acts 15 says nothing at all about Jewish converts having to undergo circumcision. Acts 15:19 is talking about Gentile converts

I did not say it did. What I said was that the council distinguished Jewish from gentile believers

quote:
There were two separate categories of believer in terms of ethnic and religious background: those from a Jewish background and the Gentiles.

To me a major theme in Acts and most of the epistles is how the early church comes to terms with this state of affairs and realises that God's New Covenant is indeed New and for those from any and all backgrounds.

To argue the opposite, as you are doing, is a travesty of the Good News.

I agree with this and would not argue against it. Certainly, the gospel is available to all ethnicities. Thank God!

quote:
Dispensationalists are a tiny proportion of those professing to be Christians. The innovative nature of Darby's ideas should give major cause for concern when it comes to testing for orthodoxy - a test which does not apply to Darwin.

Maybe that tiny portion makes more sense of scripture than anyone else. I was not always a dispensationalist. What clarified my mind was going to a study by Fruchtenbaum. Do you not think the 'This can't be right no one thought of it till the 19th century' argument is a bit pathetic? First, you don't really know that, it is assumed and second, doctrines should stand or fall on their merits, not on the basis of when they might have come to light or not as the case may be. That is just a big non sequitur to my mind.(And I do not believe in Darwinism. Just for the record.)

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
Not so. The church is the bride but OT saints are not part of the church so not part of the bride.

Er - Hmmm....
Yet Hosea, whose words Peter refers to in describing 'the church', is rather explicitly referring to Israel, the 'OT saints', as the 'bride' of God. Almost the whole of Hosea is an extended metaphor of comparing Israel to Hosea's own unfaithful - but eventually restored - wife.

OT saints - bride of God.

NT saints - also the bride of God.

The only difference is that inbetween God has revealed himself through his incarnate form Jesus and so the NT expresses 'bride of God' in terms of 'bride of Christ'. Still the same bride of the same God, though....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Darwin analogy is flawed. Darwin wasn't setting out to be a Christian theologian.

There's nothing 'pathetic' in holding some reservations about Darby's schema on the grounds that it appears to be a late development. What else did we see emerging in the 19th century? All sorts of Millenialist speculations that fed into the emergence of marginal or heretical groups such as the Adventists, the Mormons and the JWs.

We also saw the development of Holiness teaching from its initial 18th century Wesleyan base and the emergence in the early 1900s of the Pentecostal movement.

Whether we see all or any of that as good, bad or indifferent depends on our perspective and depends on where we stand in terms of our particular tradition or Tradition.

Darby isn't necessarily being dismissed purely because he was writing in the 1830s, he is generally held in some suspicion as something of an outlier and an innovator who set some ways of thinking in train that have had deleterious results.

Of course, some could say the same of Luther or Calvin or people like Wesley.

Or Augustine of Hippo, come to that ...

In terms of the overall consensus across the Christian world as a whole, then Darby is seen is something of a minority voice. Just because some of your favourite theologians think he's the bees knees doesn't mean that everyone else does.

The lateness of his contribution does not, in and of itself, undermine it - but I'd suggest it does cast at least an element of doubt over it. Moreover, as has repeatedly been said on this thread, whilst his schema sets out to tie up apparent loose-ends all it really ends up doing is creating extra ones ...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
youur statement here characterises the inherent contradiction in your position.
No, it means you don't understand it. The observance of the law for them was a demonstration of faith

That's not at all what you said. You said

quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance

You cannot have faith, in the protestant understanding of justification, that “demands Mosaic observance”. If this were Paul’ s understanding, in Romans 4 he would have used circumcision as an example of precisely that. As it is, he makes it clear that circumcision ("Mosaic observance") has nothing to do with justification:

quote:
10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Circumcision is presented as tangential to “the example of faith”.

quote:
Not so. The church is the bride but OT saints are not part of the church so not part of the bride.

If, as you assert earlier,

quote:
There is one path, by grace through faith and all saints past,present or future look back or forwards to the cross as the pivot of the deal

then the “bride of Christ” is all those who belong to him from whatever age.

quote:
Any act of obedience is also an act of faith.

To clarify: Romans 4 quotes Genesis as saying “Abraham believed God, and he credited it unto him as righteousness” to provide support for the argument of justification by faith. This is placed in contrast to circumcision (see the extended quote above), not with circumcision used as an example.

To use an illustration: my children were all born in France and so had French birth certificates. However, through tradition and a sense of national identity, we registered them with the UK consulate and got them UK birth certificates.

To paraphrase Paul in Romans: "What advantage is there in having a UK birth certificate? Much in every way” - not least in being able to get one of the best passports in the world.

But this historic, traditional action, beneficial as it was, had nothing to do with the construction of their identity as citizens of a different country (for which, as it happens, they had to go before a judge and express their desire to be French in their own words).

Circumcision is like the UK birth certificate: useful and culturally significant, but not an integral part of a new, identity - in the present case, that of being part of the people of God, or as Peter puts it, a "holy nation".

quote:
contextually I think it is most likely that the scattered ones are Jewish Christians.

As I am willing to admit may be the case. But if so, they are Jewish by background, not in terms of a different dispensation of salvation. There is nothing in the epistle to suggest such.

(If you think it is directed solely at Jewish believers, then you don't need to take it as authoritative for non-Jewish believers, which is messing with the NT in a big way so far as I can see.)

quote:
Well, to me this is just an excuse not to take Jewish references in the OT seriously as it does not suit the chosen hermeneutic.

It is an uncomfortable fact for both of us that the OT and the NT perspectives on salvation do not fit together as easily as one might wish. The actual disagreement is about how to make sense of this difference.

quote:
Nothing counter to the thrust of the NT is suggested.

Arguing that Paul systematically circumcised believers in the face of his own declarations and arguing in the face of the passage quoted in Ephesians that there are separate groups in the body of Christ looks pretty counter to me.

quote:
BTW what comes first? new or Old?

If you think the NT should be interpreted in the light of the OT and not the other way around you may as well become a proselyte (convert to Judaism).

quote:
No, he deals with the circumcision question as does the church by agreeing Jewish believers keep circumcision

This is nonsense. Once circumcised, how can someone “not keep” circumcision?? The issue under debate in the NT is not how to “uncircumcise” believing Jews but how to deal with uncircumcised non-Jews who become Christians. The answer of the NT is a resounding “no need to circumcise”.

quote:
What I said was that the council distinguished Jewish from gentile believers

No you didn’t, you said, emphasis mine,

quote:
It was decided by the council of Jerusalem in Acts that gentiles need not be circumcised but the Jewish converts however were to undergo it. See Acts 15:19.

It says nothing of the sort. Nobody not already circumcised had to be circumcised. That is all.

quote:
Do you not think the 'This can't be right no one thought of it till the 19th century' argument is a bit pathetic? First, you don't really know that, it is assumed and second, doctrines should stand or fall on their merits, not on the basis of when they might have come to light or not as the case may be.

I think history shows that a healthy suspicion of innovative theology, particularly “pure” theology as opposed to applied, pastoral theology, is a good thing. As to the assumption that it is new, I think the burden of proof is quite clearly on you to prove it’s any older than it is.

quote:
I do not believe in Darwinism. Just for the record

I’m sure you don’t. My point was that the test of whether something has scientific value is an entirely different kettle of fish to the test of whether something is orthodox – in the latter, historical continuity is an important consideration.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jamat;

quote:
Not so. The church is the bride but OT saints are not part of the church so not part of the bride.
Er - Hmmm....
Yet Hosea, whose words Peter refers to in describing 'the church', is rather explicitly referring to Israel, the 'OT saints', as the 'bride' of God. Almost the whole of Hosea is an extended metaphor of comparing Israel to Hosea's own unfaithful - but eventually restored - wife.

OT saints - bride of God.

NT saints - also the bride of God.

The only difference is that inbetween God has revealed himself through his incarnate form Jesus and so the NT expresses 'bride of God' in terms of 'bride of Christ'. Still the same bride of the same God, though....

Steve, the OT saints are consistently mentioned not as a bride but a wife. When they were in fellowship with God, the prophets refer to the nation of Israel as the wife of Jehovah whereas the church is the bride of Christ. Hosea's whole prophecy is about how Jehovah divorces his wife for unfaithfulness. As I said before Peter refers to the OT saints as the people of God and the church as the people of God but it is NOT that one is the other, just that both groups are in relationship with God and of course there are points of sameness. The way I see this, as I said upthread, is as an analogous though not continuous group.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Darby isn't necessarily being dismissed purely because he was writing in the 1830s, he is generally held in some suspicion as something of an outlier and an innovator who set some ways of thinking in train that have had deleterious results

Gamaliel, the point is continually made on this thread that the genesis of dispensationalism is recent as though it were a knock down argument. I disagree and so do many others that it is. If you want to look at parallels look at German higher criticism..only around since Bultmann. This is NOT a knock down argument. As we are trying to do here, the ideas need to be tested against the text. Does it say this? Unfortunately we have many different rulers. And this is really a dead horse because it is one hermeneutic against another or in some cases no hermeneutic at all. It is a high stakes argument.
To say there are deleterious results is mere opinion. Not all dispensationalists are frenetic date setters or hillbilly theologians.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
You cannot have faith, in the protestant understanding of justification, that “demands Mosaic observance”. If this were Paul’ s understanding, in Romans 4 he would have used circumcision as an example of precisely that. As it is, he makes it clear that circumcision ("Mosaic observance") has nothing to do with justification:

I am not saying that Mosaic observance or circumcision are anything in themselves. I am saying that IF what God reveals as his will for those people,for that time was OBEYED, then God saw those acts of obedience as 'faith' actions. If done for other motives e.g. to show my neighbour how religious I am, then of course they are of no spriritual worth.
Circumcision is not of course something you can undo but Jewish converts were not all circumcised before conversion. When you say

quote:
Circumcision is presented as tangential to “the example of faith”.and

I agree but it is beside the point here which is about whether Jewish Christian converts were the same to the apostles as Gentile ones. Clearly the basis of salvation IS the same but a Jew did not stop being a Jew when he or she became a Christian.

quote:
then the “bride of Christ” is all those who belong to him from whatever age

This does not follow from what I said which was that the basis of salvation has always been by grace through faith. Please see my reply to Steve above. My understanding is that the Bride is the NT church and the OT believers were the 'wife' of Jehovah. They showed in their day that they believed by obeying as best they could, what Go said to do. This was faith.

quote:
arguing that Paul systematically circumcised believers in the face of his own declarations and arguing in the face of the passage quoted in Ephesians that there are separate groups in the body of Christ looks pretty counter to me

I would just be repeating myself to counter this really but I think Paul shows that he was as far as possible an observant Jew. Why else in the book of Acts would he shave his head and 'purify himself ' so as not to (unsuccessfully) cause a riot? Was he being hypocritical in Acts 21:24? I do not think so. The best way to understand his actions are to see the Jewish convert as still a Jew, but the gentile convert as free from Jewishness while acknowledging his debt to the Jewish covenants.

quote:
I think the burden of proof is quite clearly on you to prove it’s any older than it is

Well, I think that however old it is or not is beside the point of whether it is a valid way to look at scripture.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not singling dispensationalism out as the only deleterious kid on the block, Jamat.

But the only positive aspect of it, as far as I can see, is that it can promote respect for the Jewish roots of Christianity and serve as an antidote to the anti-Semitism that has marred the Christian attitude to the Jews over the centuries.

But there are other ways of doing it, without engaging in the hermeneutical gymnastics that are involved in the dispensationalist schema.

I really don't see how dispensationalism 'helps us in any way whatsoever, nor that it is a credible way of approaching scripture.

To be honest, I'm surprised anyone takes it seriously.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am not saying that Mosaic observance or circumcision are anything in themselves. I am saying that IF what God reveals as his will for those people,for that time was OBEYED, then God saw those acts of obedience as 'faith' actions.

And I am saying that in doing so, you are arguing the opposite way to Paul in Romans 4.

The key question is, as John Piper correctly spotted in Daniel Fuller's class at seminary, as described in the introduction to Gospel & Law: Contrast or Continuum, is whether when the OT says of the Law "the man who does these things shall live by them" it means that obedience to the Mosaic law was a means of justification, or not.

Paul's whole argument, in Romans, Galatians, and elsewhere, is that however good it might be to obey the OT Law, it is neither necessary not sufficient to be justified.

quote:
the point here which is about whether Jewish Christian converts were the same to the apostles as Gentile ones. Clearly the basis of salvation IS the same but a Jew did not stop being a Jew when he or she became a Christian.

If the basis of salvation is the same, then obedience to the Law is a question of tradition and identity and not of justification.

As I said before, while ethnic Jews, converts to Judaism and Gentiles were clearly different in terms of cultural and religious background, and this issue was one the NT church grappled with, the overwhelming conclusion of the NT in general and the book of Acts in particular, especially the council of Jerusalem, is that the basis of salvation was the same for both groups and that any provisions such as refraining from eating strangled sausage were not because they belonged to two different dispensations of salvation but in order not to cause unnecessary offence, just as you would not (hopefully) wander into a Muslim household and fry up some bacon.

quote:
This does not follow from what I said which was that the basis of salvation has always been by grace through faith.

You keep saying that, but at the same time you keep saying things like "ah yes, but the Jewish believers were special, a separate group, and had (have?) to complete "faith actions" like circumcision, and Paul and the council of Jerusalem demonstrate this". They don't.

quote:
My understanding is that the Bride is the NT church and the OT believers were the 'wife' of Jehovah.

Wait, Jehovah has a 'wife' AND Christ has a 'bride' and these are not the same groups of people? [Paranoid]

quote:
think Paul shows that he was as far as possible an observant Jew. Why else in the book of Acts would he shave his head and 'purify himself ' so as not to (unsuccessfully) cause a riot? Was he being hypocritical in Acts 21:24? I do not think so. The best way to understand his actions are to see the Jewish convert as still a Jew, but the gentile convert as free from Jewishness while acknowledging his debt to the Jewish covenants.

I don't disagree with any of the actual words there, but that is a very long way from saying Paul prescribed circumcision for Jews in order for them to perform a "faith action" required of them to be saved since they belonged to the dispensation of salvation for the Jews, which is what you seemed to be saying earler.

In terms of salvation, both the means and the inheritance, the NT sees Jew and Greek as "all one in Christ Jesus" with "one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:4-5).

Paul unequivocally distances himself from circumcision in regard to salvation be it for Jew, proselyte or Gentile. You cannot answer Galatians 5:11

quote:
But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offence of the cross has been removed.

quote:
I think that however old it is or not is beside the point of whether it is a valid way to look at scripture.

And that is a major point on which we differ. I am not part of a historic church but I have come to the conclusion that any "new" theological discovery deserves to be treated with extreme caution.

I hope for at least some people reading the pitfalls of dispensationalism have been made plain.

[ 08. January 2017, 22:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

I

quote:

But there are other ways of doing it, without engaging in the hermeneutical gymnastics

Well OK, the accusation is continually that I 'impose' a hermeneutic, the lens of dispensationalism. If that is an imposition ON the text rather than an inference FROM the text then show me how and also how any other hermeneutic isn't equally guilty. e.g. The OT saints are really part of the NT church requires quite a degree of gymnastical interpretation. The other question I have is whether the dispensational view is really understood or perhaps is just unacceptable for cultural reasons. So far the questions posed betray superficial knowledge and the general dismissive comments such as 'I'm surprised anyone believes it' are really suggesting,' If you weren't such an ignoramus 'etc. You'd see it our way.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, Jamat, as I keep saying, however we interpret the scriptures we do so in the context of a particular tradition and through the lenses that tradition uses.

Therefore, I'm not inclined to see an interpretation such as that deployed by Eutychus here as convoluted in any way. Why not? Because I've essentially bought into a similar hermeneutic as he had and rejected the one you are using.

By the same token, the hermeneutic I'm using looks convoluted to you because you've bought into yours too and now see it as a more 'natural' way of reading scripture.

I'm suggesting that there's nothing 'natural' about either. Both of us are wearing spectacles. The only choice we have are what lenses we decide to have fitted into the frames.

I'm sorry if I patronised you, though. I don't think dispensationalists are 'ignoramuses' but I do see dispensationalism as an outlier in terms of the broad thrust of the 'grand tradition' which encompasses all the historic Churches and those in the newer or less historic churches who aren't as influenced by Darby or Schofield.

Sure, it is easy to portray dispensationalists as hill-billies. The ones I've known certainly haven't been stupid, but I do think they are overly literal in their approach as well as overly inclined to fillet things into neat, cut and dried packages.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Also, I don't think anyone has claimed that the OT saints are part of the NT church so much as the Church consists of all believers past, present and future - and that from the perspective of eternity all the redeemed are one in Christ Jesus.

In temporal terms you have the Old and New Covenants but Paul's argument in Romans is that it's always been by grace through faith - from Abraham onwards.

Of course, Paul in a sense had to argue along those lines in order to explain what was happening with the Gentiles coming to faith as well as the original Jewish believers in Christ.

However we cut it, there is no longer any particular categories/distinction along ethnic or any other grounds when it comes to soteriology.

That's the point.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
Steve, the OT saints are consistently mentioned not as a bride but a wife.

Sorta true; but bride and wife are in many ways interchangeable and I'm rather with Eutychus in thinking that for Jesus to have a bride and Jehovah to have a wife but for them to be different groups of people is getting a bit weird.

Also note Rev 21; 9 where an angel comes to John and says

quote:
"I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife"

And as if to emphasise how symbolic Revelation's images are, what he shows is not a woman but "Jerusalem the holy city"!

And we're back to Darby and Co; I'm not sure I'd regard them as outright 'heretics', but mistaken about something quite important and affecting an enormous amount of Scripture interpretation, yes.

And the thing is, much of 'dispensationalism' and particularly this 'need' to distinguish 'Israel' from 'the Church' depends on that key idea about history going on for years between the Rapture and Jesus' supposed further return 'with the Church' to kickstart the Millennium. If Darby got that wrong - which in turn means if Irving previously made a mistake in interpreting how we are supposed to be expectant about the Second Coming - then all that elaborate scheme becomes simply irrelevant.

And I can't find the Irving/Darby scheme in Scripture as such, and quite a bit that questions it; while I can find the quite well recorded history of how their interpretative scheme developed, which seems to clearly show a mistake made then, and previously unheard of in all of church history.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

D'you know what? Steve Langton has expressed this far better than I could have done.

I'm in complete agreement with him on all the points he's raised in his latest post.

I don't regard Darby & Co as outright 'heretics' either, simply misguided in the way they applied and interpreted certain passages of scripture.

I don't find the Darby/Schofield schema in scripture either. I can see how scripture could be interpreted that way, but only if you start to introduce artificial divisions and take an overly literal approach to Revelation and other Apocalyptic writings.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Maybe somebody can help me out here. What on earth is "circumcizing Jewish converts" supposed to mean? If they were Jewish and male, they were already circumcized.

I've been wondering about this also.

Moo

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I am guessing a bit here but suspect that the idea would be that the children of Jewish converts might continue to be circumcised, while neither adult nor child Gentile converts would be.

Most likely any such practice would die away as Jewish and Gentile Christians increasingly integrated, unless as in the one recorded case in Acts, it was convenient in missionary terms. But over time I think even that would be less necessary, as the implications sunk in that "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile".

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Maybe somebody can help me out here. What on earth is "circumcizing Jewish converts" supposed to mean? If they were Jewish and male, they were already circumcized.
I've been wondering about this also.

Moo

Possibly, circumcision was neglected. E.g. When Canaan conquered, Joshua had a mass circumcision. I do not know but guess that not all Jewish converts to Christianity were circumcised before they were converted.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
..only if you start to introduce artificial divisions and take an overly literal approach to Revelation and other Apocalyptic writings.

So, what would you call an artificial division? One principle is this one brought up by Steve of parentheses or seeing a verse like Luke 4:18 where Jesus quotes a verse but incompletely.

The spirit of the Lord is upon me
Because he has anointed me
To preach good news to the captive
And recovery of sight to the blind
To free those who are downtrodden
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord

Jesus then sits down without completing the last line from Is 61:1

And the day of vengeance of our God.

As a dispensationalist, I infer that this is deliberate and that there is a hiatus between the part that he fulfilled in his first coming and the part he will fulfill in his second. Jesus did not come in judgement..yet.

The whole church era lies between the first part and the last part of that verse. In that sense, the church is a parenthesis.

[ 09. January 2017, 17:49: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

In that example the hiatus is very clearly and deliberately introduced by Jesus.

That is very different from using an extra-biblical hermeneutic to decide that part of a verse or passage applies to such and such a dispensation and another part applies to another. As a rule of thumb, the fewer external divisions applied to a text, the better, in terms of respecting the actual text itself. Even some of the chapter and verse divisions are unhelpful.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I
quote:

But there are other ways of doing it, without engaging in the hermeneutical gymnastics
Well OK, the accusation is continually that I 'impose' a hermeneutic, the lens of dispensationalism. If that is an imposition ON the text rather than an inference FROM the text then show me how and also how any other hermeneutic isn't equally guilty. e.g. The OT saints are really part of the NT church requires quite a degree of gymnastical interpretation. The other question I have is whether the dispensational view is really understood or perhaps is just unacceptable for cultural reasons. So far the questions posed betray superficial knowledge and the general dismissive comments such as 'I'm surprised anyone believes it' are really suggesting,' If you weren't such an ignoramus 'etc. You'd see it our way.

Jamat

The onus is on you.

It is obvious that textS spanning 700 years of culture alone in forensic, historical documents reflect the massive cultural changes over that period and vast area. The attested documents actually cover a greater documentary period covering at least 1100 years, easily 1300. The oral traditions and archaeological sources (stelae, clay tablets) cover 2000 years. Actually, add another zero to that for the oral. In an area as large and diverse - far more so - as Europe since the time of Christ.

To read the mind of God from two millennia of culture over millions of square miles with empires rising and falling, whole peoples arising and disappearing or migrating or being invaded, conquered, uprooted, absorbed, influenced is the reading of entrails.

[ 09. January 2017, 17:54: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Yes, Jamat.

Now is a time of mercy offered, yet with eventual judgement. What is not remotely proved by either the Isaiah text or its use in Luke is that at the end of the 'Church Age/Dispensation' there will be this strange hiatus of a 'Rapture of the Church' followed by several further years of history in Tribulation etc before that day of judgement. And if the Second Coming, when the Church is 'caught up/raptured' to meet Jesus is also the end, the occasion of the day of judgement as well, then that 'Church Age' is not a mere 'parenthesis' in something else, but the main story, culminating in that Day.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, Jamat.

Now is a time of mercy offered, yet with eventual judgement. What is not remotely proved by either the Isaiah text or its use in Luke is that at the end of the 'Church Age/Dispensation' there will be this strange hiatus of a 'Rapture of the Church' followed by several further years of history in Tribulation etc before that day of judgement. And if the Second Coming, when the Church is 'caught up/raptured' to meet Jesus is also the end, the occasion of the day of judgement as well, then that 'Church Age' is not a mere 'parenthesis' in something else, but the main story, culminating in that Day.

I was illustrating that the parenthesis idea can be inferred but returning to the pre trib rapture, it is not divorced from a pretty complete systematic theology. Darby' first principle was to eliminate replacement theology. IOW where Israel is referred to, the HS meant Israel, NOT the church. Thus in Dan 9, the 70 weeks is determined for Daniel's people, obviously the Jews, to bring current history to an end and bring in the kingdom age. Now if as someone, I forget who, has suggested, the 70 sevens are continuous from the time of the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus that the city of Jerusalem should be rebuilt, which happened in Nehemiah's time, then the prophecy is false for where is the kingdom?

Steve, you stated above you see no division of subject between 1 Thes 4:15-17 and 1 Thes 5 1-4 despite the clear Peri de contrastive. Please explain how you can ignore this obvious division, and then say airily that you do not see it in the scripture when AFAICS it is staring you in the face. You see, I see the rapture clearly divided from the Day of the Lord here,which as I said above, always signifies the day of wrath which is th Day of vengeance indicated in Is 61 and partially quoted by Jesus in Luke 4.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be frank, I think you have already given some examples of the sort of thing I mean, Jamat - such as distinguishing between the 'wife of Jehovah' in the OT, as it were, and the 'Bride of Christ' in the NT.

If nothing else, this appears to be introducing unnecessary distinctions and complications.

I'm sure you are right that not all dispensationalists are hill-billy pop-eschatologists, but I can't really see the point of dispensationalism other than, as I've said, to develop a more positive attitude towards the Jews than Christians have had down the centuries ...

And as we can develop that without necessarily being dispensationalists, then even that aspect seems redundant.

All dispensationalism seems to do, as far as I can make out, is lead to endless speculation and poring over Apocalyptic texts in an effort to apply them to whatever seems to be happening at the time - and if there's no immediate 'fit' then it's all consigned to the dim and distant.

It also leads to overly literal interpretations of the variety that used to make me roll my eyes even as a very young believer whenever I visited the Gospel Hall.

I'm not saying that I was smarter than they were as a 19 and 20 year old, but even I could see they were applying some kind of preset schema they'd picked up somewhere and were using a theological shoe-horn to get it all to 'fit'.

The Ugly Sisters and Cinderella's glass slipper springs to mind ...

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
the reading of entrails

Sorry Martin, as I do not share your view of the scripture as merely cultural, and taking what it says seriously is to me decidedly not the reading of entrails, then there is no way we can connect on this topic. Hope 2017 is kind to you and yours.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
using an extra-biblical hermeneutic

Eutychus, this accusation is false. You and others have thus far stated few ideas to support it. You have said dispensationalism began in the 19 century. Well yes, but the scriptures are vastly older and we are focusing on what they say. You have said that the way it connects scripture to scripture is forced because in your view, one should connect the easily understood parts to the more difficult parts..your opinion only and what parts are in fact easy to understand?You and Steve have said distinctions such as bride/wife do not count though you do not deny they are in the text. You have also indicated that apocalyptic writings are to be put in a category of their own which is tantamount to dismissing them for practical purposes. You appear to deny distinctions that are clearly in the scripture between ethnic Israel and the church though You may confirm or deny this. Steve and possibly yourself conflates all aspects of the second coming as one event when in several scriptures from OT and NT, there are contradictions in the accounts that you dismiss but dispensationalism answers, particularly in Matt 24 where there is a Peri de in verse 36, after which the description of the days of Noah contrast markedly with the coming described up to that point where obviously there is turmoil on the earth. The days of Noah, though are much more like our own. We marry,do business and ignore the warnings. I deny any false hermeneutic.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So what's the big distinction between 'bride' and 'wife' and what's the point of blowing such a minor distinction - which is purely a semantic one - out of all proportion?

Also, why insist on interpreting apocalyptic literature in a literal and linear way when it's pretty clear that this isn't how that kind of writing works?

I'm not suggesting that John didn't have visions, but it's pretty obvious he's using tropes and symbols familiar to an audience steeped in the OT scriptures?

Why interpret the Letters to the Seven Churches as seasons or epochs in church history when there is nothing, I repeat nothing, NADA, zilch in the text to suggest that we are to understand them in that way.

Sure, we all make hermeneutical leaps at times but as far as hermeneutical leaps go, the latter is pretty far-fetched, to say nothing of introducing all manner of distinctions and false dichotomy es in order to shoe-horn the scriptures into some kind of articial and unnecessary framework.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
Steve, you stated above you see no division of subject between 1 Thes 4:15-17 and 1 Thes 5 1-4 despite the clear Peri de contrastive.

Yes, 'peri de' is a contrastive, a 'but...'; a change of subject - but what is it contrasting, how much of a change of subject is it?

Paul spends the end of I Thess 4 discussing a point that has been concerning the Thessalonians, that is "When Jesus returns, what about those who have already died? Will they 'miss out', be disadvantaged compared to those still alive at that time?"

No, says Paul, when the Lord returns first those dead will be raised, then we still alive (which in the event did not mean any of those Thessalonian readers) will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord. So comfort yourselves - about the fate of those already dead - with these words....

'Peri de' doesn't introduce a "But now about a different event several years later (which if raptured you won't be on earth to await)...."

It is simply "Having cleared up that concern, what about the issue of 'When will this happen?'" And you already know the key fact about that, he says - it will come 'like a thief in the night', that is unexpectedly (it certainly won't be secret when it comes!!). The world will be shocked and surprised by it - but you won't be, if you 'keep awake and be sober'.

In some ways, for what you're discussing the key verse is v4

quote:
"But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you like a thief".

It could hardly be clearer that Paul is talking about an event that his readers possibly may, and those believers alive at the time - perhaps us - will see. If this "day of the Lord" occurs during the lifetime of the Thessalonian readers, they will see it - as people still living on earth - and not be surprised by the event like the pagan neighbours. They will not have been raptured before 'the day of the Lord', they'll still be around....

That, I submit, is the natural reading - to think otherwise you need to have concluded for other reasons that it is talking about two separate contrasted events. On the natural reading of the passage, Paul's 'BUT concerning' is contrasting "Here's the answer to your query about 'those who are asleep/dead' when Jesus returns" with a different issue about the same event "But as for the time this will happen...."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
the reading of entrails
Sorry Martin, as I do not share your view of the scripture as merely cultural, and taking what it says seriously is to me decidedly not the reading of entrails, then there is no way we can connect on this topic. Hope 2017 is kind to you and yours.

Thanks Jamat and may you and yours receive what you wish for others.

One can seriously read entrails. But it's utterly subjective. My use of entrails is allegorical for the pre-rational allegorical and anagogical methods that you use. I could never doubt your seriousness just as you couldn't mine.

Scripture can't be anything else other than cultural, an artefact of our yearning to the light that yearns back, that we cannot see or feel.

What else can scripture be? Distilled from I don't know how many cultures from four million square miles and far beyond for one thousand, two thousand, six thousand, eleven thousand, eighteen thousand, forty thousand, four hundred thousand years?

[ 09. January 2017, 23:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

[/QUOTE] ?.That, I submit, is the natural reading - to think otherwise you need to have concluded for other reasons that it is talking about two separate contrasted events. On the natural reading of the passage, Paul's 'BUT concerning' is contrasting "Here's the answer to your query about 'those who are asleep/dead' when Jesus returns" with a different issue about the same event "But as for the time this will happen [QUOTE]

Sorry Steve, but I don't agree with your assumption that the events under discussion have not changed is the natural reading. Admittedly, the distinction is not clear in English but Fruchtenbaum who does know Greek, expounds the view I have indicated. I.e. That the question of fear of death is dealt with in 1 Thes 4: 15-17 and then the quite separate issue of times and seasons,) not the same issue at all as to how the dead in Christ will rise first,) is separately discussed in 1 Thes 5.
Thank you for your PM. Fair comment and duly noted.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
using an extra-biblical hermeneutic
Eutychus, this accusation is false.

If in Luke Jesus quotes the "Spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon me" section of Isaiah and stops half way through the passage, that break in the quotation is undeniably biblical; it's in the text. You don't have to "infer" it, or decide that some Greek link phrase means a complete change of subject and time; it's there.

(Granted, we have all inferred something about why it's there, but there is no dispute about its being there.)

By contrast, choosing to assign different bits of a single passage to different historical events or dispensations when there is no internal indication in the text for the need to do so is to impose an extra-biblical hermeneutic rather than attempt to allow the text to speak for itself as much as possible.

We all agree 'peri de' in 1 Thes 5 marks a change of subject, but there is nothing but a preconceived hermeneutic to suggest that this change of subject introduces a different time or a different dispensation.

Similarly, even if several aspects suggest Peter might have written his first epistle with Jewish believers in mind (just as the Gospels appear to target different audiences), there is nothing in the text to suggest their Jewishness made a difference to his theological message.

To suggest its content can be discounted because it applies only to Jewish believers is to make a hermeneutic assumption that is imposed on the text rather than emerging from it.

You accuse me of wanting to discount Revelation (which I don't) but you appear to be ready to discount the entire theological content of 1 Peter on the assumption it is directed solely at Jewish believers (assuming you are not one).

quote:
the scriptures are vastly older and we are focusing on what they say.

You are not focusing on what they say when you assert that the council of Jerusalem ordered Jewish believers to be circumcised, or when you assert that Paul routinely circumcised Jewish believers.

You have neither acknowledged what I have quoted from Scripture in regard to these two points, nor provided any alternative explanation, nor withdrawn your demonstrably unfounded assertions.

To that extent I think the charge of "extra-biblical" is warranted.

quote:
You have said that the way it connects scripture to scripture is forced because in your view, one should connect the easily understood parts to the more difficult parts.

No, I said that attempting to understand the harder parts in the light of the easier parts made more sense than the other way around.

Granted this approach is "extra-biblical" since it is grounded in common sense rather than a Bible verse, but I freely admit and acknowledge that, instead of trying to assign my hermeneutic the moral high ground by pretending it's "clearly biblical" at points when it's not.

You (or perhaps more tellingly the dispensational theologians you read) don't appear to admit to any extra-biblical hermeneutic at all, and that is precisely what is dangerous and potentially self-deceptive in your approach.

Of course we may differ as to what exactly is "easy" and "hard" but I think there is a broad consensus that it's easier to understand precisely what is going on in, say, the Gospels and the Epistles than in Revelation or the Prophets, in much the same way as understanding the news is more straightforward than understanding an indie movie.

quote:
You and Steve have said distinctions such as bride/wife do not count

Nobody's said they don't "count". What we have done is cast doubts on the plausibility of a hermeneutic that supposes Christ has a bride consisting of one group of believers, Jehovah has a wife consisting of another group of believers, and still more believers belong to some unspecified third category (the guests?) in view of, amongst other things, the repeated, easy-to-understand, addressed-to-Jew-and-Gentile repetitions of "one" ("one faith, one body", etc.) to be found in Ephesians.

(Again, you have chosen simply to ignore the extensive quotes from this "one-body-Jew-and-Gentile" epistle.)

quote:
You have also indicated that apocalyptic writings are to be put in a category of their own which is tantamount to dismissing them for practical purposes.

No, I've indicated that it makes sense to read the text in view of the style it's written in. I love watching indie movies full of allegory and uncertain interpretations and I frequently find them to be highly instructive for practical purposes in terms of understanding, say, human relations; but I don't mistake them for watching the news.

quote:
You appear to deny distinctions that are clearly in the scripture between ethnic Israel and the church though You may confirm or deny this.

No, I've repeatedly said and admitted that there is a clear tension (or at the least, lack of perfect clarity) between the Bible's understanding of salvation in the OT and the NT, and about the relationship between ethnic Israel, OT believers both Jewish and non-Jewish, and the NT church.

Despite innumerable objections to and inconsistencies in your argument raised on this thread, you contend this is all perfectly straightforward to understand and "goes to bed nicely"; you won't admit to any areas of doubt or uncertaintly.

Essentially, the question boils down to whether the basis of salvation and the Gospel is 1) a continuum, with at the end of the day a single body of believers, the "bride"/"city" we see in Revelation, or 2) divided into different dispensations.

If there's a seamless way of resolving this tension, I haven't found it, but I find the disadvantages of 2) far outweigh any merits it has, and that the advantages of 1) far outweigh the difficulties it presents.

quote:
Peri de

I can't do any better than Steve in trying to explain to you why your argument is inadequate in this respect.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

@Eutychus

quote:
By contrast, choosing to assign different bits of a single passage to different historical events or dispensations when there is no internal indication in the text for the need to do so is to impose an extra-biblical hermeneutic

I do not know what you mean here by imposing so maybe you could give an eg of how you see dispensationalists doing this?

quote:
you are not focusing on what they say when you assert that the council of Jerusalem ordered Jewish believers to be circumcised

This is not what I recall saying. The point as I recall was that two separate groups of Christians were distinguished by the apostles. I do think it is pretty clear over a variety of texts, that being one, that Jewish believers in Christ were still seen as Jews and of course circumcision was the dividing line. It was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

quote:
you appear to be ready to discount the entire theological content of 1 Peter on the assumption it is directed solely at Jews

No, I did NOT say solely, I said primarily.

quote:
you (or perhaps more tellingly the dispensational theologians you read) don't appear to admit to any extra-biblical hermeneutic at all, and that is precisely what is dangerous and potentially self-deceptive in your approach

Again, not the case at all. We all have a back story. Perhaps it would be interesting for you to research the topic more fully rather than pre judge it so completely. I think the only claim they would make would be that they begin with the scripture rather than the back story and of course they are pretty well all inerrantists and literal readers.

quote:
but I think there is a broad consensus that it's easier to understand precisely what is going on in, say, the Gospels and the Epistles than in Revelation or the Prophets

A broad consensus of who exactly? Remember that the epistles are partly distillations derived from the prophets etc by the great theologian Paul. I do not know your background of course but there are lots and lots of groups whose consensus would not be my particular bag.

quote:
what we have done is cast doubts on the plausibility of a hermeneutic that supposes Christ has a bride consisting of one group of believers, Jehovah has a wife consisting of another group of believers, and still more believers belong to some unspecified third category (the guests?) in view of, amongst other things, the repeated, easy-to-understand, addressed-to-Jew-and-Gentile repetitions of "one" ("one faith, one body", etc.) to be found in Ephesians

It is ironic that the accusation of an unbiblical hermeneutic is made while all of these things are quite evident in the scripture and my suspicion is you just want to minimise what you do not wish to deal with by calling it minor. Ask any wife if she is a bride or vice versa. And in Ephesians, the middle wall of partition simply includes gentiles, it doesn't eliminate Jews. Certainly, one faith,one body refers to the church but it does not follow to say Jewish and gentile believers are the same in every respect more logical to agree with the apostles at the council of Jerusalem I would have thought.

quote:
I've repeatedly said and admitted that there is a clear tension (or at the least, lack of perfect clarity) between the Bible's understanding of salvation in the OT and the NT, and about the relationship between ethnic Israel, OT believers both Jewish and non-Jewish, and the NT church

Well then, let's consider Hebrews for a moment. God was not well pleased with the wilderness generation because in them the word was not mixed with faith. ISTM that it is pretty clear that they, like us required faith to be justified i.e. The basis of salvation was essentially the same. e.g. Heb 3:19 they did not enter because of unbelief.

quote:
in spite of innumerable objections to and inconsistencies in your argument raised on this thread, you contend this is all perfectly straightforward to understand and "goes to bed nicely"; you won't admit to any areas of doubt or uncertaintly

This is gross exaggeration. You are perhaps implying here that your superior thinking should have convinced an intelligent person by now? Perhaps you are correct and the rapture will never come. I'm betting it does and hope Neither of us around to find out. In any case I have certainly appreciated the discussion but it seems to be at a natural end.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The bride is the wife is the church is the body of Christ is the household, family, house, temple, kingdom, Israel, field, olive tree, flock, vine, vineyard of God.

[ 10. January 2017, 09:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not know what you mean here by imposing so maybe you could give an eg of how you see dispensationalists doing this?

An example of you doing it is when you insist that the "peri de" in 1 Thes 5:1 must refer to a temporally different occasion post-rapture when all it means lingustically is a change in the subject.

quote:

quote:
you assert that the council of Jerusalem ordered Jewish believers to be circumcised
This is not what I recall saying.

Let me refresh your memory:

quote:
It was decided by the council of Jerusalem in Acts that gentiles need not be circumcised but the Jewish converts however were to undergo it.

Either supply chapter and verse for that ridiculous statement or retract it. Don't pretend you never made it.

quote:
The point as I recall was that two separate groups of Christians were distinguished by the apostles

There is no question about that, as witnessed to by the dispute in Acts 6 over the distribution of food to Jews and Gentiles.

But it is a huge leap from recognising that there were two ethnic groups with the resulting tensions one can imagine to alleging that the apostles distinguished between them in terms of their salvation or inheritance of faith.

quote:
I do think it is pretty clear over a variety of texts, that being one, that Jewish believers in Christ were still seen as Jews and of course circumcision was the dividing line. It was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

Being a Jew ethnically and in terms of identity was marked by circumcision (for the men...), yes, and yes circumcision was a covenant instituted by God with Abraham, but nowhere in the NT is there any suggestion that this covenant has any value with regard to salvation, including as a matter of "faith obedience" reserved for Jewish believers, as you contend.

It simply isn't there, and what is there argues to the contrary - for instance Romans 4:10-12, as noted here (Romans 4 is another passage you have strenuously avoided commenting on).

quote:
you appear to be ready to discount the entire theological content of 1 Peter on the assumption it is directed solely at Jews

quote:
No, I did NOT say solely, I said primarily.

I concede you used the word "primarly", but that use is rather qualified or even contradicted by statements such as

quote:
the epistle of Peter is specifically directed those who reside as aliens throughout Pontus, Capadocia,Asia, Galatia and Bithynia. IOW to Jewish Christians not gentile church members.

and that when Peter addresses his general greeting in 1 P 1 to the "elect" you assert that

quote:
elect is used here to distinguish believing from unbelieving Jews.

all with the purpose of arguing that the notions of "chosen priesthood" and "holy nation" evoked in 1 Peter explicitly do not apply to the Church but to believing Jews.

All of the above are further blatant examples of imposing the hermeneutic on the text.

quote:
I think the only claim they would make would be that they begin with the scripture rather than the back story and of course they are pretty well all inerrantists and literal readers.

This is what is so disingenuous. Of course people claim to begin with the Scripture, but I have put explicit Bible verses under your nose that completely contradict what you claim the Bible says, and you cannot explain them.

I think a lot of people who pride themselves on being inerrantists and literal readers actually don't read what the Bible actually says, and that this is self-deception.

I don't criticise their aspiration to have a high view of Scripture, since I have such a view, but their intellectual dishonesty when they don't actually interact with it and pretend otherwise.

quote:

quote:
but I think there is a broad consensus that it's easier to understand precisely what is going on in, say, the Gospels and the Epistles than in Revelation or the Prophets
A broad consensus of who exactly? Remember that the epistles are partly distillations derived from the prophets etc by the great theologian Paul. I do not know your background of course but there are lots and lots of groups whose consensus would not be my particular bag.

Are you seriously suggesting that you find Revelation easier to understand than the Gospels or Acts? Yes or no?

quote:
It is ironic that the accusation of an unbiblical hermeneutic is made while all of these things are quite evident in the scripture

I have learned to distrust any hermeneutic containing words like "quite evident" and "clearly".

I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the council of Jerusalem did not enjoin circumcision on anyone and that Paul did not systematically circumcise any believers, despite which you implicitly continue to hold the opposite view.

quote:
and my suspicion is you just want to minimise what you do not wish to deal with by calling it minor.

Of course I do, at least to some extent! That's what we're all doing here!

The question is how honestly and on what grounds.

In interpreting Scripture we all make value judgements about what is major and what is minor. Hermeneutical debate involves discussing the validity of those choices.

Again, what concerns me is your apparent inability to see that you are engaged in precisely the same process (albeit with different conclusions). Thinking your hermeneutic is definitive is in my view a sure-fire way to go astray.

"Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." Or perhaps you think that's of minor importance, or just applies to Corinthians? [Biased]

quote:
Ask any wife if she is a bride or vice versa.

I just did and she says she was a bride on her wedding day. "Bride" refers to an occasion, "wife" to a social position. There is absolutely no reason why the two descriptors should not apply to one and the same person.

quote:
And in Ephesians, the middle wall of partition simply includes gentiles, it doesn't eliminate Jews. Certainly, one faith,one body refers to the church but it does not follow to say Jewish and gentile believers are the same in every respect

Once again, conceding they are not the same in terms of background is very different from asserting that they have a different inheritance or belong to a different body of believers.

quote:
more logical to agree with the apostles at the council of Jerusalem I would have thought.

I do. The council of Jerusalem says precisely nothing about different inheritances or people being parts of different categories of believer.

It sets out accommodations, at this early stage of the conversion of Gentiles, to enable those with differing cultural expectations not to offend each other. That is all.

quote:

quote:
you contend this is all perfectly straightforward to understand and "goes to bed nicely"; you won't admit to any areas of doubt or uncertaintly
This is gross exaggeration.

I have exaggerated to the extent that I missed out the word "quite" from your statement here, which incidentally gives the flavour of how convoluted your explanations are:

quote:
Why then is to juxtapose say 1Thes 1,2 with Matt 24 so bad when discussing eschatology? I have seen Matt 24 seen in the light of Dan 9 and Revelation when discussing the tribulation where the 4th beast of Daniel is linked to the Antichrist power who puts the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy place. That beast is seen as the same antiChrist power who is seen in Revelation. It all goes to bed quite nicely.

quote:
You are perhaps implying here that your superior thinking should have convinced an intelligent person by now? Perhaps you are correct and the rapture will never come.

I have never said "the rapture will never come". What I am disputing is a two-stage parousia.

[ 10. January 2017, 09:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Inerrantists or literalists no more start with the scriptures rather than a back-story than anyone else does.

How can they?

It's physically impossible.

That'd be like saying that if I go into a shop this afternoon I can do so without being consciously or subconsciously cognisant of all previous occasions when I've entered a shop. I know what's expected of the shop staff and of myself in such a setting. I can't pick up a packet of sweeties and walk out with it without paying and claim ignorance of the retail protocols ...

Ok, daft example, but it's the same when we approach the scriptures. An inerrantist or literal approach is just a set of lenses as any other.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

A hermeneutic that does not use Occam's razor, that uses ignorance to create arbitrary complexity, is intellectually inferior. All conservatism does this, let alone fundamentalism.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
This is not what I recall saying. The point as I recall was that two separate groups of Christians were distinguished by the apostles. I do think it is pretty clear over a variety of texts, that being one, that Jewish believers in Christ were still seen as Jews and of course circumcision was the dividing line. It was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

As ever, context is everything....

The 'Council of Jerusalem' was the Apostles dealing with the tensions created by admitting Gentiles to the Church. It doesn't necessarily represent a ruling forever, but a period of transition. Some Jewish Christians were saying in effect that to become a Christian you had first to become a Jew, be circumcised and accept all the 'kosher' dietary and similar laws. On the Gentile side total disregard of such rules was creating discomfort for Jewish Christians.

The Council ruling is that Gentiles need not be circumcised to belong to Christ's body/people. But that Gentiles at least for the time being should respect some minimal parts of the Jewish rules in the interests of getting along together. The council is not suggesting that in any ultimate sense Jewish and Gentile Christians are different before God. "In Christ" there is no Jew and Gentile.

This is not particularly relevant to the case of those who are continuing to be Jewish, having rejected Jesus as Messiah. As far as I can tell, the position there is that such Jews, being disobedient to God, have effectively put themselves outside the Abrahamic covenant until such time as they return to obedience by accepting Jesus as King/Messiah.

An understanding God is being as generous as possible with such faithless Jews, not as covenant obligation upon God but as undeserved grace.

Ultimately it does appear that near 'the end' there will highly probably be a situation where at least the vast majority of the Jews are converted to faith in Jesus. Our different prophetic schemes deal with this in different ways.

In the scheme I broadly follow, if we've understood rightly and that event is prophesied, it will happen before Jesus returns. And it joins the appearing of 'the man of lawlessness' as a reason to think that the end is not yet - though no reason for complacency.

In the scheme derived from Irving and Darby, it is considered that we 'must' expect the Second Coming/Rapture on an 'any minute now' basis, in which case of course there is not time for the prophecy to be fulfilled first, and it's necessary to somehow find a 'future history' in which there is time for it.

In order to create that space for that fulfilment to happen after the Rapture, Darby and his followers came up with this idea of a 'split' or 'two-stage' return of Jesus with some years - 'the Tribulation' - intervening between the 'Rapture' removing the Church and a later 'Day of the Lord' when Jesus returns with the Church to deal with everybody else.

I've yet to find any trace in Church history of such a belief before the early 19th Century, and I conclude that it is an innovation by the Irving/Darby school; I also find when examining Scripture that it appears to be an unwarranted innovation based on a misunderstanding of what it means to be expectant of the Second Coming.

Once that misunderstanding has been made, and elaborated over a century or so, it becomes hard to unravel especially for those brought up in circles where it is strongly believed and 'taken for granted'.

by Jamat;

quote:
Perhaps you are correct and the rapture will never come.

I think, and I suspect Eutychus will confirm it, that those of us who are opposing you do not believe that "the rapture will never come". On the contrary, I think we are also expecting that moment when, if still living we are 'caught up' to meet Christ. or if we have 'fallen asleep' first we are raised to join him.

Our argument is with a particular interpretation of where that event fits in and in particular whether it is 'the end' of regular earthly history or whether there is this strange period when the church has been removed but 'life goes on' for everyone else for several years more. We find the Scripture fairly clear that the Second Coming is a single event and is the end.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Jamat's inability to keep it simple like the rest of us stupids is compounded by the complexity of the hypnagogic state of Revelation using the dream tropes of Daniel and Ezekiel in particular, all the major prophets in fact and the minor prophets like Zechariah in conflict with rationality. Throw in Jesus', the gospel writers' and Paul's contributions and it's messy to start with let alone if it all has to be all literally all true. In Jamat's narrative the dream state has the upper hand as it does as one loses rationality to sleep or hypnopompically at the beginning of waking. How many resurrections are described in Revelation? How many deaths? How many events are there in the end times? How many end times are there? Can an end of times last thousands of years?

It is easy to read a time series in to the seven churches of Asia minor. The Waldensians did it a over eight hundred years ago. They identified themselves as Thyatira. They still do. This stuff is immensely beguiling and very hard to let go of. Believe me.

How literal is any of it and how unfulfilled? When will Jesus stand on the Mount of Olives for it to split in two and cascade with vast rivers of water?

Which conservatives, not just complete wooden literalists, don't believe this?

Like God in reality - in which there is no trace apart from the theoretical, binary possibility that infinite reality from eternity is tracelessly in God, dependent on Him thinking it - none of this apocalyptic necessarily has to be realised for Jesus to save.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's interesting, I didn't know that about the Waldensians.

Everyone I've come across who has identified 'epochs' in the Seven Letters to the Churches tend to assume that we are in the Laodicean 'age' for reasons best known to themselves. At least identifying oneself with Thyatira shows some originality ...

I disagree that the text of the Seven Letters 'invite' themselves to be read and interpreted that way. It never occurred to me to see them as some kind of sequential break-down of impending ages of church history until I came across people who interpreted that way. There's nothing in the text that suggests that they should be interpreted that way.

If we are going to lay claim to taking a plain and literal approach to the interpretation of scripture we'd better be consistent about it ...

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Just for information the broadly 'parallelist' interpretation I favour would not see the 'Letters to the Seven Churches' as representing consecutive ages of Church history, but rather as typical of states different churches can be in simultaneously throughout that history.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Everyone I've come across who has identified 'epochs' in the Seven Letters to the Churches tend to assume that we are in the Laodicean 'age' for reasons best known to themselves.

I always heard the Brethren assembly where I grew up referred to as Philadelphia, because (caricaturing only very very slightly here)

a) "Philadelphia" means "city of brothery [i.e. brethrenly] love", QED.

b) While all other churches are corrupt (Laodicea) we are the faithful remnant

c) As faithful Philadelphians we, exceptionally among the seven churches have nothing to be criticised about by the Lord

d) Since everyone else is Laodicean this means Jesus will be coming back for his faithful remnant ANY TIME NOW (and quite possibly before the end of this meeting, tremble tremble)

e) This is an adequate reason for not having guitars or the far too advanced Sounds of Living Waters or anything else contemporary, because it is ipso facto Laodicean.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's interesting, I didn't know that about the Waldensians.

Everyone I've come across who has identified 'epochs' in the Seven Letters to the Churches tend to assume that we are in the Laodicean 'age' for reasons best known to themselves. At least identifying oneself with Thyatira shows some originality ...

My cult was all of them, in time sequence and at the time we imploded we were Philadelphia. I'm obviously now lukewarm Laodicean.

quote:

I disagree that the text of the Seven Letters 'invite' themselves to be read and interpreted that way. It never occurred to me to see them as some kind of sequential break-down of impending ages of church history until I came across people who interpreted that way. There's nothing in the text that suggests that they should be interpreted that way.

Ohhhhhh yes they do! It took TIME to write them in that sequence, it takes TIME to read them in that sequence and OBVIOUSLY those specific, literal churches had the type characteristics that the eras would have.

quote:

If we are going to lay claim to taking a plain and literal approach to the interpretation of scripture we'd better be consistent about it ...

Consistently plainly literally allegorical!

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
An example of you doing it is when you insist that the "peri de" in 1 Thes 5:1 must refer to a temporally different occasion post-rapture when all it means lingustically is a change in the subject

Nothing imposed in the text here. It IS a change of subject.ie the rapture was discussed and now..NOW..the 'Day of the Lord' ie judgement day is discussed. It is a new subject. Peri de is also used in 1Cor7:1,8:1,12,1 and vitally,Matt 24:36. Please stop denying the bleeding obvious.

quote:
supply chapter and verse for that ridiculous statement or retract it. Don't pretend you never made it.i

This is about circumcision. Fruchtenbaum states in his book 'Israelology, the missing link in systematic theology'
"..Paul, who taught the gentiles not to circumcise,did not do so with the Jews. This is clear from Acts 21:17-26 and Acts16:1-3 when he had Timothy circumcised. It was not circumcision per se that was ruled out but rather circumcision on the basis of mosaic law. Since Jewish believers still fall under the physical and spiritual provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, they also fall under the rule of circumcision as a sign and seal of the same covenant." P641.

Incidentally Eutychus, you may disagree with him of course but you need to curb the rhetoric as it is dishonest. There is scriptural support of the view I expressed and I reiterate that in the previous post my point was that there were separate categories of Christian under discussion by the Apostles,Jew and Gentile.

quote:
..it sets out accommodations, at this early stage of the conversion of Gentiles, to enable those with differing cultural expectations not to offend each other. That is all

Well it is NOT all. As you can see above, there is a contrary view that others hold.

quote:
Thinking your hermeneutic is definitive is in my view a sure-fire way to go astray.

Well, everyone thinks this. You do and so do all the scholars of various stripes; Par for the course I would have thought.

quote:
Once again, conceding they are not the same in terms of background is very different from asserting that they have a different inheritance or belong to a different body of believers

And once again you exaggerate probably because you don't understand that the issue is not so much a different body of believers but a separate category within the SAME body of believers.

quote:
.. how convoluted your explanations are

At least this statement acknowledges there is an attempt to explain rather than the contemptuous dismissal of 'you have ignored my innumerable persuasive arguments' which frankly, Mate is bullshit. But really, it's not just me who has a literal hermeneutic. It is the nature of the dispensational beast.

quote:
...but I have put explicit Bible verses under your nose that completely contradict what you claim the Bible says, and you cannot explain them

No you have not. You simply do not agree with the explanations. If you are referring to Ephesians, I think you misunderstand the middle wall of partition. You think that it implies there are now no differences at all between Jew and ggentile believers. It does not.

quote:
What I am disputing is a two-stage parousia

And I think you are wrong. Perhaps that is a good stopping point.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Not all thinking is equal.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not all thinking is equal.

Very true. BTW hypnagogic? I am in awe.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat
It is ironic that the accusation of an unbiblical hermeneutic is made while all of these things are quite evident in the scripture and my suspicion is you just want to minimise what you do not wish to deal with by calling it minor.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
This is what is so disingenuous. Of course people claim to begin with the Scripture, but I have put explicit Bible verses under your nose that completely contradict what you claim the Bible says, and you cannot explain them.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin 60
A hermeneutic that does not use Occam's razor, that uses ignorance to create arbitrary complexity, is intellectually inferior. All conservatism does this, let alone fundamentalism.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat
And I think you are wrong. Perhaps that is a good stopping point.

Host hat on

These posts are close to being C3 or C5 violations. They are not quite over the line, but they're close.

I am not closing this thread, but I agree with Jamat that this is a good stopping point.

Host hat off

Moo

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[I started composing this long post before Moo had posted]

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nothing imposed in the text here. It IS a change of subject (...) It is a new subject (...)Please stop denying the bleeding obvious.

quote:
Originally posted by me, immediately prior:
all it means lingustically is a change in the subject

I don't think I'm getting my point across [Roll Eyes]

It is indeed "bleeding obvious" that peri de introduces a change of subject.

What is by no means "bleeding obvious" is that it introduces a change of time. It means "now then", not "next", in the chronological sense of something happening subsequently.

(If you ask me about, say, a cassowary, I may go on for some time about its height, plumage, crest, why the French army officers of St Cyr wear a cassowary feather on their dress uniforms, and so on, and then continue "now, Jamat, about [peri de] their beaks...".

That does not mean the beak arrives some time after what I was talking about immediately beforehand. It marks a change of immediate subject, but not a chronological next step).

That is what you are imposing on the text.

quote:
Also originally posted by me:
please supply chapter and verse for that ridiculous statement or retract it. Don't pretend you never made it.

To refresh your memory, again, the statement was, emphasis mine:

quote:
It was decided by the council of Jerusalem in Acts that gentiles need not be circumcised but the Jewish converts however were to undergo it.

That contradicts what the account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts to the point of being, well, thoroughly extra-biblical I would suggest.

Instead of retracting or suppling chapter and verse, you go on to give a long quote from Fruchtenbaum that doesn't even refer to that passage.

This to my mind is a prime example of placing one's hermeneutic before the biblical text. You answer a direct challenge about a biblical text with a quote from your favourite author!

quote:
in the previous post my point was that there were separate categories of Christian under discussion by the Apostles,Jew and Gentile.

The term "category" is too ambiguous to be of any use in resolving this difference.

My position is that there were separate categories in terms of background and culture, but that you have failed to offer any convincing proof that there are separate categories of Jew and Gentile as far as different outworkings of faith, the need to obey various different covenants, and different inheritances at the eschaton are concerned - all of which you have previously alleged.

This in the face of statements such as that made by Peter of the Gentiles, at the Council of Jerusalem no less, in Acts 15:9

quote:
in cleansing their hearts by faith [God] has made no distinction between them and us

quote:

quote:
Once again, conceding they are not the same in terms of background is very different from asserting that they have a different inheritance or belong to a different body of believers
And once again you exaggerate probably because you don't understand that the issue is not so much a different body of believers but a separate category within the SAME body of believers.

Where is the exaggeration on my part, here? You deny Jewish believers, post-rapture believers and OT saints are part of the bride of Christ / the city of God*. By asserting different categories of believer exist (in terms of covenant requirements and inheritance) you are in direct contradiction to what Peter says in Acts 15 as quoted.

The Council of Jerusalem was a major step towards removing categories, not in upholding them. If you want to argue otherwise you are going to have to do so verse by verse, not by quoting your favourite authors.

quote:
it's not just me who has a literal hermeneutic.

How can you claim to have a literal hermeneutic when you answer challenges about specific Bible passages with quotes from authors that don't even mention the passage, instead of responding to what the text actually says?

quote:

quote:
...but I have put explicit Bible verses under your nose that completely contradict what you claim the Bible says, and you cannot explain them
No you have not. You simply do not agree with the explanations.

Show me where you have explained Galatians 5:11

quote:
why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offence of the cross has been removed.

in the light of your assertion that Paul seemed for instance to circumcise Jewish converts as though Timothy, exceptional enough to be mentioned, was a typical example of his practice.

==

*Further to our discussion of images of the body of Christ, it has been pointed out to me that Revelation 1:6 says Christ

quote:
made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father

I presume you don't think this is referring only to believing Jews?

[ 10. January 2017, 22:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:

Ultimately it does appear that near 'the end' there will highly probably be a situation where at least the vast majority of the Jews are converted to faith in Jesus. Our different prophetic schemes deal with this in different ways.

In the scheme I broadly follow, if we've understood rightly and that event is prophesied, it will happen before Jesus returns. And it joins the appearing of 'the man of lawlessness' as a reason to think that the end is not yet - though no reason for complacency.

In the scheme derived from Irving and Darby, it is considered that we 'must' expect the Second Coming/Rapture on an 'any minute now' basis, in which case of course there is not time for the prophecy to be fulfilled first, and it's necessary to somehow find a 'future history' in which there is time for it.

In order to create that space for that fulfilment to happen after the Rapture, Darby and his followers came up with this idea of a 'split' or 'two-stage' return of Jesus with some years - 'the Tribulation' - intervening between the 'Rapture' removing the Church and a later 'Day of the Lord' when Jesus returns with the Church to deal with everybody else.

I've yet to find any trace in Church history of such a belief before the early 19th Century, and I conclude that it is an innovation by the Irving/Darby school; I also find when examining Scripture that it appears to be an unwarranted innovation based on a misunderstanding of what it means to be expectant of the Second Coming.

Yes I think your summation is fair Steve. But why did they split the rapture from the second coming proper? We have pretty explicit reasons to live in expectancy of the Lord's coming. If we have to expect the antichrist first, that confuses things. We are not exactly motivated by that. As I keep saying here if you look at a panoply of the scriptures in the NT that refer to his coming,you see some contradictory scenarios. If you link these with the prophetic kingdom promises, and consider these in the light of Jesus and Paul's pronouncements, then if you are both an inerrantist and a literalist then you can't dismiss any of it so you start trying to make the jigsaw fit and this is what I think they did.

Regarding history, Theological thinking is dominated by Origen and Augustine and later Jerome who tended to spiritualise things, and given the dominance and grip of the Catholics in the medieval world then all theology was pretty well locked up by them for centuries. Luther had other fish to fry and eschatology was not, as I understand it, on the radar of most of the reformers. Consequently, it is not surprising that we see little attempt to deal with these ideas. History shows us Science took off in the 17th Century so why not theology in the 19th?

If you look at Acts 2, Matt 24,1Cor 15, 1thes 4,5, John 14, Luke 21, and of course, Revelation and look at them against the background of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Joel etc, you see quite a few ideas about a future resolution of earthly affairs brought together in a Kingdom reign.

Regarding the point at issue here, we have a lot of issues with conflating rapture and second coming. Obviously we do not know the timing and are told very specifically that we cannot predict the day or hour.

But of what?

Zech12:10 suggests he will come when the Jewish remnant repent en masse on behalf of their nation for their national rejection of messiah at his first coming. This suggests we can predict this coming and Armageddon.

Therefore, why the injunction vs date setting?

Well, argue Darby, Chafer, Walvoord, Fruchtenbaum,Missler,Ironside, Anderson et al, what we cannot predict and what is imminent in the sense that God alone can do it when he chooses, is the RAPTURE. If you look at the NT references like John 14. 1Cor15:51, IThes 4, and the second part of Matt 24, then they are consistent with Christ coming for the elect separate from his coming in judgement to sort out the antichrist.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
it marks a change of immediate subject, but not a chronological next

Well perhaps but perhaps not, the content of what is being contrasted is not dictated by the contrastive is it. The subject is time here because Paul specifically mentions times and epochs.

quote:
contradicts what the account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts to the point of being, well, thoroughly extra-biblical I would suggest.

well as stated before not all would say so. Regarding the council of Jerusalem, I think that their verdict was to accept the gentiles without imposing Jewish rules but not,to free Jewish converts from these. Fruchtenbaum sees it that way.

quote:
The Council of Jerusalem was a major step towards removing categories, not in upholding them. If you want to argue otherwise you are going to have to do so verse by verse, not by quoting your favourite authors

I agree but the council did both AFAICS. (Remove in terms of salvation and barriers to fellowship but uphold in terms of ethnicity.) I am not sure why this is such an issue for you. For some reason you seem set on removing all markers of difference when scripture actually uses them..bride,wife,wedding guest Jew, gentile. FWIW I have no issue at all with the overall unity of the church. However, you can not establish that OT saints were part of a church that did not exist till Acts 2.

quote:
Show me where you have explained Galatians 5:11

you are correct. I did not comment on this. It is pretty obvious though that the circumcision here is to do Paul refuting the Judaizers who wanted to start circumcising gentiles. It has no relevance to our discussion as we both agree Paul did not see gentiles as needing to keep this OR other aspects of the Mosaic law.

quote:
Rev 1:6?

No, certainly not just Jews as the obvious context here is the churches who are probably pretty multi-ethnic by the time John wrote this.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat
It is ironic that the accusation of an unbiblical hermeneutic is made while all of these things are quite evident in the scripture and my suspicion is you just want to minimise what you do not wish to deal with by calling it minor.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
This is what is so disingenuous. Of course people claim to begin with the Scripture, but I have put explicit Bible verses under your nose that completely contradict what you claim the Bible says, and you cannot explain them.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin 60
A hermeneutic that does not use Occam's razor, that uses ignorance to create arbitrary complexity, is intellectually inferior. All conservatism does this, let alone fundamentalism.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat
And I think you are wrong. Perhaps that is a good stopping point.
Host hat on

These posts are close to being C3 or C5 violations. They are not quite over the line, but they're close.

I am not closing this thread, but I agree with Jamat that this is a good stopping point.

Host hat off

Moo

Fair comment and noted.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The subject is time here because Paul specifically mentions times and epochs.

Yes but as you concede, that does not mean that those times and epochs have to happen after what has gone before. That is a hermeneutical choice that is not dictated by the text itself.

quote:
well as stated before not all would say so. Regarding the council of Jerusalem, I think that their verdict was to accept the gentiles without imposing Jewish rules but not,to free Jewish converts from these.

It does not take a position either way on freeing Jewish converts from Jewish rules, I would suggest for the following two reasons:

1. The presenting issue in the Council of Jerusalem, and the one that recurs throughout the epistles, is circumcision (Acts 15:1):

quote:
Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’

Quite simply, "freeing" anyone from circumcision once performed was not an option, so it's hardly surprising it wasn't discussed.

2. The matter which the Council of Jerusalem attempted to settle was the extent to which uncircumcised Gentiles should be required to obey Jewish law, not whether Jews were required to continue to obey it. It is quite simply silent on the latter.

quote:
the council did both AFAICS. (Remove in terms of salvation and barriers to fellowship but uphold in terms of ethnicity.)

Where do you see the council upholding ethnic barriers? Do you think these should still be upheld?

quote:
I am not sure why this is such an issue for you.

Firstly, because it suggests God is interested in upholding ethnic barriers and that by extension, so should we be.

As I see it this runs counter to the arguments put forward at the Council of Jerusalem, the emphasis on the oneness of the people of God developed in the epistles, and the end-time vision of a people of "every nation tribe and tongue" all worshipping the Lamb together and on the same basis.

Secondly, because for you this barrier is materialised by different inheritances (you believe the inheritance of the Jews is a physical Land) and different outworkings of justification by faith (with Jews required to obey the Mosaic covenant by virtue of being Jewish). You similarly see different inheritances and outworkings of justification by faith for those saved (in your scheme of things) after the return of Christ.

These to me seem to be so far removed from orthodoxy as to be worth being bothered about.

quote:
For some reason you seem set on removing all markers of difference when scripture actually uses them..bride,wife,wedding guest Jew, gentile.

All but the last two are images, not literal descriptors. If I say your glasses are cool that does not mean they have to be at a low temperature, and if I also say they look sweet that does not mean I am referring to a different pair of glasses just because I have changed the descriptor.

As to Jew and Gentile, Galatians 3 says, in the context of faith, its inheritance and its outcomes:

quote:
26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith (...) 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Obviously all of those "categories" are distinct and still exist, but the idea that they or any other category are today distinct from any theological or eschatalogical point of view runs counter to what the NT says.

quote:
FWIW I have no issue at all with the overall unity of the church. However, you can not establish that OT saints were part of a church that did not exist till Acts 2.

Of course people who died before Pentecost were not the members of any body of believers meeting thereafter, with the benefit of the full revelation of the person and work of Christ, the outpouring of the Spirit, and the apostles' ensuing attempts to organise their gatherings in the light of this new knowledge and experience.

But when the NT talks about the Church in the universal sense it is talking about the body of believers from all time, variously referred to as a "bride", a "city", a "kingdom" and a "priesthood" (as you now admit, if not from 1 Peter then at least from Revelation), and it seems to me that this body is made up of all believers of all time.

That is where the story ends up in Revelation, with praise from one crowd from every nation tribe and tongue and one city coming down out of Heaven in triumph after Babylon, with all its confusion, division (cf Babel), oppression, injustice, and exploitation, has fallen.

Would you have an eschatology without that prospect? By preserving different categories of believer, that is what dispensationalism offers.

Hebrews 12:22-24 says:

quote:
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly* of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

I admit to not looking right now, but I'm willing to bet that asterisked "assembly" is the Greek ekklesia - church.

quote:

quote:
Show me where you have explained Galatians 5:11
you are correct. I did not comment on this. It is pretty obvious though that the circumcision here is to do Paul refuting the Judaizers who wanted to start circumcising gentiles. It has no relevance to our discussion as we both agree Paul did not see gentiles as needing to keep this OR other aspects of the Mosaic law.

It's relevant in that 1) you implied heavily that Paul routinely continued to circumcise Jewish believers, 2) you said, and continue to imply, that the Council of Jerusalem ordered the same thing.

This is vital to your contention that Jew and Gentile should remain ethnically separate, because dispensationalism maintains they are separate categories of believer, but your assertion is not borne out by these passages.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Back, I fear, to I Thessalonians....

The subject at the end of chapter 4 is not 'the rapture' as distinct from a separate event which Paul then goes on to discuss in chapter 5.

The subject at the end of chapter 4 is a particular issue about the rapture, which presumably had arisen in the Thessalonian context, namely

quote:
"What about people who have died before the rapture? Will they miss out?"

Presumably some of the Thessalonian Christians had died and this had rendered the issue urgent to them, bearing in mind that at that stage they likely wouldn't have had as full knowledge as we with the whole NT available. Paul, remember, had been forced to leave Thessalonica somewhat precipitately, probably leaving many things not fully explained.

Having dealt with that issue about the rapture, Paul then goes on to say "But as to the times and seasons....", that is, "But as to when the rapture will happen...."

Yes, he now refers to the event as 'the day of the Lord' - but there is NO reason in the text to think that is a different event to the rapture he has talked of in the previous chapter. He doesn't actually name the event in chapter 4 at all; he doesn't need to.

What is rather clear is that Paul expects the Thessalonians will see 'the Day of the Lord' - that is particularly clear in 5; 4

quote:
But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you like a thief

If the 'Rapture followed by seven years Tribulation' idea were true, Paul wouldn't be speaking in such terms, because in that scheme by the time 'the Day of the Lord' happens, the Thessalonians will not be surprised for a different reason, because they will already have been raptured and on the day of the Lord they will see it as those returning with Jesus.

And Paul, AFAICT from the rest of his writings, is not the kind of person to fail to explain that. If he meant "You won't be surprised because you will have been raptured to be with the Lord years earlier", he would have said so.

"But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you", only makes sense if the Thessalonians would not have been raptured earlier, they will (if it happens in their time) still be on earth to see it and potentially be surprised by it.

V10 supplies further indirect confirmation

quote:
"(Jesus) died for us so that whether we wake or sleep we might live with him"

The reference to "whether we wake or sleep" refers back to chapter 4 with its concern about those who fall asleep/die before Jesus returns, and thus ties ch4 together with ch5 as talking about the same event. The contrastive 'peri de' is not about a separate event, but simply about different aspects of the same event.

And note that if ch4 and ch5 are about the same event, it takes more than a bit of stretching to then insert that seven years of tribulation after 'the day of the Lord', because 5;3 says

quote:
then sudden destruction will come upon them, ... and there will be no escape"

There is no 'after' this 'Day of the Lord' for the unbelieving; and if as I Thess actually says that is the same event as the day that Christians are 'caught up/raptured' to be with the Lord, there can be no period of 'Tribulation' etc.

And if no period of Tribulation after the rapture/day of the Lord, then the church which is raptured is a united church in which there is no Jew and Gentile, and all this discussion as if there are separate destinies is simply irrelevant.

There won't be Jews on earth after the Rapture to be somehow separately converted in a separate 'dispensation' or according to a separate covenant, because there won't be that period for that to happen. Nor will there be 'Tribulation believers' as depicted in the 'Left Behind' books; because they won't be 'left behind' for years - as unbelievers, the same day that sees believers 'raptured' also sees unbelievers face 'sudden destruction' with 'no escape'.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Steve L: [Overused]

[ 11. January 2017, 11:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

2nded. But the trunk of the tree will sprout instantaneously.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Yes, he now refers to the event as 'the day of the Lord' - but there is NO reason in the text to think that is a different event to the rapture he has talked of in the previous chapter

Except Steve, that the term, 'Day of the Lord' always refers in scripture to the 'Time of Jacob's trouble'. This is always a metaphor for the day of judgement when God will appear to stop Israel being wiped out. Viz 'This is the time of Jacobs trouble but he will be saved out of it' Jer 30:7. See also Joel 1:15 and 2:1.I hear what you say regarding those who 'wake or sleep' and agree that it suggests a link back to ch 4 but disagree that it means he has not changed the topic to another subject.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
But when the NT talks about the Church in the universal sense it is talking about the body of believers from all time, variously referred to as a "bride", a "city", a "kingdom" and a "priesthood" (as you now admit, if not from 1 Peter then at least from Revelation), and it seems to me that this body is made up of all believers of all time.

That is where the story ends up in Revelation, with praise from one crowd from every nation tribe and tongue and one city coming down out of Heaven in triumph after Babylon, with all its confusion, division (cf Babel), oppression, injustice, and exploitation, has fallen.

Would you have an eschatology without that prospect? By preserving different categories of believer, that is what dispensationalism offers.

No, I wouldn't. However, a great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation is not necessarily one without discriminated categories. Think of a crowd of people of different ethnicities. They all have a common humanity. Regarding dispensationalism, I do not think you have seriously considered its claims.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
2nded. But the trunk of the tree will sprout instantaneously.

Whatever.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding dispensationalism, I do not think you have seriously considered its claims.

I would not have spent nine pages disputing them if I had not.

quote:
Except Steve, that the term, 'Day of the Lord' always refers in scripture to the 'Time of Jacob's trouble'. This is always a metaphor for the day of judgement when God will appear to stop Israel being wiped out. Viz 'This is the time of Jacobs trouble but he will be saved out of it' Jer 30:7. See also Joel 1:15 and 2:1.I hear what you say regarding those who 'wake or sleep' and agree that it suggests a link back to ch 4 but disagree that it means he has not changed the topic to another subject.

Nobody, including Steve, has said that Paul has not changed the topic to another subject (or to untangle the negatives, nobody is arguing that he has remained on exactly the same subject).

Where we disagree is that Steve and I (at least) argue that in the "change of subject" introduced by peri de Paul is discussing two aspects of the same event that are not separated in time. I cannot improve on Steve's explanation of this above and his conclusions in this respect.

There is nothing in the text of 1 Thes 4-5 itself, linguistically, to suggest that the events of 1 Thes 5 take place chronologically after those of 1 Thes 4. It is your hermeneutic that says that, not the text itself.

quote:
a great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation is not necessarily one without discriminated categories.

Once again, I have no argument that there are "discriminated categories" in the sense that the Bible says they are from "every nation tribe and tongue".

But that is not really what you mean by the term.

According to you, these “discriminated categories” mean, firstly, that some of these categories are somehow saved by faith whilst also being under Mosaic Law which demands Mosaic observance:

quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance.

If you hold that some believers must also obey the Mosaic law to be saved then you don't believe in a common basis of salvation. You believe in a different basis for some categories of believer.

Secondly, you appear not to actually believe in a great unified body of believers, because your “discriminated categories” place some believers outside it.

Here you disputed my alleged assumption that “the saved Jews under Mosaic law are in the same category as NT believers” objecting that “If so then they are part of the bride of Christ”.

You later reiterated that

quote:
OT saints are not part of the church so not part of the bride

In Revelation this "great unified body" is depicted, inter alia, in language echoing that of Hebrews 12, at the end of all things, as a city and as a bride coming down out of heaven.

There is no question in Revelation of any other "category".

This "great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation" is what is commonly understood as the Church (universal).

You allege some believers don't form part of it.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
nothing in the text of 1 Thes 4-5 itself, linguistically, to suggest that the events of 1 Thes 5 take place chronologically after those of 1 Thes 4. It is your hermeneutic that says that, not the text itself.

No, that is incorrect. It is a fair linguistic assumption that they do. He says does he not if I paraphrase it.
" Don't worry about the dead, they are not going to miss the show, they will rise first and then WE will join them and be with the Lord. However, concerning the times and epochs, you already realise what the programme is. The day of the Lord is going to surprise them but not you guys cos (v9 )we are not destined for wrath.."
Clearly this is suggesting we miss the Day of the Lord. But hey, how can this be? Only if the rapture comes first..
Once again, I deny anything is imposed on the text.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I refer you to Steve Langton for a rebuttal of that.

[ 12. January 2017, 10:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
This "great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation" is what is commonly understood as the Church (universal).

You allege some believers don't form part of it

Correct and no I do not.
If you accept a term 'church universal' as the overall group of all believers for all past history, present and future history, then I am fine with that but point out this is not a scriptural term with that qualification. I think of the church as God's elect,all of them, in this present dispensation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What's a dispensation?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you accept a term 'church universal' as the overall group of all believers for all past history, present and future history, then I am fine with that

But not, apparently, with them all having the same basis for salvation as pointed out in my post before last: you state, emphasis mine, that some are

quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance

This also seems to be behind your insistence on "circumcision for believing Jews" on the basis of its importance as a covenant.

quote:
I think of the church as God's elect,all of them, in this present dispensation.

Revelation 21:2-3 says:

quote:
And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
‘See, the home of God is among mortals.
He will dwell with them;
they will be his peoples,
and God himself will be with them'

Who do you think forms this bride/are the inhabitants of this city? All of God's people, or just some of them?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I know you are a former RC turned conservative evangelical, Jamat, but I have to say I find it rather odd that you might see the 19th century as some kind of period in which theology began to flower - as opposed to what, I dunno - the first four centuries of the Christian era, the middle ages, the 16th century ...

Most of the stuff we all believe, whether we are RC, Protestant or Orthodox, was thrashed out during the first few centuries.

Once we start to focus in on the various traditions within Christianity as a whole then we start to see different periods and movements where theologies specific to those traditions, flourished ...

So, for instance, the 16th and 17th centuries were important in the development of Reformed theology, with the later 19th century and the 20th century being a fertile period for further iterations of that.

Equally, if we were to look at the 19th century we'd find, as you've already suggested, that it saw both the rise of German Higher Criticism and the kind of fundamentalist theology that you clearly favour - in particular ideas of scriptural inerrancy - the whole Hodge, Warfield and Princeton thing ...

There will have been parallel fertile periods within all the other traditions too - the RCs might cite the medieval Schoolmen, the Orthodox might cite the Russian emigres of the 1920s and so on ...

You seem to have this very monolithic view whereby things 'go wrong' at some point only for Luther to correct some aspects and then for Darby, Schofield and others to put the spotlight on eschatological aspects that everyone else - the Reformers or the RCs - had overlooked for whatever reason.

I'm suggesting it's not quite so simple as that.

But hey ho ...

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
But not, apparently, with them all having the same basis for salvation as pointed out in my post before last: you state, emphasis mine, that some are
quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance

Funny how many of my posts point out the exact same thing regarding the basis of salvation.
As OT saints were looking forward to Christ,though of course the did not know it, their Mosaic observance was a marker of their faith. However, it was their faith rather than the act of observance that was of value to the Lord.
Please do not deliberately misrepresent things. It is not honest.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
Except Steve, that the term, 'Day of the Lord' always refers in scripture to the 'Time of Jacob's trouble'.

I'm looking into this and some of the other points raised; right now I'm having some trouble working out how the "Day of the Lord" can "Always" refer to the "Time of Jacob's trouble" when the phrase "Time of Jacob's trouble" only occurs once in Scripture?

And further, the exact phrase "Day of the Lord" doesn't occur in Jeremiah 30 either.

I do in fact agree that this probably does refer to the same 'Day of the Lord' as in I Thess 5; but again, Jeremiah writes long before the revelation in the NT of the breaking down of the 'Jew/Gentile' barrier and the incorporation of the Gentiles into God's people in a supranational way. And I see nothing therefore in Jeremiah to say that this must refer to a destiny for Israel separate to the general ultimate destiny of the people of Jesus' kingdom.

Jeremiah refers in 30; 9 to how they shall "serve the LORD (YHWH) their God and David their king, who I shall raise up for them" - that is, the Messiah, that is Jesus, who as God incarnate is both 'the LORD/YHWH' and 'David their king'.

Yet Jesus' kingdom is a unity of everyone who loves the truth (and) listens to my voice", as he said in John 18. It is a kingdom in which 'In Christ' there is neither Jew nor Gentile but one faithful people. Jeremiah doesn't explain that because it was not yet fully revealed - though as Paul points out, more than a bit hinted at, for example in the way the promise to Abraham is to also bless all the nations.

Host note: fixed code

[ 12. January 2017, 21:22: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
But not, apparently, with them all having the same basis for salvation as pointed out in my post before last: you state, emphasis mine, that some are
quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance

Funny how many of my posts point out the exact same thing regarding the basis of salvation

Yes, but I cannot for the life of me square your explanation with having to comply with Mosaic observance, which you also affirm and have not really explained.

If there is an obligation over and above faith in Christ, whether in the full knowledge of his person and work after the fact or "by anticipation", then the basis of salvation is not the same.

Every time I challenge you on the outworkings of faith and its inheritance, you repeat that everyone is saved on the same basis, and yet you, with dispensationalism, insist on separate categories of believer.

What distinguishes them?

Why can't they all be part of the bride/city coming down out of heaven?

Another way of clarifying this might be for you to explain, as Martin has requested, just what you understand by "dispensation".

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What's a dispensation?

Well, quoting a source for this:

A dispensation as defined by dispensationalists is:

Literally, it means a 'stewardship' (Clarence E Mason jr Dean, Philadelphia College of the Bible says:

"A divinely established stewardship of a particular revelation of God's mind and will which is instituted in the first instance with a new age and which brings added responsibility to the whole race of men or that portion of the race to whom the revelation is particularly given by God"

" associated with the revelation on the one hand are promises of reward or blessing for those responding in the obedience of faith while on the other hand there are warnings of judgement upon those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation"

"However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages because God's truth does not cease to be truth, and these principles become part of the cumulative body of truth for which man is responsible in the progressive unfolding revelation of God's redemptive purpose. "

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
"those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation"

sounds like a "different basis of faith" to me.

quote:
"However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages because God's truth does not cease to be truth"

such as, if you are a Jew you must be circumcised in "faith obedience" carried over from the Abrahamic dispensation?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
yes, but I cannot for the life of me square your explanation with having to comply with Mosaic observance, which you also affirm and have not really explained

Your problem is why I said Jewish converts like Timothy were circumcised by Paul. You of course think that was a one off abberation. I do not think it would be in scripture if it was but leaving that aside for a moment I do acknowledge I can only make sense of this the way Fruchtenbaum does.

He would say that Timothy's salvation did not depend on his circumcision. The basis of his salvation is the same as ours, grace through faith. An analogy for us would be believers baptism. We are converted before we are baptised. However, we submit to baptism as a marker of what has happened spiritually. But why circumcise Timothy? Well, he was Jewish so subject to the physical as well as the spiritual components of the Abrahamic covenant. He therefore submitted to circumcision at the hands of Paul as a sign as a marker of his new spiritual identity which in his case included his ethnicity.

Now, I admit I found this reasoning a bit hard to handle but that is as clear as I can make it. Fruchtenbaum would say that there is a difference between Jewish and gentile believers ONLY in the sense that they are heirs of the PHYSICAL blessings of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the SPIRITUAL ones. Gentiles are heirs of every spiritual blessing as in Eph 1:3. However, Jewish believers are also heirs of the real estate in the coming kingdom.

The whole thinking is predicated on the idea that the Abrahamic covenant is both still fully in effect and made in the first instance with believing Israel.

[ 12. January 2017, 21:57: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

You couldn't have put it much clearer than that.

Which is why I have repeatedly argued that you make a distinction between categories of believer in terms of inheritance and the outworking of their faith.

To my mind this distinction runs counter to the entire thrust of the NT, the latter culminating with one bride/city coming down out of heaven, in marked contrast (Hebrews 12, Galatians 4, et al) to the earthly Jerusalem which is superseded by the New Covenant.

There is no prima facie case for Paul's circumcision of Timothy being in order to fulfil some obligation under the Abrahamic covenant (i.e. it does not say so in the text in so many words), so we have to look for clues as to what was going on elsewhere.

In Galatians 5:11 Paul says that if he were preaching circumcision there would be no offence of the cross.

I take that to mean that the cross did away with the need for anyone (saved on the basis of Christ's work...) to fulfil any requirement of the Law.

I simply cannot square this verse with any ongoing 'covenant obligation' to circumcise anyone, and I am far from sure how you do, unless it is by admitting a different basis of salvation for the Jews.

We do however read of Paul's relentless enthusiasm to make himself all things to all men in order to preach the gospel. 1 Cor 9:19-20 says

quote:
For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.

Paul, a Jew, reiterates that he is "free with respect to all" and "not under the law", but that as necessary he becomes "as a Jew in order to win Jews" for the purposes of evangelism.

Theologian FF Bruce is quoted as saying "Paul is so free that he is not a slave even of his own freedom".

Paul was an utter pragmatist (sometimes alarmingly so to my mind; I suspect Timothy felt the same way!) who could submit himself to the law as it suited his purpose to evangelise.

To my mind this passage provides all the explanation that is required of Paul's circumcision of Timothy. It was not some covenantal requirement, it was sheer pragmatism so as not to unecessarily offend the Jews he was evangelising.

What is more, at the Council of Jerusalem, James concluded (Acts 15:19) that "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." In circumcising Timothy, Paul is applying exactly the same principle 'in reverse' to the Jews. He circumcised Timothy so there was not an additional, unnecessary difficulty in winning over the Jews who were turning to the Gospel.

I'm just glad not to have been in Paul's mission team.

[ 13. January 2017, 05:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Paul circumcized Timothy to give him credibility with a Jewish audience, to validate, acknowledge him as Jewish which he was by being born to a Jewess. It's so simple.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The Salvation Army dropped the filioque clause in Russia to make itself acceptable to the Orthodox Church.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?

And on that note, since you've returned to the thread, would you care to elaborate on what you meant here by

quote:
Paul (...) does speak about all Israel being saved - and they are not saved by grace but by covenant

I've been waiting for an answer since November!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?

And on that note, since you've returned to the thread, would you care to elaborate on what you meant here by
quote:
Paul (...) does speak about all Israel being saved - and they are not saved by grace but by covenant
I've been waiting for an answer since November!

Ooops sorry, I forgot about that [Smile]

Firstly, I would affirm that (Romans 10 v 12) 'There is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him.'

That's the level playing field. That's the Gospel.

But, while, according to Paul and Jesus, just because you're Jewish doesn't automatically make you a child of God, Paul does say of Israel that (Romans 9 v 4) 'theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the law, the temple worship and the promises.'

He carries on to say in 11 v 28 that 'As at as the Gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your (the Gentile Romans) account; but as far as election is concerned they are loved on account of the patriarch, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.'

So, we can say so far, Israel will be saved by the calling of God through Patriarchal covenant, as long as they continue to call on the name of the Lord (YHWH) and when they recognise Jesus as their Messiah and call upon his name. Jews disobedient to the covenant, as Jesus said, could be replaced by the stones instead!

Talking of 'replacement.' The Gentiles, according to Paul, have the fact that the Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, to thank.
Romans 11 v 11:
'Did they (Israel) stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious... their loss means riches for the Gentiles.'

Paul goes on to talk about branches and grafting in and says, (v 25), Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in.'

So, that, I believe is the grace of God that has brought the Gentiles into the Kingdom.
The patriarchal covenants were never given to Gentiles; they are not for us - they are given irrevocably (what an excellent word) to Israel with a challenge to keep them. I believe, with Paul, that all Israel will be saved.

That doesn't mean the nation of Israel under Mr Netanyahu, Israel is all the Jews who are faithful to the irrevocable old covenant and will one day see their true Messiah, and the Gentiles who are grafted in by grace.

The old covenant is fulfilled in Christ and the Jews will see that fulfilment for them (Zechariah 12 v 10). The covenant will make them, basically, Messianic Jews. That is their election promise.

Gentiles cannot be part of that old covenant fulfilled by Christ, they are grafted into the Kingdom by grace trough faith in Christ - the covenant requirements don't apply to us, but grace through faith certainly does.

As far as the Kingdom is concerned there is/will be no Jew or Gentile because all are there by covenant or grace and all in the name of Jesus.

As far as the nation of Israel that is there today, that's in fulfilment of the prophecy prior to the return of Jesus because the land itself is part of the irrevocable covenant made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.

[ 13. January 2017, 15:33: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Thanks. I think you missed this more recent question:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Israel will be saved by the calling of God through Patriarchal covenant

Can you explain that in more detail?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ...

If anyone is saved they are saved by the grace of God. That applies to all of us.

The dilemma the Apostle Paul had, and which he was attempting to reconcile, is on what basis Gentiles can be grafted in alongside believing Israel - if we can put it that way.

He has to find a way - if I can put it that way without it sounding like he's deviously juggling things - of accepting and affirming that without dissing the Patriarchs and what we'd call the Old Testament covenant/s ...

Hence, 'what advantage is there in being a Jew? Much in every way ...'

And yes, they are 'loved on account of the Patriarchs' ... well, actually, like everyone else they are loved unconditionally, but due to their special role in the economy of God the whole panoply of Patriarchs, Law and Prophets - if you like - is deserving of honour and respect.

Do not boast over the old 'natural' branches, they were removed so that you could be grafted in artifically and against nature as it were - that's the gist.

Tragically, the Christian Church down the centuries hasn't always behaved that way. It has 'boasted' over those earlier branches, and worse, engaged in outright persecution and pogroms. A hideous blot upon us all.

But whether this has any bearing on how 'Messianic Jews' should conduct themselves is another issue. It's not up to me to determine the extent to which they continue with practices which others may consider to be 'Judaising' ... and it's a tricky issue to resolve. Not all Jewish Christians feel the need to retain some of those cultural or ceremonial aspects. Others do. Some Gentile Christians somehow feel the need to adopt quasi-Jewish figures of speech and to blow shofars and what have you ...

Again, I'd suggest that's all a secondary issue, except where it may start to impinge on 'gospel liberty' as it were - but that's always a tricky area to define ...

And yet another reason for treading warily around this whole area.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks. I think you missed this more recent question:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Israel will be saved by the calling of God through Patriarchal covenant

Can you explain that in more detail?

Yes, if Timothy was a Gentile, he didn't need to be circumcised - for which most of us Englishmen are grateful. I can't speak for my American brothers [Biased]

The text says 'As far as the Gospel is concerned they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned they are loved on account of the Patriarchs.'(Romans 11 v 28)

I take that to mean that whilst they have rejected the Gospel of Jesus as the Messiah (until, of course, they recognise the one they have pierced and accept him), because they are living under the covenants given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they are loved by God accordingly: they are his elect and chosen people.

When Jesus returns as Messiah, under the covenantal promises, Israel will be saved because now their adherence to those patriarchal covenants will be validated.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Err, right... so you seem to acknowledge something Jamat steadfastly doesn't, i.e. according to you Jews, at least in the OT, are not saved on the same basis as NT Christians?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Err, right... so you seem to acknowledge something Jamat steadfastly doesn't, i.e. according to you Jews, at least in the OT, are not saved on the same basis as NT Christians?

I think it might be more accurate to say that the Gentiles are not saved n the same basis that the Jews are intended to be. The intended model was for the tree to grow and fill the earth, Israel was intended to be the evangelistic people of God.

But because they rejected their messiah, the Gentiles were drafted in. Our Gentile salvation is an extra way, another way.

It'll all work out in the end. Salvation is only through Jesus - the Messiah. The Jews will see that one day.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
which is why I have repeatedly argued that you make a distinction between categories of believer in terms of inheritance and the outworking of their faith

This is true I think but what is not at issue is the basis of salvation, value to God or value of the spiritual inheritance. The differences are, if you like in terms of function based on gifting such as someone is more gifted in one area such as music than someone else but the someone else may be better ar sport. Overall, God bestows according to his choice.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Mudfrog:

Right, I can at least understand your take on dispensationalism, even if I disagree with it.

(I'm not going to rehash this all over again, but in summary I think the original tree is not the Jewish nation, but those who through the ages have been made righteous through faith - as Abraham was before even the covenant of circumcision and God was already hinting at the blessing of all nations through him).

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It'll all work out in the end. Salvation is only through Jesus - the Messiah. The Jews will see that one day.

That is the most eirenic thing that's been posted on this thread for a long time!

[ 13. January 2017, 19:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
I think it might be more accurate to say that the Gentiles are not saved n the same basis that the Jews are intended to be. The intended model was for the tree to grow and fill the earth, Israel was intended to be the evangelistic people of God.

But your answer is yes really? I think Paul teaches God's foreknowledge and providence very strongly for this reason. He says 'It is not as though the promises of God have failed'.
I think what we find hard to factor in is that this life and epoch is not where it all ends. There is a future kingdom at the back of Paul's theology. (And a new dispensation) 🙂

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
what is not at issue is the basis of salvation, value to God or value of the spiritual inheritance.

What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness? Are they saved or not? Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
I think it might be more accurate to say that the Gentiles are not saved n the same basis that the Jews are intended to be.

But your answer is yes really?

How can you take what's clearly a "no" from Mudfrog (the two groups are not saved on the same basis) and suggest it is a "yes"??

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mudfrog:

Right, I can at least understand your take on dispensationalism, even if I disagree with it.

(I'm not going to rehash this all over again, but in summary I think the original tree is not the Jewish nation, but those who through the ages have been made righteous through faith - as Abraham was before even the covenant of circumcision and God was already hinting at the blessing of all nations through him).

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It'll all work out in the end. Salvation is only through Jesus - the Messiah. The Jews will see that one day.
That is the most eirenic thing that's been posted on this thread for a long time!

Is that good?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well it was while it lasted...

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well it was while it lasted...

Oh, what changed?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Nothing on your part.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
what is not at issue is the basis of salvation, value to God or value of the spiritual inheritance.
What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness? Are they saved or not? Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?

Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.

I didn't ask for examples.

I asked the following three questions with regard to "basis of salvation":

quote:
What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness?

quote:
Are they saved or not?

quote:
Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.
I didn't ask for examples.

I asked the following three questions with regard to "basis of salvation":
quote:
What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness?

quote:
Are they saved or not?

quote:
Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?

I don't know.Yes. No.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

So if it makes no difference, why are you so insistent on OT Jews being in a separate category/dispensation?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So if it makes no difference, why are you so insistent on OT Jews being in a separate category/dispensation?

Me? Not a problem for me. I don' think dispensations and categories are the same thing. Dispensations I tried to define above when asked.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I ask you a "why" question and you answer "not a problem". My head hurts.

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.

Um... even if you had been asked for examples and they served some purpose in the discussion, you would have to give male examples. Circumcision was never required for females, not even those who were Jews from birth, let alone non-Jews.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.
Um... even if you had been asked for examples and they served some purpose in the discussion, you would have to give male examples. Circumcision was never required for females, not even those who were Jews from birth, let alone non-Jews.

Yes, I knew that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So if it makes no difference, why are you so insistent on OT Jews being in a separate category/dispensation?
Me? Not a problem for me. I don' think dispensations and categories are the same thing. Dispensations I tried to define above when asked.

OK, I am not so insistent about the categories and no one can change the dispensation they live under.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
I think what we find hard to factor in is that this life and epoch is not where it all ends. There is a future kingdom at the back of Paul's theology. (And a new dispensation) 🙂

There is a future kingdom at the back of any Christian theology worth speaking of - but are we talking here about the 'New Heavens and New Earth' after the Judgement, or about the more controversial and still intermediate 'Millennium'? And what 'new dispensation' if not the same as the 'future kingdom'?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jamat;

quote:
I think what we find hard to factor in is that this life and epoch is not where it all ends. There is a future kingdom at the back of Paul's theology. (And a new dispensation) 🙂
There is a future kingdom at the back of any Christian theology worth speaking of - but are we talking here about the 'New Heavens and New Earth' after the Judgement, or about the more controversial and still intermediate 'Millennium'? And what 'new dispensation' if not the same as the 'future kingdom'?

Dan 2:44 describes it. What do you think the message is there?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I am not so insistent about the categories and no one can change the dispensation they live under.

It seems to me that you have been pretty insistent up till now, but never mind. Let's move on.

When John has a vision of the new Jerusalem/bride coming down out of heaven at the end of the age, is that all of God's people from all ages or just part of it?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I am not so insistent about the categories and no one can change the dispensation they live under.
It seems to me that you have been pretty insistent up till now, but never mind. Let's move on.

When John has a vision of the new Jerusalem/bride coming down out of heaven at the end of the age, is that all of God's people from all ages or just part of it?

Various scriptures 2Cor11:2, Eph 5:25-27,Rev19:6-9, Rev21:9-22:5 are relevant. Paul in 2Cor 11 says I espoused you to one husband. In Eph 5 he again mentions that Christ has given himself for the church as a husband for a wife. In Rev 19:6-9, a clear distinction is made between the bride and those who attend the marriage supper.
The answer to your question is clearly that distinct groups are delineated according to these scriptures. I am not pretending to understand any of the HOW questions here but you can read them yourself and come to your own conclusions.

[ 14. January 2017, 18:54: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've just re-read those passages and can't see why any of them have to be interpreted as referring to different categories of people. It seems pretty much to me that it's talking about the redeemed in general, not to sets and subsets.

I really don't see what you seem to be seeing.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The answer to your question is clearly that distinct groups are delineated according to these scriptures. I am not pretending to understand any of the HOW questions here but you can read them yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I find myself wanting to bring to bear what cliffdweller's been saying about PSA on the thread in Purgatory:

quote:
if we see PSA as a metaphor, the fact that it breaks down at some point is not problematic, and the fact that there are other biblical metaphors only helps. But when you treat PSA as a transaction rather than a metaphor, you end up with some really problematic results which requires this sort of linguistic gymnastics.

I think the same applies to this discussion of the body of believers.

The idea of a "bride" is a metaphor as made abundantly clear by the fact that the city is described as being like a bride in Rev 21:2:

quote:
And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband

If you push that metaphor to extremes it breaks. If you seek to identify as distinct every single metaphor and term for the body of believers and the events of the eschaton (e.g. "Day of the Lord"; "bride", "wife", "wedding guest", etc.), you also end up with some really problematic results.

To me it seems unthinkable that the end-time vision of Revelation 21 could mean anything other than God redeems one people, in one category, whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life, in contrast to and in victory over divided, rivalrous Bablyon and all it stands for.

I suspect that deep down you might actually think that too, despite your protestations.

Because when pressed above, on the one hand you admit that you are

quote:
not so insistent about the categories

And on the other when I ask you a direct question about whether the holy city coming down out of heaven as seen in Revelation 21 is all or just part of all believers, you seem unable to quite bring yourself to assert that it's just a part of them.

Indeed, you'd have to explain why the city's gates have inscribed on them (v12)

quote:
the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites

and

quote:
the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb

What is this vision if it is not the united people of God, Jew and Gentile from across the ages, redeemed on the same basis of the blood of the Lamb on the same terms and with the same inheritance?

Can you really take in that passage and say the vision is of just part of all believers? If so, on what grounds?

As Steve says, the only reason you need to split them up is because of a) taking every metaphor too literally and b) the artificial divisions dispensationalism imposes on the text, chief among them the need to deal with what happens, in that system, to those converted during the Tribulation after the "stage one" of the parousia.

[ 14. January 2017, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

You asked, Jamat, what I make of Daniel 2; 44 and the 'kingdom' mentioned there;

quote:
44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. Dan 2:44-45 (NIV)

The context is Daniel's explanation of Nebuchadrezzar's dream about the multi-metallic statue, in which the legs of iron are generally agreed to represent Rome and the 'feet of clay' the eventual brittle failure thereof.

And in that time God did set up a kingdom, the kingdom of Jesus. The Messiah came to claim in God's name not just the kingship of Israel, but the whole world. That was a 'future kingdom' to Daniel, who lived at a time when the original Davidic kingdom was being destroyed; but to us it is very much present.

It is the kingdom Jesus describes to Pilate in John 18, the kingdom 'not of this world' or as Daniel describes it, 'not made with hands' which ever since Jesus has been growing and spreading despite the efforts of the world and the devil. It is that kingdom in which "everyone who is of the truth hears (Jesus') voice" - with this being one of those cases where 'hear' means more than just the sound hitting one's ear, it also means that the hearers receive and act on what they hear.

This kingdom culminates in the ultimate victory that leads to the New Heaven and the New Earth after the Judgement. But I don't see that Daniel there tells us anything at all about the details of the time of the Second Coming.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You asked, Jamat, what I make of Daniel 2; 44 and the 'kingdom' mentioned there;

quote:
44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. Dan 2:44-45 (NIV)
The context is Daniel's explanation of Nebuchadrezzar's dream about the multi-metallic statue, in which the legs of iron are generally agreed to represent Rome and the 'feet of clay' the eventual brittle failure thereof.

And in that time God did set up a kingdom, the kingdom of Jesus. The Messiah came to claim in God's name not just the kingship of Israel, but the whole world. That was a 'future kingdom' to Daniel, who lived at a time when the original Davidic kingdom was being destroyed; but to us it is very much present.

It is the kingdom Jesus describes to Pilate in John 18, the kingdom 'not of this world' or as Daniel describes it, 'not made with hands' which ever since Jesus has been growing and spreading despite the efforts of the world and the devil. It is that kingdom in which "everyone who is of the truth hears (Jesus') voice" - with this being one of those cases where 'hear' means more than just the sound hitting one's ear, it also means that the hearers receive and act on what they hear.

This kingdom culminates in the ultimate victory that leads to the New Heaven and the New Earth after the Judgement. But I don't see that Daniel there tells us anything at all about the details of the time of the Second Coming.

Some pretty big assumptions in this Steve. How has this stone smashed all the other worldly kingdoms and filled the earth? You pretty well have to spriritualise world politics. Can't see this working in terms of context. Mind you I do see a spiritual kingdom operation in the current church age. Just can't see it as working with Daniel's interpretation which involves real life political entities.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
If you push that metaphor to extremes it breaks. If you seek to identify as distinct every single metaphor and term for the body of believers and the events of the eschaton (e.g. "Day of the Lord"; "bride", "wife", "wedding guest", etc.), you also end up with some really problematic results

Not sure of course what it all means but one cannot reinvent what the texts says. Methinks if The Holy Spirit didn't want wedding guests why have them. Metaphor signifies realities. As I say not pretending to understand it.

quote:

Can you really take in that passage and say the vision is of just part of all believers? If so, on what grounds

the question is about Rev 21, the names of the apostles in the new Jerusalem?
I think you are dealing here with spiritual realities. Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth. I think the church is founded on the Apostles as Paul teaches quite clearly in Eph 2:20. That is the reality shown in Rev 21. The reference is to the NT church, the bride.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[x-post]
I pretty much agree with Steve's interpretation of Daniel here, so let me give my take on your comments.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
How has this stone smashed all the other worldly kingdoms and filled the earth?

Where does Steve "assume" this has already happened, rather than that it will ultimately happen?

Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 Paul sees the final subjection of earthly kingdoms to the reign of Christ not as something in the past from our point of view but as an eschatalogical event that clearly has not yet come to pass:

quote:
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Revelation also paints the same picture. Bablyon is (Revelation 17:18) "the great city that rules over the kings of the earth", embodying the world and its institutions without God.

It is at the end of the age that Bablyon falls and all the kings are dismayed at her sudden, eschatalogical collapse ("in one hour your judgement has come", 18:10).

The King of kings and Lord of lords (19:16) rides forth from heaven with a sword "with which to strike down the nations" (19:15).

In place of Babylon the heavenly Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and "the nations shall walk by its light" (v24).

(And which, I contend, again, represents all God's people from every age, just as Bablyon represents the sum total of everyone and everything opposed to God).

The stone has indeed become a mountain that has filled the earth - at the eschaton. That is our end-time hope.

quote:
You pretty well have to spriritualise world politics

Why? As Steve points out, the stone is explicitly said in Daniel's description of the dream to be qualitatively different to the other kingdoms, v34: "cut out, not by human hands", and it is not part of the statue which is generally held to represent a series of earthly, political kingdoms.

As Steve points out this description fits perfectly with Jesus' description of his Kingdom being "not of this world".

quote:
Mind you I do see a spiritual kingdom operation in the current church age. Just can't see it as working with Daniel's interpretation which involves real life political entities.

In view of all the above, why should the statue representing real life political entities rule out the stone representing the not-of-this-world Kingdom of God?

[ 15. January 2017, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think the church is founded on the Apostles as Paul teaches quite clearly in Eph 2:20.

The New Testament entity is indeed founded on the apostles, for the obvious reason that the apostles were not around in the Old Testament.

quote:
That is the reality shown in Rev 21.

If that is what we are shown in Rev 21 then why on earth does the city feature not only the twelve names of the apostles (it will be interesting to see which ones, by the way...) but also the names of the twelve tribes of Israel?

You might also like to consider that in the visions of heavenly worship in Revelation we are shown 24 elders.

I also can't help noticing that adding 12 apostles to 12 Israelite tribes gives 24 and that this is a further suggestion, at the very least, that the crowd of every nation tribe and tongue that Revelation depicts as worshipping the Lamb in Heaven is made up of believers from both Old and New testaments, headed up by their repsective representatives - and not split into categories.

[ 15. January 2017, 06:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth.

What grounds do you have for asserting that Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth - and denying that it could also jump around in terms of time, rather than progressing in strictly linear fashion as dispensationalism assumes?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Metaphor signifies realities.

Google definition of "metaphor":

quote:
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

This as opposed to a "signifier" which seeks to refer as directly and unambiguously as possible to the corresponding "signified" (see here).

Metaphor is a way of describing a hard-to-understand concept by approximation ("it's like a...").

Nobody here is denying an underlying spiritual reality behind terms such as the "bride of Christ" or the "city of God" or as I mentioned before "the bosom of the Father", or indeed the "bowels of Christ", etc.

But the relationship between such metaphorical terms and the concept they are being borrowed to describe is utterly different from the relationship between the words "apple" or "smile" and the concepts they are used, as unambiguously as possible, to describe.

To think that each separate metaphor refers directly, literally, to the object or action it is referring to such that there is a distinct object or action for each metaphor is to commit a basic error of comprehension.

It confuses the linguistic role of metaphor and that of signifier.

[ 15. January 2017, 07:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable

My point is that in any figure, the image or comparison depicts something real. In the case of the Bride, marriage commitment, exclusiveness. In the case of the wedding guests, relationship of a different sort, friendship, witness or whatever. The church is in a special,exclusive relationship with Christ. As I say, not comprehensible this side of eternity.

Steve and yourself are just plain wrong about Daniel re the stone that fills the whole earth. If you spiritualise that kingdom you have to spiritualise Greece and Rome. You have far more problems and contradictions with the arbitrary nature of that than I do with saying that Christ is going to have a literal reign on the Earth just like Rome did. IOW you cannot justify NOT taking it literally as the context requires. Jesus did represent a spiritual kingdom as well of course but not relevant to this passage.

[ 15. January 2017, 09:11: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth.
What grounds do you have for asserting that Revelation jumps between events in heaven and events on earth - and denying that it could also jump around in terms of time, rather than progressing in strictly linear fashion as dispensationalism assumes?

Come up hither and I will show you things that will be hereafter.
Where is 'up hither'?
The vision regularly refers to things on the earth separately to the things occurring in heaven or in the spiritual dimension. Don't know why you consider dispensationalists see it as linear narrative. They certainly do not.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
further suggestion, at the very least, that the crowd of every nation tribe and tongue that Revelation depicts as worshipping the Lamb in Heaven is made up of believers from both Old and New testaments, headed up by their repsective representatives - and not split into categories

not sure what you mean here. Which verse? If it is the great multitude from every tribe people and tongue etc does that specify OT saints specifically? If so where?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that in any figure, the image or comparison depicts something real.

It doesn't so much depict as 'attempt to describe', 'refer to'.

Again, nobody is disputing that the metaphor refers to a spiritual reality.

quote:
In the case of the Bride, marriage commitment, exclusiveness. In the case of the wedding guests, relationship of a different sort, friendship, witness or whatever.

These are not "depictions" of the "reality" of a bride or of the "guests" but descriptions of the attributes one might associate with the literal subjects here being used metaphorically.

It is an abuse of language to think that every attribute of the subject used as a metaphor applies to the subject it is being used to describe.

If I say my love is like a red red rose that does not mean bits of her are pink and smell nice and other bits are green and spiky, nor does it mean I should check her regularly for greenfly.

Nor does it mean that if I also say my darling is like the morning star that necessarily means I am describing a different person or category (or that she is small, twinkly, very distant and full of gas).

As I tried to explain before, the one thing a metaphor does not do is "signify" in the lingustic sense of the word.

It's supposed to evoke a general idea. If you read it alongside other, similar metaphors, it adds depth to the concept that the author is attempting to get across. If you push it to its literal limits, you break it.

quote:
The church is in a special,exclusive relationship with Christ. As I say, not comprehensible this side of eternity.

More troubling in terms of orthodoxy is how in your scheme of things you explain, biblically, the relationship between Christ and all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship. Are their names in the Lamb's book of life?

quote:
Steve and yourself are just plain wrong about Daniel re the stone that fills the whole earth. If you spiritualise that kingdom you have to spiritualise Greece and Rome.

Why? I have pointed out where in the text it says that the stone representing the kingdom is qualitatively different from the statue; indeed, it is a different object entirely.

If you are serious about taking the Scripture seriously you have to explain what is wrong with my reasoning and provide an alternative hermeneutic based on the text itself: it's not enough just to assert we are "plain wrong"; it's not plain at all.

quote:
You have far more problems and contradictions with the arbitrary nature of that than I do with saying that Christ is going to have a literal reign on the Earth just like Rome did.

Your problems start with Jesus saying "my kingdom is not of this world". How do you explain this declaration?

quote:
Jesus did represent a spiritual kingdom as well of course but not relevant to this passage.

Oh, that declaration by Jesus was "spiritual", but is "not relevant" here? Why on earth not?

quote:
Don't know why you consider dispensationalists see it as linear narrative. They certainly do not.

I suspect, for instance, that you see the events depicted in Revelation 20 as following those in Revelation 19, chronologically, and preceding those of Revelation 21, do you not?

quote:
If it is the great multitude from every tribe people and tongue etc does that specify OT saints specifically? If so where?

I noted that the New Jerusalem in Rev 21 featured both the names of the twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel.

That's both OT saints and NT apostles in one single entity - something you have yet to acknowledge or comment on.

I further noted that 12 (apostles) and 12 (tribes) = 24, which just happens to be the number of the elders worshipping the Lamb.

Granted they are not said to be part of the great crowd of people but they seem to be leading their worship.

Granted also to make that 12+12 = that particular 24 is something of a leap of imagination but it is one that makes perfect sense to me, especially in the light of Hebrews 12, which you have also yet to comment on, and which refers to the 'church of the first-born' and seems, at least implicitly, to refer to believers of all ages.

Not to mention all the places in the NT already discussed which emphasise the unity, established by the work of Christ and worked out in the NT church, of Jew and Gentile in one body, as opposed to ongoing division and discontinuity.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Going back to Daniel 2;34

quote:
34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. Dan 2:34-35 (NIV)

I don't think it's either me spiritualising the politics or a matter of that stone having to represent a 'literal' kingdom exactly like Babylon, Rome or Greece.

I can't see it as a massive 'stretch' to think that a stone specifically described as 'not made with human hands' can refer to a kingdom of a different kind to the worldly kingdoms of Babylon, Greece and Rome - indeed a 'kingdom not of this world' exactly as Jesus said he would set up. A kingdom of the 'born again' throughout the world, seen wherever Jesus is heard and followed/trusted/obeyed.

That kingdom has already had enormous influence in the world, even among peoples not professedly Christian, and despite the all too often failings of its own citizens at times. And it is a growing kingdom and for all we know may yet have many years of growth to go. I believe it may yet 'fill the earth' before Jesus' return. Like I said, a future kingdom to Daniel, a present and still growing kingdom to us.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
don't think it's either me spiritualising the politics or a matter of that stone having to represent a 'literal' kingdom exactly like Babylon, Rome or Greece

But Steve,the rest of your post does precisely this. It sounds to me like you believe in dominionism, ie that the gospel will take over the world and usher in the eternal kingdom. I loved this idea for a while. So did the Christians of the 19th century. And then WW1 happened.

quote:
@Eytychus:
I say my love is like a red red rose that does not mean bits of her are pink and smell nice and other bits are green and spiky, nor does it mean I should check her regularly for greenfly

And the point? I think we both know what metaphor is and does

quote:
all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship

I have continually said that all believers of any ilk DO have a relationship with the Lord. ISTM you think that it's not fair on a dog that it wasn't born a cat.

quote:
Why? I have pointed out where in the text it says that the stone representing the kingdom is qualitatively different from the statue; indeed, it is a different object entirely

This is not relevant to the real point which is pretty clear. But.. the statue represents all the gentile world kingdoms. They were real political entities and still are. The stone represents the kingdom made without hands,i.e. Not human in origin, that will replace them..as geopolitical entities. You have in fact no exegetical or inferential grounds for saying one part of the interpretation of the dream is qualitively different from another.

quote:
our problems start with Jesus saying "my kingdom is not of this world". How do you explain this declaration

By pointing out that this is not the only kingdom he speaks about. Just consider the Lord's Prayer."Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done UPON EARTH..etc"

quote:
suspect, for instance, that you see the events depicted in Revelation 20 as following those in Revelation 19, chronologically, and preceding those of Revelation 21, do you not?

Possibly, I do not claim to fully grasp the order of the messages here. However, overall I see the whole thing as multi layered as do most commentators.

quote:
Hebrews 12, which you have also yet to comment on, and which refers to the 'church of the first-born' and seems, at least implicitly, to refer to believers of all ages.

ISTM that Heb 12:22-24 speaks of 2 groups at least. There is the 'general assh embly' possibly a general term for all as you say. Then there is the church of the first born i.e. The dead NT saints. Then there are the spirits of righteous men made perfect. That seems a separate group or why mention them, probably OT saints but if you go back to v1 then the great cloud of witnesses suggests all of these together. I think I see all these as the people currently in heaven but not all one category.

quote:
not to mention all the places in the NT already discussed which emphasise the unity

I am not disputing the overall unity and have been perfectly clear about this.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think we both know what metaphor is and does

I think your assertion that "a metaphor signifies a reality" is mistaken for reasons I have tried to explain.

Repeatedly, you treat biblical metaphors as signifiers that each refer to a distinct "signified", in other words you think each must refer to a separate concept, each with its own distinct identity and significance. This is clear from your understanding of Hebrews 12:

quote:
'general assembly' possibly a general term for all as you say. Then there is the church of the first born i.e. The dead NT saints. Then there are the spirits of righteous men made perfect. That seems a separate group or why mention them, probably OT saints but if you go back to v1 then the great cloud of witnesses suggests all of these together. I think I see all these as the people currently in heaven but not all one category.

This is certainly not how I understand metaphor to work, so whatever you think metaphor is or does it's not a view I share.

quote:

quote:

all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship
I have continually said that all believers of any ilk DO have a relationship with the Lord.

You have dodged the direct question again. Sure, you continue to reiterate that but you also assert

quote:
The church is in a special, exclusive relationship with Christ

and what I asked you was

quote:
how in your scheme of things you explain, biblically, the relationship between Christ and all the categories of believer you hold not to form part of this special, exclusive relationship.

And even more specifically, in view of the vision in Revelation 21,

quote:
Are their names in the Lamb's book of life?

Are the names of all believers of any ilk in the Lamb's book of life? Yes or no?

(Bear in mind these are all those who are in the New Jerusalem which features all the names of the apostles and those of the tribes of Israel and is seen coming down out of heaven "as a bride")

quote:
ISTM you think that it's not fair on a dog that it wasn't born a cat.

Are you implying God prefers some people over others on the basis of their birth origin? If not, what are you implying?

quote:

quote:
Why? I have pointed out where in the text it says that the stone representing the kingdom is qualitatively different from the statue; indeed, it is a different object entirely
This is not relevant to the real point which is pretty clear.

You're doing it again. You can't simply say "the main point is pretty clear" and then not say what the main point is.

quote:
By pointing out that this is not the only kingdom he speaks about. Just consider the Lord's Prayer."Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done UPON EARTH..etc"

There is a lot of interpretive room between Dominionism and the innovative suggestion that Jesus has more than one kingdom.

quote:
I am not disputing the overall unity and have been perfectly clear about this.

You haven't been perfectly clear at all.

You keep waving your protestations of "unity", but at the same time you keep going on about some categories of believer having a "special relationship" and others having the misfortune to be born dogs and not cats. You divide the people of God into bride, wife, guests, assembly of the first born, the sprits of righteous made perfect, people converted during the tribulation by 144,000 Jewish evangelists and so on, and insist on all these being separate categories from different dispensations and in various relationships, the majority it would seem non-special relationships, yet to be defined or explained, with Christ.

I can't see any unity in that at all. Where is the "one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:4)?

I just can't make head or tail of a system that manages to be so complicated as to ignore if not overturn what seems to me to be overwhelmingly simple and obvious.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
God prefers some people over others on the basis of their birth origin? If not, what are you implying

This is it? God has favourites? No, I do not think what I have said ever implies this. You seem to necessarily see difference as qualitative. I can't think why. I'd probably prefer to be a wedding guest than a bride. Free food,fewer strings attached.

Regarding metaphor, like any figurative device it depicts realities beyond itself if you want to split straws over what is a signifier be my guest, it doesn't change anything.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Are the names of all believers of any ilk in the Lamb's book of life? Yes or no?

who knows at this point but I'd expect so. Jesus is the great unifier of all things, the Father has put all authority into his hands as it says in John 14-16 and he is the 'lamb'

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
God has favourites? No, I do not think what I have said ever implies this.

You said that the church was in a "special relationship" with Christ. If by "special" you don't mean "preferential", what do you mean?

quote:
I can't think why. I'd probably prefer to be a wedding guest than a bride. Free food,fewer strings attached.

Are you seriously making this comparison with respect to different people's standing with the Lord depending on which dispensation they happened to be in?

quote:
Regarding metaphor, like any figurative device it depicts realities beyond itself if you want to split straws over what is a signifier be my guest, it doesn't change anything.

Yes it does. Normally, language attempts a one-to-one correspondence between a signifier ("apple") and the "signified" (the red/green fruit that grows on trees).

Metaphors don't do that but that is how you seem to treat them.

quote:

quote:
Are the names of all believers of any ilk in the Lamb's book of life? Yes or no?
who knows at this point but I'd expect so.

so how come, in your scheme of things, these people are also those said to be the only ones allowed to enter the city/bride coming down out of heaven? (Rev 21:27)?

You have been steadfastly maintaining up till now that this entity is only the NT church, with which Christ has a "special relationship", to the exclusion of all other categories of believer (the terms of whose relationship with Christ, "non-special" for want of any other descriptor, have yet to be explained).

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
by Jamat;

quote:
by Steve Langton;
don't think it's either me spiritualising the politics or a matter of that stone having to represent a 'literal' kingdom exactly like Babylon, Rome or Greece
But Steve,the rest of your post does precisely this. It sounds to me like you believe in dominionism, ie that the gospel will take over the world and usher in the eternal kingdom. I loved this idea for a while. So did the Christians of the 19th century. And then WW1 happened.

Err - NO!

The point is that it's not me that does the 'spiritualising' - it's Daniel when he makes clear that the kingdom following the iron/clay kingdom is 'not made with hands'; and it's Jesus himself when he says that his kingdom is 'not of this world'.

And it's the writer of Hebrews, who in 12; 22 writes as a Jew to Jews who have put their faith in Christ that in becoming Christians/joining the Church...

quote:
you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. 25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." 27 The words "once more" indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is, created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our "God is a consuming fire." Heb 12:22-29 (NIV)

A "a kingdom that cannot be shaken" sounds remarkably like Daniel's "kingdom which... shall stand sovereign forever".

And again in Heb 11; 16 (and remember to read the context back to at least v8) Abraham is portrayed as seeing beyond the promised earthly inheritance to 'a better, that is a heavenly, country'.

Far from telling the Hebrew readers of a separate destiny for Jews, he seems determined to portray them as saved by joining the Church, Jesus' kingdom of "everyone" of all races who hear and follow Him.

Yes, I do see a possibility that at some point there will be a revival that will see the earth in the present era, before Jesus' return, effectively filled with believers. But I don't see that as 19thC 'liberals' saw it.

[coding edited for clarity - I hope - Mamacita, Host]

[ 16. January 2017, 03:26: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
The point is that it's not me that does the 'spiritualising' - it's Daniel ...A "a kingdom that cannot be shaken" sounds remarkably like Daniel's "kingdom which... shall stand sovereign forever.

only trouble is you have to prove Daniel's kingdom is not a real physical one. Context suggests it is. I believe that after the second coming God sets up a literal political and humanly administrated kingdom on the earth called the millennium kingdom that lasts 1000 years.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
youu have been steadfastly maintaining up till now that this entity is only the NT church, with which Christ has a "special relationship", to the exclusion of all other categories of believer (the terms of whose relationship with Christ, "non-special" for want of any other descriptor, have yet to be explained

yes and you have steadfastly saying that despite scriptural evidence this can't be true I suspect because in your thinking it is not a fair go to have different eternal states. Mind you, I have never suggested for a second any group is extra privileged; that is your idea. It is a strike against Calvinism though if some people make choices that lead to greater holiness. Me, I'd just be just grateful to be anywhere in heaven.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
you have steadfastly saying that despite scriptural evidence this can't be true I suspect because in your thinking it is not a fair go to have different eternal states.

It's not about fairness so much as my reading of the NT which to me overwhelmingly suggests one people of God from throughout history at the eschaton.

You have admitted that you think believers of all ilk probably have their names in the Lamb's book of life; as I have just pointed out, all these same people are depicted as being in the heavenly city/bride of Revelation 21 (featuring as it does the names of the apostles and those of the tribes of Israel...).

This admission on your part contradicts your earlier assertion that this city/bride in Rev 21 represents only the NT church which you say is in a "special, exclusive" relationship with Christ.

If all those whose names are in the Lamb's book of life can come in to the city, it doesn't - it represents everyone.

Indeed, the city of Rev 21 illustrates the unifying work of Christ. The advent of the New Jerusalem stands in contrast to the divisive judgement on Babel. It marks the apotheosis of the unifying work first symbolised by the blessing at Pentecost, in which the curse of Babel was reversed by everyone understanding the praises of God in his or her own language.

References to unity ("one shepherd, one flock") in diversity (the Church expresses "the manifold, many-faceted wisdom of God") run throughout the NT.

It is all about breaking down walls; dispensationalism is all about establishing artificial partitions - eternally. I know which hermeneutic makes more sense to me.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Jamat;

quote:
only trouble is you have to prove Daniel's kingdom is not a real physical one. Context suggests it is. I believe that after the second coming God sets up a literal political and humanly administrated kingdom on the earth called the millennium kingdom that lasts 1000 years.

1) In this case the term 'real physical' is ambiguous. The Church of Christ is both a spiritual kingdom 'not of this world', but also at the same time a kingdom consisting of real physical people who are very much 'in the world'.

It is however a 'kingdom' working on very different principles to the worldly kingdoms among which it exists....

2) I'll come back to the issue of the 'millennium' later, but I note that by definition it can't be the kingdom Daniel describes. The kingdom of Daniel 2 "shall stand sovereign forever"; the 'millennium' is by definition temporary, lasting only 1000 years.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Eutychus writes: It is all about breaking down walls; dispensationalism is all about establishing artificial partitions - eternally. I know which hermeneutic makes more sense to me

You refer to Rev 21:9-27 in which John is shown the heavenly Jerusalem after being told that what he is seeing is the bride,the wife of the lamb. In v27, it states nothing unclean can enter the city, only those whose names are written in the lamb's book of life.

First, this whole vision is pretty amazing as we really have no experience that allows us to relate to such things so my comments are guesswork based on the text. I am not suggesting I understand what is going on here.
The city contains the presence of God as a temple so it is a place of God's abode. If it is a city, then it has dwellers who are somehow conflated with the bride wife image, though that is my inference from the text. We see in it perhaps a way of depicting God in the midst of his people,the bride.

But there are also people who visit. These are the ones mentioned in v27 whose names are in the lamb's book of life.
In addition to this the city is said to be a light to the nations of the earth and kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. This suggests to me that if there are still nations on earth that this must be during the millennium kingdom where Jesus is said to be shepherding the nations with a rod of iron. IE He has political power on the earth at this time.
What comes to mind here are the words of Paul where Christ is said to be handed the Kingdom by God the father when all enemies are defeated.

What is relevant to your post is that there is certainly evidence in the text for different categories of people,all of whom acknowledge and serve God at this time in the future. There are the city dwellers, ie the bride/wife,there are visitors and there are still nations with kings on the earth.

Just one final comment from me. If you wish to continue this discussion could you please be less accusatory,aggressive and interrogatory. I am getting wearied with answering accusations post after post and then being accused again of not answering accusations.

[ 16. January 2017, 20:34: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

During the course of my non-antipodean day I have come to the conclusion that Martin60 is right* inasmuch as Occam's razor is missing from your hermeneutic, and very much a part of mine.

This is I think the fundamental point at which our hermeneutics part company, and it's proving to be so fundamental as to render further discussion impossible.

If I challenge your position, essentially on the basis of Occam's Razor ('Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'), you respond with the creation of what I would describe, echoing Martin, as needless complexity.

For every simple explanation I offer, you open a thousand additional layers. If I tackle one of them, there are a thousand more beneath just that one.

(For instance, in your above post: "There are the city dwellers, ie the bride/wife,there are visitors and there are still nations with kings on the earth").

I can no longer afford to go down the rabbit hole chasing each and every one of them.

To me simplicity is the essence of the gospel. Your explanations are anything but simple.

It's like Inception meeting an M.C. Escher drawing. I'm dizzy and I think it's time I woke up.

#non, je ne regrette rien#**

<turns back on spinning top and walks out into the garden>

==

*This does not constitute an endorsement of the value judgements in that post.

**"No, I regret nothing"

[ 16. January 2017, 21:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
#non, je ne regrette rien#

And here I was, expecting Edith Piaf...

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
To me simplicity is the essence of the gospel

I certainly agree with you here. The real bottom line is the redemption and restoration of a flawed cosmos containing flawed humans marred by sin which is potentially achieved by Christ.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Steve Langton: It is however a 'kingdom' working on very different principles to the worldly kingdoms among which it exists

True Steve. I think I would add that it has dimensions of reality in common with worldly kingdoms while being governed by opposite laws. Thinking here of love,giving and unselfishness primarily.
Jesus does treat the kingdom in a paradoxical kind of way. Where he is obeyed in this world now, his kingdom operates through the work of the Holy Spirit. I am used to thinking of this as "mystery kingdom" in that it operates in the midst of our current political, economic and physical realities. But he also speaks of a renewed cosmos kind of kingdom. IOW we look forward to see a different kind of administration at some stage in the future. IOW this world will not last forever in its present form.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Absolutely, Jamat, none of which necessitates a convoluted and overly literal interpretation to be imposed on apocalyptic literature such as The Book of Revelation.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've just re-read those passages and can't see why any of them have to be interpreted as referring to different categories of people. It seems pretty much to me that it's talking about the redeemed in general, not to sets and subsets.

I really don't see what you seem to be seeing.

Well, I suppose that comes back to the back story we both bring and I agree with your points about that. We cannot stand back too far from the contingent world views. In order to communicate at any level, one has to acknowledge the non negotiables of the other party. In my case I frustrate others because they think I am seeing things in overly concrete terms. I do however, get some sort of feel for your journey away from those kind of readings though. With a faith journey it is sometimes clinging to the realities and distinguishing these from the smoke and mirrors.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Steve Langton: It is however a 'kingdom' working on very different principles to the worldly kingdoms among which it exists
True Steve. I think I would add that it has dimensions of reality in common with worldly kingdoms while being governed by opposite laws. Thinking here of love,giving and unselfishness primarily.
Jesus does treat the kingdom in a paradoxical kind of way. Where he is obeyed in this world now, his kingdom operates through the work of the Holy Spirit. I am used to thinking of this as "mystery kingdom" in that it operates in the midst of our current political, economic and physical realities. But he also speaks of a renewed cosmos kind of kingdom. IOW we look forward to see a different kind of administration at some stage in the future. IOW this world will not last forever in its present form.

Like Gamaliel, totally agree with your basic point here. And like Gamaliel, I don't accept that this requires the convoluted scheme of Rapture/Tribulation/"Third Coming of Jesus"/Millennial Kingdom and only after that the Judgement and the new heavens and new earth.

Everything you say above can be satisfied by the traditional scheme of one Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the current age, followed by judgement and restoration in an eternal kingdom.

All the other complexities are not truly in Scripture but result from a 19th century interpretative error which continues to pile one unnecessary complexity on another to keep it going. Abandon that error and the need for all that complexity simply evaporates....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, and I 'get' why you feel it's important to stress or hang onto the interpretations you've arrived at, Jamat.

It all depends on where we draw the line on our non-negotiables. Wherever my journey is leading it's all within the broad framework of historic, creedal Christianity - which doesn't stipulate a particular view of eschatology in terms of detail as a non-negotiable.

The non-negotiables for me are the Trinity, the deity of Christ and all the other aspects that are touched on in the Nicene Creed.

Holding to a dispensationalist schema isn't mentioned there, nor does the Creed stipulate whether we should be pre, post or a- millenial in the way we understand these things.

It's all very well saying, 'Well, that's all very well good but look at the scriptures ...' because people have arrived at various conclusions from looking at the scriptures. That doesn't devalue or undermine the scriptures, it's simply to acknowledge that it's possible to derive different points of view from them.

I don't see these things in terms of a straight-forward binary distinction between full-on biblical fundamentalism (or 'Church fundamentalism' which is the RC or Orthodox equivalent) on the one hand and some kind of full-on, no-holds barred uber-subjective liberalism on the other.

I agree about smoke and mirrors, but it seems to me that it's always easier to see someone else's smoke and mirrors than it is our own. I'd suggest there's a lot of smoke and a lot of mirrors going on in a dispensationalist interpretative schema.

Smoke gets in your eyes ...

[Biased]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
During the course of my non-antipodean day I have come to the conclusion that Martin60 is right* inasmuch as Occam's razor is missing from your hermeneutic, and very much a part of mine.

This is I think the fundamental point at which our hermeneutics part company, and it's proving to be so fundamental as to render further discussion impossible.

If I challenge your position, essentially on the basis of Occam's Razor ('Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'), you respond with the creation of what I would describe, echoing Martin, as needless complexity.

For every simple explanation I offer, you open a thousand additional layers. If I tackle one of them, there are a thousand more beneath just that one.

(For instance, in your above post: "There are the city dwellers, ie the bride/wife,there are visitors and there are still nations with kings on the earth").

I can no longer afford to go down the rabbit hole chasing each and every one of them.

To me simplicity is the essence of the gospel. Your explanations are anything but simple.

It's like Inception meeting an M.C. Escher drawing. I'm dizzy and I think it's time I woke up.

#non, je ne regrette rien#**

<turns back on spinning top and walks out into the garden>

==

*This does not constitute an endorsement of the value judgements in that post.

**"No, I regret nothing"

Ain't no value judgement. It's a simple fact; axiomatic. More is less. Making sh*t up is not smart.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Guess what? The Apocalypse of John (or Revelation) is not about the end times at all. Things people mistake about Revelations.

[ 06. March 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes, who knew ...?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Things people mistake about Revelations.[/URL]

Wght the plural?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Wght the plural?

What is Wght?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Wght the plural?
What is Wght?

sorry, 'Why?'

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0