-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
But don't you think there are principles we can understand? For instance, "horn" in the book of Daniel consistently refers to a ruling person, like a king. 10 horns = 10 kings, same in Revelation. The illustrations picture a reality. We can see from the way things happened in Daniel that nations, kings, world events were involved. All of the symbolism has a real and literal meaning. I agree we have to be careful and not speculative, but what do you do with all those verses in Rev? Since you have no other NT teaching to certify them, how do you interpret them?
No, I do not think there are consistent principles in the meaning of prophetic terms.
But "horn" does not always mean a ruling person.
It can mean a symbol of power and strength in other ways. . .as in the "horn of salvation"
(Lk 1:69; Ps 18:2), and on the corners of the brazen and golden altars (horns of salvation).
Likewise, power can mean more than one thing.
That's too much room for speculation.
The verses that agree with what is clear and certain in the NT, I understand to mean according to what the NT states.
Beyond that, it belongs to the Lord, as do all prophecies he does not explain, as he did not explain all the prophecies relating to the Messiah, and his people misunderstood them at the time.
Even in the light of the NT revelation of his Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2), some of his people still insist on interpreting prophecy in a manner than disagrees with and contradicts the revelation of his Son through the NT writers.
The revelation spoken by the Son in these last days through the NT writers is the plumb line of all prophecy.
We have no other measure for them.
But "horn" does not always mean a ruling person.
It can mean a symbol of power and strength in other ways. . .as in the "horn of salvation"
(Lk 1:69; Ps 18:2), and on the corners of the brazen and golden altars (horns of salvation).
Likewise, power can mean more than one thing.
That's too much room for speculation.
The verses that agree with what is clear and certain in the NT, I understand to mean according to what the NT states.
Beyond that, it belongs to the Lord, as do all prophecies he does not explain, as he did not explain all the prophecies relating to the Messiah, and his people misunderstood them at the time.
Even in the light of the NT revelation of his Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2), some of his people still insist on interpreting prophecy in a manner than disagrees with and contradicts the revelation of his Son through the NT writers.
The revelation spoken by the Son in these last days through the NT writers is the plumb line of all prophecy.
We have no other measure for them.
Last edited:
But clearly in reading Daniel you can understand that when it talks of horns it's talking about people, in context the usage is clear. Your example of "horn of salvation" is also perfectly clear, where it means power, but that's not the way it's used in Daniel. What I'm getting at is I appreciate your tentativeness about being definitive about prophecy, but when we apply literal principles to it, it should become clearer. There are easily understood applications, the first being take it literally as every other verse in the Bible is taken. I think you err too much on the side of avoiding the interpretation whereas many err too much on being too speculative. Isn't the balance in the middle?
Also, I would say that Heb. 1 shows that the revelation of Jesus Christ in these last days is the plumb line. The NT is not the plumb line, Jesus is. And of course He's revealed most fully in the NT. But Revelation is also a NT book and it reveals Jesus, both who He is and what He will do and the events before, during and after. In fact, Rev. seems to be the plumb line, and it would be wise to interpret it as we do all prophecy, with humility, but also seeking understanding in a real correspondence with the natural meaning of the words.
Also, I would say that Heb. 1 shows that the revelation of Jesus Christ in these last days is the plumb line. The NT is not the plumb line, Jesus is. And of course He's revealed most fully in the NT. But Revelation is also a NT book and it reveals Jesus, both who He is and what He will do and the events before, during and after. In fact, Rev. seems to be the plumb line, and it would be wise to interpret it as we do all prophecy, with humility, but also seeking understanding in a real correspondence with the natural meaning of the words.
Do you know what "literal" means?
So you take Rev 9:7-9, 17-19, 12:13-17, 13:1-18, 17:1-18 literally?
Locusts with human faces, heads like horses, hair like a woman, teeth like a lion, and crowns of gold.
A beast that resembles a leopard, with feet like a bear, and a mouth like a lion, which mouth utters blasphemies.
This is literal?
Rev states that seven heads on a beast are not literal, but are hills and kings,
that waters are not literal, but are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.
Heads of horses that look like heads of lions, tails that look like snakes, out of whose mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur.
A serpent spewing from his mouth water like a river which the conscious earth opens its mouth and swallows.
This is literal?
Do you know what "literal" means?
No, sir. . .no, sir. . .and no, sir.
Your reference points are not Biblical, they are human.
And this is one of your most grievous errors in rightly dividing the word of God.
God's word is never a matter of balance, it is always and only a matter of revelation.
What it states unequivocally and certainly is what it means, no matter what the "balance."
It's not just a reference book by human authors,
it is the God-breathed (2Ti 3:16) word of God, whose author is the Holy Spirit.
A distinction without a difference.
So tell me. . .just what do you know of the historical Jesus and his plumb line apart from the NT writers?
This is baloney.
"Run, Forest, run!"
Do you know what a plumb line is?
It is a measurement of certainty.
So according to you, the Bible's plumb line is the uncertain meaning of prophetic riddles, or dark sayings (Nu 12:6-8),
which you acknowledge are not certain, requiring "humility" in interpretation.
It would be Biblical to interpret prophetic riddles in accordance with what is unequivocal and certain in the NT.
And since wisdom is the best means to the end, what is Biblical is what is wise.
And that "correspondence" is subject to interpretation, which can be, and is, interpreted to mean many differing things.
You can't make a silk purse (certainty) from of a sow's ear (uncertainty).
So you take Rev 9:7-9, 17-19, 12:13-17, 13:1-18, 17:1-18 literally?
Locusts with human faces, heads like horses, hair like a woman, teeth like a lion, and crowns of gold.
A beast that resembles a leopard, with feet like a bear, and a mouth like a lion, which mouth utters blasphemies.
This is literal?
Rev states that seven heads on a beast are not literal, but are hills and kings,
that waters are not literal, but are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.
Heads of horses that look like heads of lions, tails that look like snakes, out of whose mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur.
A serpent spewing from his mouth water like a river which the conscious earth opens its mouth and swallows.
This is literal?
Do you know what "literal" means?
No, sir. . .no, sir. . .and no, sir.
Your reference points are not Biblical, they are human.
And this is one of your most grievous errors in rightly dividing the word of God.
God's word is never a matter of balance, it is always and only a matter of revelation.
What it states unequivocally and certainly is what it means, no matter what the "balance."
It's not just a reference book by human authors,
it is the God-breathed (2Ti 3:16) word of God, whose author is the Holy Spirit.
A distinction without a difference.
So tell me. . .just what do you know of the historical Jesus and his plumb line apart from the NT writers?
This is baloney.
"Run, Forest, run!"
Do you know what a plumb line is?
It is a measurement of certainty.
So according to you, the Bible's plumb line is the uncertain meaning of prophetic riddles, or dark sayings (Nu 12:6-8),
which you acknowledge are not certain, requiring "humility" in interpretation.
It would be Biblical to interpret prophetic riddles in accordance with what is unequivocal and certain in the NT.
And since wisdom is the best means to the end, what is Biblical is what is wise.
And that "correspondence" is subject to interpretation, which can be, and is, interpreted to mean many differing things.
You can't make a silk purse (certainty) from of a sow's ear (uncertainty).
Last edited:
In the way that you can dissect my posts you seem to be able to interpret literally on a much higher level than I can--and I mean that in an entirely complimentary way.
The literal use of language includes figures of speech, symbols and metaphors. Literal is not literalistic. Probably a better use of this idea would be normal versus mystical rather than literal versus allegorical. Literal/Normal is that the word has a one-to-one correspondence with the reality of the idea or object. Allegorical/Mystical interprets the word to have multiple meanings, a one-to-two-or-many correspondence. So there can be a meaning of the idea/object, a spiritual idea, and even a hidden meaning. I'll illustrate.
So when we see the term seven heads, they are literally hills and kings, this follows the normal use of figurative language, which is a normal interpretive idea, which can still be termed interpreting a text literally. Why the use of the term heads? It conveys the meaning that these kings are elevated, they have power, they have control, they lead. Poetic language is not non-literal language, it's a rich use of literal language.
So too waters is a rich meaning because we have a blend of all different people groups, like waters and streams of green, blue, brown, gray, clear water. How many different shades of water are there? How many different people groups are there?
It is very true that to explain all the rich meaning of these metaphors must be done cautiously. I'm not going to presume to be able to do so. A head of a horse having the ferocity and regality of a lion's head and mane, a snake tail that implies swiftness and power, the ability to set explosive fire to things? Various explanations like a tank or an Apache helicopter are very speculative and I can't presume to give an answer. I will say that when this is known and understood, the lion's head, snake tail, and fire-emitting mouth will have an understandable meaning. The metaphor will be literally understood. When the Bible says God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, we all understand that this doesn't mean that God is as rich as 1000 ranchers, it means that God is richer than anyone. He owns everything, the figurative metaphor has the literal meaning that God is abundantly rich.
The difference is that while Jesus can be understood as being revealed and pointed to in the OT, this doesn't mean that the NT changes the meaning of the words used in the OT. For instance, in Jer. 31 the New Covenant promise is to the House of Israel and Judah. There is no way around the fact that Jeremiah through the Holy Spirit meant that these were the physical descendants of Israel and Judah. Hebrews also quotes Jeremiah where the New Covenant is given to the House of Israel and Judah. Does Apollos (a possible author of Hebrews) change the meaning of the words Israel and Judah to mean spiritual descendants rather than physical descendants? Clearly Apollos includes the Church (Jews and Gentiles) as participating in the New Covenant, but does he mean to say that Israel meaning a spiritual Israel is a meaning that the hearers in Jeremiah's time would have, or even could have understood? If that is a possibility then how are we to possibly understand the words of the NT since the meanings could later be changed by the Holy Spirit again? We can't.
I certainly don't believe that the plumb line of the Bible is the book of Revelation, but nor do I believe the plumb line is the NT. It seems that the plumb line for you Elin is the certain interpretation versus the uncertain interpretation. And I agree that's good, but isn't that your own opinion? What is really certain? You are certain that oil represents the Holy Spirit concerning the 10 virgins of Matt. But where can we really get this from the text? We can't. The certainty is that in Jesus' time oil was used so the virgins could be prepared to still have light in their lamps even if they waited a long time. That's the certainty, so to me the more certain interpretation is to be prepared to wait for Jesus' coming, even if one waits a long time.
You did catch me in a logical fallacy that the middle position or a balance between two extremes is the right way to go. I shouldn't say that we need to find a balance between speculation and indifference. I appreciate the correction to my hermeneutical faux pas.
God gave us the Bible through human authors using language on a page. This doesn't mean that there is a human meaning and a divine meaning, that would put God in the realm of the mystical. God is real and He gave us words with real meanings. We need to understand language normally, literally, as God speaking in a way so real that we can touch, feel, taste, hear Jesus just as the disciples did. Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
The literal use of language includes figures of speech, symbols and metaphors. Literal is not literalistic. Probably a better use of this idea would be normal versus mystical rather than literal versus allegorical. Literal/Normal is that the word has a one-to-one correspondence with the reality of the idea or object. Allegorical/Mystical interprets the word to have multiple meanings, a one-to-two-or-many correspondence. So there can be a meaning of the idea/object, a spiritual idea, and even a hidden meaning. I'll illustrate.
So when we see the term seven heads, they are literally hills and kings, this follows the normal use of figurative language, which is a normal interpretive idea, which can still be termed interpreting a text literally. Why the use of the term heads? It conveys the meaning that these kings are elevated, they have power, they have control, they lead. Poetic language is not non-literal language, it's a rich use of literal language.
So too waters is a rich meaning because we have a blend of all different people groups, like waters and streams of green, blue, brown, gray, clear water. How many different shades of water are there? How many different people groups are there?
It is very true that to explain all the rich meaning of these metaphors must be done cautiously. I'm not going to presume to be able to do so. A head of a horse having the ferocity and regality of a lion's head and mane, a snake tail that implies swiftness and power, the ability to set explosive fire to things? Various explanations like a tank or an Apache helicopter are very speculative and I can't presume to give an answer. I will say that when this is known and understood, the lion's head, snake tail, and fire-emitting mouth will have an understandable meaning. The metaphor will be literally understood. When the Bible says God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, we all understand that this doesn't mean that God is as rich as 1000 ranchers, it means that God is richer than anyone. He owns everything, the figurative metaphor has the literal meaning that God is abundantly rich.
The difference is that while Jesus can be understood as being revealed and pointed to in the OT, this doesn't mean that the NT changes the meaning of the words used in the OT. For instance, in Jer. 31 the New Covenant promise is to the House of Israel and Judah. There is no way around the fact that Jeremiah through the Holy Spirit meant that these were the physical descendants of Israel and Judah. Hebrews also quotes Jeremiah where the New Covenant is given to the House of Israel and Judah. Does Apollos (a possible author of Hebrews) change the meaning of the words Israel and Judah to mean spiritual descendants rather than physical descendants? Clearly Apollos includes the Church (Jews and Gentiles) as participating in the New Covenant, but does he mean to say that Israel meaning a spiritual Israel is a meaning that the hearers in Jeremiah's time would have, or even could have understood? If that is a possibility then how are we to possibly understand the words of the NT since the meanings could later be changed by the Holy Spirit again? We can't.
I certainly don't believe that the plumb line of the Bible is the book of Revelation, but nor do I believe the plumb line is the NT. It seems that the plumb line for you Elin is the certain interpretation versus the uncertain interpretation. And I agree that's good, but isn't that your own opinion? What is really certain? You are certain that oil represents the Holy Spirit concerning the 10 virgins of Matt. But where can we really get this from the text? We can't. The certainty is that in Jesus' time oil was used so the virgins could be prepared to still have light in their lamps even if they waited a long time. That's the certainty, so to me the more certain interpretation is to be prepared to wait for Jesus' coming, even if one waits a long time.
You did catch me in a logical fallacy that the middle position or a balance between two extremes is the right way to go. I shouldn't say that we need to find a balance between speculation and indifference. I appreciate the correction to my hermeneutical faux pas.
God gave us the Bible through human authors using language on a page. This doesn't mean that there is a human meaning and a divine meaning, that would put God in the realm of the mystical. God is real and He gave us words with real meanings. We need to understand language normally, literally, as God speaking in a way so real that we can touch, feel, taste, hear Jesus just as the disciples did. Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
Nope.
Won't be arguing the meaning of English words with you.
Literal means "according to the letter," the natural use of the words, where "horse" means "horse,"
and not "mighty king."
Rev 9:7-9, 17-19, 12:13-17, 13:1-18, 17:1-18 are not literal.
Nope.
Won't be participating in a re-defining of the English language to accommodate your theology.
Nope. . .
Won't be arguing the meaning of English words with you.
Literal means "according to the letter," the natural use of the words, where "horse" means "horse,"
and not "mighty king."
Rev 9:7-9, 17-19, 12:13-17, 13:1-18, 17:1-18 are not literal.
Nope.
Won't be participating in a re-defining of the English language to accommodate your theology.
Nope. . .
Last edited:
I really thought we would be coming together more. I've read half a dozen books on interpreting the Bible, hermeneutics principles and the history of interpretation. Arguing semantics and the definition of what we mean by English words is the very core of how we understand meaning. I can appreciate that the words I should probably use to express correspondence to reality is the word natural interpretation versus mystical interpretation.
I'm speaking in terms of literal versus allegorical because this is the way so many books approach the subject. Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy B. Zuck, Understanding and Applying the Bible; Hermeneutics by Virkler, The Joy of Discovery; HOw to Read a Book for All its worth.
When we say someone kicked the bucket, this is a metaphor. They figuratively kicked the bucket meaning they literally died. But there is still a natural correspondence to the words that we say and the reality of their meaning. If I say someone kicked the bucket, I mean someone died. One can understand my meaning, figuratively and literally. But to talk in terms of allegorical meaning would mean that I could say someone kicked the bucket, and to me that means someone got all their chores done. For someone to be able to interpret my meaning would take reading my mind, so one can't communicate when we speak allegorically rather than literally, which is why I believe God communicates literally, grammatically-historically following the normal interpretation of words and their meaning.
In prophetic literature we have a number of ways that it is fulfilled: prophetic telescoping, where prophecies are given that are separated by time periods, like seeing several mountain tops but not the valleys in-between, developmental fulfillment, where the fulfillment reaches ever widening fulfillment, like Gen. 3:15, the protoevangelion, which has fulfillment in the cross, in the Church and ultimately in the Abyss where Satan is crushed.
Prophecy is a different genre of Scripture, but it is not a mystery of riddles, God is revealing Himself and the future. He does this in symbols, metaphors, figures of speech, in other words, he uses language. The purpose is not to be completely obscure, the purpose is so that some will see and understand beforehand and that ultimately all will know that Sovereign God knows and controls destiny.
I'm speaking in terms of literal versus allegorical because this is the way so many books approach the subject. Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy B. Zuck, Understanding and Applying the Bible; Hermeneutics by Virkler, The Joy of Discovery; HOw to Read a Book for All its worth.
When we say someone kicked the bucket, this is a metaphor. They figuratively kicked the bucket meaning they literally died. But there is still a natural correspondence to the words that we say and the reality of their meaning. If I say someone kicked the bucket, I mean someone died. One can understand my meaning, figuratively and literally. But to talk in terms of allegorical meaning would mean that I could say someone kicked the bucket, and to me that means someone got all their chores done. For someone to be able to interpret my meaning would take reading my mind, so one can't communicate when we speak allegorically rather than literally, which is why I believe God communicates literally, grammatically-historically following the normal interpretation of words and their meaning.
In prophetic literature we have a number of ways that it is fulfilled: prophetic telescoping, where prophecies are given that are separated by time periods, like seeing several mountain tops but not the valleys in-between, developmental fulfillment, where the fulfillment reaches ever widening fulfillment, like Gen. 3:15, the protoevangelion, which has fulfillment in the cross, in the Church and ultimately in the Abyss where Satan is crushed.
Prophecy is a different genre of Scripture, but it is not a mystery of riddles, God is revealing Himself and the future. He does this in symbols, metaphors, figures of speech, in other words, he uses language. The purpose is not to be completely obscure, the purpose is so that some will see and understand beforehand and that ultimately all will know that Sovereign God knows and controls destiny.
The Hope of Israel:
What Is It?
(1922)
By Philip Mauro
Philip Mauro : The Hope of Israel (1922) Free Online Books @ PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology < click
easy reading...zoom up to a comfortable size.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1922_mauro_hope-of-israel.pdf
What Is It?
(1922)
By Philip Mauro
Philip Mauro : The Hope of Israel (1922) Free Online Books @ PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology < click
easy reading...zoom up to a comfortable size.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1922_mauro_hope-of-israel.pdf
so "literal", as Mauro says, is an unfortunate use of the word, which sets up the false dichotomy.
rather the contrast is between spiritual and natural (not spiritual and "literal")
CHAPTER II
HOW ARE THE O.T. PROPHECIES OF BLESSING TO ISRAEL TO BE INTERPRETED?
The main purpose of the present chapter is to bring clearly to view the important truth that in Scripture the contrast is not between the spiritual and the literal, but between the spiritual and natural; for a passage of Scripture may refer, when taken "literally," either to "that which is natural" or to "that which is spiritual." In other words, the literal interpretation may call for a thing which exists in the realm of nature, or for the counterpart of that thing which exists in the realm of spiritual realities (1 Cor. 15:46). It is of the utmost importance that this be understood; for the advocates of modern dispensationalism have wrought confusion, and have succeeded in giving plausibility to many misinterpretations of Scripture, by first taking for granted (erroneously, as will be herein shown) that a "literal" interpretation necessarily calls for something material or natural, and by then insisting strenuously that all prophecies which refer to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, etc., should be interpreted "literally." It will not be difficult to show that this is a thoroughly unsound principle of interpretation, that it is based upon a false premise, and that its application has made havoc of many prophecies.
Philip Mauro : The Hope of Israel (1922) Free Online Books @ PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology
rather the contrast is between spiritual and natural (not spiritual and "literal")
CHAPTER II
HOW ARE THE O.T. PROPHECIES OF BLESSING TO ISRAEL TO BE INTERPRETED?
The main purpose of the present chapter is to bring clearly to view the important truth that in Scripture the contrast is not between the spiritual and the literal, but between the spiritual and natural; for a passage of Scripture may refer, when taken "literally," either to "that which is natural" or to "that which is spiritual." In other words, the literal interpretation may call for a thing which exists in the realm of nature, or for the counterpart of that thing which exists in the realm of spiritual realities (1 Cor. 15:46). It is of the utmost importance that this be understood; for the advocates of modern dispensationalism have wrought confusion, and have succeeded in giving plausibility to many misinterpretations of Scripture, by first taking for granted (erroneously, as will be herein shown) that a "literal" interpretation necessarily calls for something material or natural, and by then insisting strenuously that all prophecies which refer to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, etc., should be interpreted "literally." It will not be difficult to show that this is a thoroughly unsound principle of interpretation, that it is based upon a false premise, and that its application has made havoc of many prophecies.
Philip Mauro : The Hope of Israel (1922) Free Online Books @ PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology
I checked out the book to see what he teaches concerning the millennium and this is the start:
The millennium is a subject of fascinating interest. So little, however, is said about it in the Bible that almost boundless room is left to the imagination in respect to the details thereof; and it must be admitted that expositors have taken fun advantage of the opportunities thus afforded. All that is written on the subject is found in the first ten verses of Revelation, Chapter XX. As literally translated (following the text of The Englishman's Greek N. T. (Bagster) those verses read:
The millennium is a subject of fascinating interest. So little, however, is said about it in the Bible that almost boundless room is left to the imagination in respect to the details thereof; and it must be admitted that expositors have taken fun advantage of the opportunities thus afforded. All that is written on the subject is found in the first ten verses of Revelation, Chapter XX. As literally translated (following the text of The Englishman's Greek N. T. (Bagster) those verses read:
"And I saw an angel descending out of heaven having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the abyss and shut him up and sealed over him, that he should not longer mislead the nations until the thousand years were completed; and after these things he must be loosed a little time.
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them; and the souls of those that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and on account of the word of God, and those that did not do homage to the beast, or his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived and reigned with Christ the thousand years, but the rest of the dead lived not again (the critical texts all omit again) until the thousand years should have been completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy he who has part in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no authority; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years may have been completed, Satan will be loosed out of his prison and will go out to mislead the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog to gather them unto war, of whom the number is as the sand of the sea. And they went up upon the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And there came down fire from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the devil who Misleads them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where are the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for the ages of the ages."
Right off the bat He's wrong. There is much more spoken of concerning the millennium found in the OT than in the NT.
Ezek 40-48 is the largest passage in the OT concerning the Millennial period. The "Day of the Lord" refers to 1,000 years (2 Peter 3:8). The phrase, "Day of the Lord" appears many times in the OT. Most of the OT passages speak of the destruction of the wicked and "ruling with a rod of iron." Peter describes it as when the heavens will pass away (2 Peter 3:10). Obviously we can't have the earth and heavens melting away with fervent heat and the Lord returning, defeating enemies and ruling with a rod of iron in a single earth day, therefore, we must assume that this day lasts the same 1,000 years Peter discusses just 2 verses prior.
We have another example in the OT where a "Day" is likely 1,000 years. See Genesis 2:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Did Adam and Eve die in the day that they "ate?" Of course not. If we look ahead to the punishment after the sin in Chapter 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.
Notice "all the days of your life?" How is Adam to have "days" if he was to die "in the day" that he sinned? We know Adam lived 930 years. We also know that the longest any man lived was 969 years, just short of 1,000 years. So the Day is as 1,000 years rule has been in existence from the beginning.
I'm still reading Mauro's book. Maybe he will sway me later as it is a good read...
Right off the bat He's wrong. There is much more spoken of concerning the millennium found in the OT than in the NT.
Ezek 40-48 is the largest passage in the OT concerning the Millennial period. The "Day of the Lord" refers to 1,000 years (2 Peter 3:8). The phrase, "Day of the Lord" appears many times in the OT. Most of the OT passages speak of the destruction of the wicked and "ruling with a rod of iron." Peter describes it as when the heavens will pass away (2 Peter 3:10). Obviously we can't have the earth and heavens melting away with fervent heat and the Lord returning, defeating enemies and ruling with a rod of iron in a single earth day, therefore, we must assume that this day lasts the same 1,000 years Peter discusses just 2 verses prior.
We have another example in the OT where a "Day" is likely 1,000 years. See Genesis 2:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Did Adam and Eve die in the day that they "ate?" Of course not. If we look ahead to the punishment after the sin in Chapter 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.
Notice "all the days of your life?" How is Adam to have "days" if he was to die "in the day" that he sinned? We know Adam lived 930 years. We also know that the longest any man lived was 969 years, just short of 1,000 years. So the Day is as 1,000 years rule has been in existence from the beginning.
I'm still reading Mauro's book. Maybe he will sway me later as it is a good read...
Last edited:
Help me out here.
Is Mauro using the word "natural" in the NT sense of the word; i.e., sinful, weak, corruptible, or natural flesh and blood,
which is contrasted to the "spiritual;" i.e., of the Holy Spirit, sinless, glorious, incorruptible
(1Co 15:42-44, 50)?
Or is he using "natural" in the grammatical sense of the word; i.e., "the normal"?
For "literal" usage is a grammatical concept, contrasted to the grammatical sense of "unnatural" usage; i.e., "not normal" usage,
whereas "spiritual" is a NT concept, contrasted to the NT sense of "natural;" i.e., sinful, weak, corruptible, or "natural" flesh and blood.
There is a correct usage of "literal" in regard to Scripture and prophecy which is not an unfortunate use of the word "literal."
It would be, for example, in the literal meaning of the word "horse," to be a natural horse, not a (non-literal) "mighty king."
There would be nothing spiritual in making a distinction between the grammatically "literal" and "non-literal" in Scripture.
So, it would not be an "unfortunate use of the word literal" to make such distinction.
Now, can you fix it for me. . .or can you even understand what I am trying to say?
Is Mauro using the word "natural" in the NT sense of the word; i.e., sinful, weak, corruptible, or natural flesh and blood,
which is contrasted to the "spiritual;" i.e., of the Holy Spirit, sinless, glorious, incorruptible
(1Co 15:42-44, 50)?
Or is he using "natural" in the grammatical sense of the word; i.e., "the normal"?
For "literal" usage is a grammatical concept, contrasted to the grammatical sense of "unnatural" usage; i.e., "not normal" usage,
whereas "spiritual" is a NT concept, contrasted to the NT sense of "natural;" i.e., sinful, weak, corruptible, or "natural" flesh and blood.
There is a correct usage of "literal" in regard to Scripture and prophecy which is not an unfortunate use of the word "literal."
It would be, for example, in the literal meaning of the word "horse," to be a natural horse, not a (non-literal) "mighty king."
There would be nothing spiritual in making a distinction between the grammatically "literal" and "non-literal" in Scripture.
So, it would not be an "unfortunate use of the word literal" to make such distinction.
Now, can you fix it for me. . .or can you even understand what I am trying to say?
Zone:
Mauro uses them correctly.
It is the dispensationalists that incorrectly oppose
literal (i.e., what is natural, normal in grammatical usage). . .to. . .spiritual (i.e., what is of the Holy Spirit in Biblical usage).
Well, that was much ado on my part about nothing.
Thanks for your help. . .I always do better with it. . .
Mauro uses them correctly.
It is the dispensationalists that incorrectly oppose
literal (i.e., what is natural, normal in grammatical usage). . .to. . .spiritual (i.e., what is of the Holy Spirit in Biblical usage).
Well, that was much ado on my part about nothing.
Thanks for your help. . .I always do better with it. . .
Zone,
How can the highlighted statement be reconciled with the below???
Acts 1:
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
1 Thes 4:
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
John 14:
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.
From the above verses, it is clear that Jesus will return the same way he left. If the first resurrection is not the resurrection of the body, and instead is just being alive in spirit and we are immediately with Christ in spirit when we die, then this whole concept of a resurrection makes no sense. As we are told in Heb 9:27:
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,
So if we are to die once, we are to be resurrected once, either to eternal life or eternal damnation. The first resurrection and second resurrection therefore are not for each person, rather for different groups of people. In other words, a person will not experience 2 resurrections but they can experience 2 deaths. Thus, the resurrections of Rev 20 describe two separate waves of resurrections. The first wave will be the people which John identifies as the martyrs, those beheaded during the Tribulation who did not take the mark of the Beast. The second wave will be everyone else. This coincides with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 15.
How also can we live and reign with Christ for 1,000 years if we are invisible souls? There will be mortals left on earth that are unsaved who were not killed. To minister to them, we must be visible unless we assume the role of the Holy Spirit which would seem to be heretical.
How can the highlighted statement be reconciled with the below???
Acts 1:
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
1 Thes 4:
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
John 14:
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.
From the above verses, it is clear that Jesus will return the same way he left. If the first resurrection is not the resurrection of the body, and instead is just being alive in spirit and we are immediately with Christ in spirit when we die, then this whole concept of a resurrection makes no sense. As we are told in Heb 9:27:
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,
So if we are to die once, we are to be resurrected once, either to eternal life or eternal damnation. The first resurrection and second resurrection therefore are not for each person, rather for different groups of people. In other words, a person will not experience 2 resurrections but they can experience 2 deaths. Thus, the resurrections of Rev 20 describe two separate waves of resurrections. The first wave will be the people which John identifies as the martyrs, those beheaded during the Tribulation who did not take the mark of the Beast. The second wave will be everyone else. This coincides with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 15.
How also can we live and reign with Christ for 1,000 years if we are invisible souls? There will be mortals left on earth that are unsaved who were not killed. To minister to them, we must be visible unless we assume the role of the Holy Spirit which would seem to be heretical.
John 3
6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
^^ FIRST RESURRECTION ^^
6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
^^ FIRST RESURRECTION ^^
From Philip Mauro
Dispensationalists do not confuse literal versus spiritual. What is literal may in fact be physical or it may be spiritual. Both the OT and the NT distinguish between that which is physical and that which is spiritual. Everything is understood in context. Many times the OT refers to "soul" or "heart", with the clear understanding that we are talking about "things that are unseen", the spiritual, the eternal. But many times the OT refers to "body, kingdom, nation, plow, sword, vine, lion, lamb" and these are not references to the spiritual, they are references to physical realities.
So too the NT sometimes refers to physical realities and sometimes to spiritual realities. Paul uses the word "flesh" (sarx) in Greek and he sometimes refers to physical flesh, and sometimes to the old sin nature, the fleshly desires, the spiritual but carnal flesh. It is not the NT which is spiritual and the OT which speaks in physical terms but really refers to spiritual terms.
Philip Mauro This is basically stating that the NT reinterprets the OT because without a doubt the OT promises looked like they were physical promises, but suddenly we should have a new hermeneutic which translates them all as spiritual terms. Not so at all. The New covenant was clearly a spiritual covenant, that the "law would be written on their hearts", this is a spiritual concept. The book of Hebrews does not show that the New Covenant is a spiritual covenant whereas the Old Covenant, the Mosaic was a physical covenant, as if that which is physical is first, then the spiritual. The Mosaic covenant had many spiritual aspects to it, it covered sins!
Philip makes the hermeneutical error of assuming that because the Mosaic Covenant was to physical Israel, the New Covenant is now to spiritual Israel, the so-called "Israel of God." That is not what the Bible portrays at all. The Mosaic Covenant was to physical Israel, and any Gentile who became a part of the cultural nation could partake of its blessings. So too the New Covenant was promised to "physical Israel" and any who wants can partake of its blessings, thus becoming a Jew inwardly.
There is no doubt that one can become a spiritual descendent of Abraham by having faith like he did. But the idea that this spiritual process makes a new hermeneutic out of all of the OT passages that without a doubt defined Israel and Judah as physical people is a misnomer. It is not dispensationalists who fail to see the spiritual ideas that are found in the OT, it is an Philip Mauro who uses an inconsistent hermeneutic to "spiritualize" OT promises to refer to a spiritualized Israel.
Mauro defines the term "in that day" as referring only to the present church age with no reference to judgment afterward. But the term "in that day" was used by the prophets to refer to the Jews return from captivity, to God judging all those who had wronged Israel, and to a time of peace and prosperity which the Jews did not experience, unless those terms are spiritualized. Mauro says that Zech 14"And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west; and there shall be a very great valley; and half (i.e. a part) of the mountain shall remove toward the north and half (part) of it toward the south... And it shall be in that day that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half (or part) of them toward the former sea and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord and His name one" should be understood not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense. Zechariah was written to the remnant who returned from captivity. In the whole chapter there is reference to a literal earthquake and literal mountains, "the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel", there is no warrant for seeing the word "mountain" as a metaphor for "nation" as Mauro does here.
If the destruction of Jerusalem is the reference here, then why didn't "the Lord, my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him!" This is a clear reference to the 2nd coming, not the 1st, and it's in the same context of this chapter! There is so much hermeneutical wrangling to make this chapter refer to the 1st coming and not the 2nd it's an allegorical mystery and nightmare! The living waters that flow out to the Eastern and Western sea may very well have spiritual meaning, but they also clearly refer to the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. And what about verse 10:
10All the land will be changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem will rise and remain on its site from Benjamin's Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's wine presses. 11People will live in it, and there will no longer be a curse, for Jerusalem will dwell in security. 8And in that day living water
This is all to be spiritualized and does not have a "literal, real meaning"? I think not, sorry Philip, I respectfully and profoundly disagree.
So too the NT sometimes refers to physical realities and sometimes to spiritual realities. Paul uses the word "flesh" (sarx) in Greek and he sometimes refers to physical flesh, and sometimes to the old sin nature, the fleshly desires, the spiritual but carnal flesh. It is not the NT which is spiritual and the OT which speaks in physical terms but really refers to spiritual terms.
Philip Mauro This is basically stating that the NT reinterprets the OT because without a doubt the OT promises looked like they were physical promises, but suddenly we should have a new hermeneutic which translates them all as spiritual terms. Not so at all. The New covenant was clearly a spiritual covenant, that the "law would be written on their hearts", this is a spiritual concept. The book of Hebrews does not show that the New Covenant is a spiritual covenant whereas the Old Covenant, the Mosaic was a physical covenant, as if that which is physical is first, then the spiritual. The Mosaic covenant had many spiritual aspects to it, it covered sins!
Philip makes the hermeneutical error of assuming that because the Mosaic Covenant was to physical Israel, the New Covenant is now to spiritual Israel, the so-called "Israel of God." That is not what the Bible portrays at all. The Mosaic Covenant was to physical Israel, and any Gentile who became a part of the cultural nation could partake of its blessings. So too the New Covenant was promised to "physical Israel" and any who wants can partake of its blessings, thus becoming a Jew inwardly.
There is no doubt that one can become a spiritual descendent of Abraham by having faith like he did. But the idea that this spiritual process makes a new hermeneutic out of all of the OT passages that without a doubt defined Israel and Judah as physical people is a misnomer. It is not dispensationalists who fail to see the spiritual ideas that are found in the OT, it is an Philip Mauro who uses an inconsistent hermeneutic to "spiritualize" OT promises to refer to a spiritualized Israel.
Mauro defines the term "in that day" as referring only to the present church age with no reference to judgment afterward. But the term "in that day" was used by the prophets to refer to the Jews return from captivity, to God judging all those who had wronged Israel, and to a time of peace and prosperity which the Jews did not experience, unless those terms are spiritualized. Mauro says that Zech 14"And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west; and there shall be a very great valley; and half (i.e. a part) of the mountain shall remove toward the north and half (part) of it toward the south... And it shall be in that day that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half (or part) of them toward the former sea and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord and His name one" should be understood not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense. Zechariah was written to the remnant who returned from captivity. In the whole chapter there is reference to a literal earthquake and literal mountains, "the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel", there is no warrant for seeing the word "mountain" as a metaphor for "nation" as Mauro does here.
If the destruction of Jerusalem is the reference here, then why didn't "the Lord, my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him!" This is a clear reference to the 2nd coming, not the 1st, and it's in the same context of this chapter! There is so much hermeneutical wrangling to make this chapter refer to the 1st coming and not the 2nd it's an allegorical mystery and nightmare! The living waters that flow out to the Eastern and Western sea may very well have spiritual meaning, but they also clearly refer to the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. And what about verse 10:
10All the land will be changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem will rise and remain on its site from Benjamin's Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's wine presses. 11People will live in it, and there will no longer be a curse, for Jerusalem will dwell in security. 8And in that day living water
This is all to be spiritualized and does not have a "literal, real meaning"? I think not, sorry Philip, I respectfully and profoundly disagree.
?
okay....did the lamb represent something AS WELL AS PERFORMING SOMETHING int he physical?
well the NT DOES interpret the OT
that's not to say what literally actuall happend in the OT didn't happen...it means what happened in the OT was, though SPIRITUAL, at the same time and primarily NATURAL.
first the natural, then the spiritual.
so, you literally believe that Abraham had children that numbered as many as the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea?
how many children is that?
and that LAND promise - was that NOT realized in the Global expansion of the Kingdom of God - with people from EVERY nation?
and will it not see it's final fulfillment in the New Heavnes and Earth? New Jerusalem, Heavenly Zion?
Hebrews says the OT saints KNEW they were sojouners on this earth. why don't we?
it says they longed for a BETTER country, a BETTER CITY, who builder and maker is GOD - not this Jerusalem.
Paul said the SAME.
they said all that 2000 years ago
OKAY....but is the OLD abolished or NOT?
by the NEW?
see, you're setting up that false dichotomy.
nobody DENIES the OLD was spiritual - it POINTED TO THE REALITY which was MORE SPIRITUAL.
HUH???
who do you think became the Israel of GOD?
you just agreed with us:
"So too the New Covenant was promised to "physical Israel" and any who wants can partake of its blessings, thus becoming a Jew inwardly."
but not ALL of "physical Israel" entered....right??
it's your misnomer.
nobody pretends those people didn't exist or receive promises!
The New Covenant was Promised to them FIRST.
they gave us the NT!
oh...wow.
of the (?) million hebrews in the wilderness...HOW MANY ENTERED THE PROMISED LAND?
did the ones He destroyed enter the New Covenant?
they were physical Israel.
how about the ones who rebelled and rejected Jesus and died in 70AD?
New Covenant?
they were physical Israel.
well, are you ever going to read Joshua?
will you believe Joshua?
and what did Jesus say He came to do?
DIVIDE THE PEOPLE - those who rejected Him were cut off....those who didn't received PEACE WITH GOD.
eternal PEACE and REST....didn;t He say that's what was offering?
reconciliation and the resurrection unto eternal life - in the ETERNAL KINGDOM?
He said NOTHING about an interim 1,000 year flesh/spirit mix. nothing.
okay. you have 3 choices
1) that passage was literally by Jesus at His first Coming - using spiritual (figurative) language
2) that passage was not fulfilled by the Lord's First Coming even though the other passages (see below) lead DIRECTLY TO THE COMING 70TH WEEK), and is about His Second Advent and eternity
3) that passage is about a future coming which leads into a literal Millennium where people will do what is described in the passages below (tabernacles; sacrifices etc)
okay.
but now you agree: "Zechariah was written to the remnant who returned from captivity."?
what was the sequence of events after the returned from captivity?
rebuilt the city and temple...then what?
Jesus came.
then what?
this is something that has to wait to be tackled i guess.
that's why i'm not going there until we can agree on the passages BELOW.
are they PAST? OR FUTURE?
how can you say the living waters may have a spiritual meaning when Jesus Christ Himself explained what that was?
..............
anyways: can we just deal with these passages and the entire books - FIRST?
PAST/ OR FUTURE?
(or some sort of dual fulfillment precisely to the letter?)
WRITTEN FIRST (prophecy of what follows)
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
THIS WAS WRITTEN AFTER (fulfillments):
Nehemiah 8
13 Now on the second day the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people, with the priests and Levites, were gathered to Ezra the scribe, in order to understand the words of the Law. 14 And they found written in the Law, which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast of the seventh month, 15 and that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, “Go out to the mountain, and bring olive branches, branches of oil trees, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of leafy trees, to make booths, as it is written.”
16 Then the people went out and brought them and made themselves booths, each one on the roof of his house, or in their courtyards or the courts of the house of God, and in the open square of the Water Gate and in the open square of the Gate of Ephraim. 17 So the whole assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and sat under the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun until that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great gladness. 18 Also day by day, from the first day until the last day, he read from the Book of the Law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day there was a sacred assembly, according to the prescribed manner.
AND SO WAS THIS:
Ezra 7
11This is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, a man learned in matters of the commandments of the LORD and his statutes for Israel: 12“Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven. Peace.b And now 13I make a decree that anyone of the people of Israel or their priests or Levites in my kingdom, who freely offers to go to Jerusalem, may go with you. 14For you are sent by the king and his seven counselors to make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of your God, which is in your hand, 15and also to carry the silver and gold that the king and his counselors have freely offered to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, 16with all the silver and gold that you shall find in the whole province of Babylonia, and with the freewill offerings of the people and the priests, vowed willingly for the house of their God that is in Jerusalem. 17With this money, then, you shall with all diligence buy bulls, rams, and lambs, with their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and you shall offer them on the altar of the house of your God that is in Jerusalem. 18Whatever seems good to you and your brothers to do with the rest of the silver and gold, you may do, according to the will of your God. 19The vessels that have been given you for the service of the house of your God, you shall deliver before the God of Jerusalem. 20And whatever else is required for the house of your God, which it falls to you to provide, you may provide it out of the king’s treasury.
21“And I, Artaxerxes the king, make a decree to all the treasurers in the province Beyond the River: Whatever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven, requires of you, let it be done with all diligence, 22up to 100 talentsc of silver, 100 corsd of wheat, 100 bathse of wine, 100 baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. 23Whatever is decreed by the God of heaven, let it be done in full for the house of the God of heaven, lest his wrath be against the realm of the king and his sons. 24We also notify you that it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll on anyone of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the doorkeepers, the temple servants, or other servants of this house of God.
25“And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God that is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God. And those who do not know them, you shall teach.
26Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment.”
NOW READ THIS AGAIN:
WRITTEN FIRST
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
??
future?
really?
in the Millennium?
that means Daniel's 70 weeks never happened.
okay....did the lamb represent something AS WELL AS PERFORMING SOMETHING int he physical?
well the NT DOES interpret the OT
that's not to say what literally actuall happend in the OT didn't happen...it means what happened in the OT was, though SPIRITUAL, at the same time and primarily NATURAL.
first the natural, then the spiritual.
so, you literally believe that Abraham had children that numbered as many as the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea?
how many children is that?
and that LAND promise - was that NOT realized in the Global expansion of the Kingdom of God - with people from EVERY nation?
and will it not see it's final fulfillment in the New Heavnes and Earth? New Jerusalem, Heavenly Zion?
Hebrews says the OT saints KNEW they were sojouners on this earth. why don't we?
it says they longed for a BETTER country, a BETTER CITY, who builder and maker is GOD - not this Jerusalem.
Paul said the SAME.
they said all that 2000 years ago
OKAY....but is the OLD abolished or NOT?
by the NEW?
see, you're setting up that false dichotomy.
nobody DENIES the OLD was spiritual - it POINTED TO THE REALITY which was MORE SPIRITUAL.
HUH???
who do you think became the Israel of GOD?
you just agreed with us
:"So too the New Covenant was promised to "physical Israel" and any who wants can partake of its blessings, thus becoming a Jew inwardly."
but not ALL of "physical Israel" entered....right??
it's your misnomer.
nobody pretends those people didn't exist or receive promises!
The New Covenant was Promised to them FIRST.
they gave us the NT!
oh...wow.
of the (?) million hebrews in the wilderness...HOW MANY ENTERED THE PROMISED LAND?
did the ones He destroyed enter the New Covenant?
they were physical Israel.
how about the ones who rebelled and rejected Jesus and died in 70AD?
New Covenant?
they were physical Israel.
well, are you ever going to read Joshua?
will you believe Joshua?
and what did Jesus say He came to do?
DIVIDE THE PEOPLE - those who rejected Him were cut off....those who didn't received PEACE WITH GOD.
eternal PEACE and REST....didn;t He say that's what was offering?
reconciliation and the resurrection unto eternal life - in the ETERNAL KINGDOM?
He said NOTHING about an interim 1,000 year flesh/spirit mix. nothing.
okay. you have 3 choices
1) that passage was literally by Jesus at His first Coming - using spiritual (figurative) language
2) that passage was not fulfilled by the Lord's First Coming even though the other passages (see below) lead DIRECTLY TO THE COMING 70TH WEEK), and is about His Second Advent and eternity
3) that passage is about a future coming which leads into a literal Millennium where people will do what is described in the passages below (tabernacles; sacrifices etc)
okay.
but now you agree: "Zechariah was written to the remnant who returned from captivity."?
what was the sequence of events after the returned from captivity?
rebuilt the city and temple...then what?
Jesus came.
then what?
this is something that has to wait to be tackled i guess.
that's why i'm not going there until we can agree on the passages BELOW.
are they PAST? OR FUTURE?
how can you say the living waters may have a spiritual meaning when Jesus Christ Himself explained what that was?
..............
anyways: can we just deal with these passages and the entire books - FIRST?
PAST/ OR FUTURE?
(or some sort of dual fulfillment precisely to the letter?)
WRITTEN FIRST (prophecy of what follows)
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
THIS WAS WRITTEN AFTER (fulfillments):
Nehemiah 8
13 Now on the second day the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people, with the priests and Levites, were gathered to Ezra the scribe, in order to understand the words of the Law. 14 And they found written in the Law, which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast of the seventh month, 15 and that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, “Go out to the mountain, and bring olive branches, branches of oil trees, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of leafy trees, to make booths, as it is written.”
16 Then the people went out and brought them and made themselves booths, each one on the roof of his house, or in their courtyards or the courts of the house of God, and in the open square of the Water Gate and in the open square of the Gate of Ephraim. 17 So the whole assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and sat under the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun until that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great gladness. 18 Also day by day, from the first day until the last day, he read from the Book of the Law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day there was a sacred assembly, according to the prescribed manner.
AND SO WAS THIS:
Ezra 7
11This is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, a man learned in matters of the commandments of the LORD and his statutes for Israel: 12“Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven. Peace.b And now 13I make a decree that anyone of the people of Israel or their priests or Levites in my kingdom, who freely offers to go to Jerusalem, may go with you. 14For you are sent by the king and his seven counselors to make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of your God, which is in your hand, 15and also to carry the silver and gold that the king and his counselors have freely offered to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, 16with all the silver and gold that you shall find in the whole province of Babylonia, and with the freewill offerings of the people and the priests, vowed willingly for the house of their God that is in Jerusalem. 17With this money, then, you shall with all diligence buy bulls, rams, and lambs, with their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and you shall offer them on the altar of the house of your God that is in Jerusalem. 18Whatever seems good to you and your brothers to do with the rest of the silver and gold, you may do, according to the will of your God. 19The vessels that have been given you for the service of the house of your God, you shall deliver before the God of Jerusalem. 20And whatever else is required for the house of your God, which it falls to you to provide, you may provide it out of the king’s treasury.
21“And I, Artaxerxes the king, make a decree to all the treasurers in the province Beyond the River: Whatever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven, requires of you, let it be done with all diligence, 22up to 100 talentsc of silver, 100 corsd of wheat, 100 bathse of wine, 100 baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. 23Whatever is decreed by the God of heaven, let it be done in full for the house of the God of heaven, lest his wrath be against the realm of the king and his sons. 24We also notify you that it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll on anyone of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the doorkeepers, the temple servants, or other servants of this house of God.
25“And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God that is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God. And those who do not know them, you shall teach.
26Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment.”
NOW READ THIS AGAIN:
WRITTEN FIRST
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
??
future?
really?
in the Millennium?
that means Daniel's 70 weeks never happened.
Last edited: