Galatians 4:30 - the death knell for dispensationalism
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
-
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.
Thank you everyone for the input. A few more questions...Locutus, do you believe that the second coming has already occurred? Do you believe the jews are still God's chosen people? Also, can anyone let me know if Abraham's slave child was the forefather of islam? Again, I appreciate all the responses, thank you?
Adam Clarke was a Methodist so that makes his eschatology a-millennial, which is pretty much the same as the Reformed, RC and Orthodox churches among others.
What he's written is exactly what Paul stated in Gal 4:30 that the persecuting Jews would be cast out, which is precisely what happened in the war of 66-70 AD so your beef is with Paul and Christ and Isaiah.
1 Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Isa 65:15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
What he's written is exactly what Paul stated in Gal 4:30 that the persecuting Jews would be cast out, which is precisely what happened in the war of 66-70 AD so your beef is with Paul and Christ and Isaiah.
1 Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Isa 65:15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
No, the "chosen" status for the Jew/Israel as nation ended with the old covenant FIS, Israel's nation and priesthood was a shadow of the body of Christ:
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
While Paul is primarily speaking here of ordinances etc, the same shadow typology is applicable to the land, temple, priesthood and nation.
The temple is a spiritual temple, the land is the heavenly Jerusalem, the priesthood consists of all believers in Christ.
1 Pet 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1 Cor 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
First was the physical nation/temple/priesthood then the spiritual:
1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
While Paul is primarily speaking here of ordinances etc, the same shadow typology is applicable to the land, temple, priesthood and nation.
The temple is a spiritual temple, the land is the heavenly Jerusalem, the priesthood consists of all believers in Christ.
1 Pet 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1 Cor 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
First was the physical nation/temple/priesthood then the spiritual:
1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The whole underpinning of dispensationalism are the bolded parts. If you prove them wrong, I guess the whole silly thing falls apart.
So, you want a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible, which includes a rapture!
"[FONT="]Then we who are alive, who are left, will be suddenly caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:17 NET[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
Note that the ones who are LEFT, will be the ones who greet the Lord, not the ones who are "gone" or "raptured."
I have searched high and low, and the word "rapture" is not in any Bible translation I have read, nor Greek or Hebrew. In fact, it was one of Jerome's many mistakes in the Latin Vulgate, when he transliterated 1 Thess. 4:17 from Greek to Latin. Notice, not translate, but transliterate. That means taking a word in another language, which he didn't know, and putting it in the translation by sounds.
So, here is the Greek:
"[FONT="]ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα." 1 Thess. 4:17[/FONT]
And here is the Latin:
"deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus" 1 Thess. 4:17
Now, I am not 100% sure, but I think that rapiemur, might be the transliteration for ἁρπαγησόμεθα! And I have no intention of ever learning Latin, and yet, that is what Erasmus used for his translation, and hence the KJV comes from this. Since, they basically used Erasmus' translation.
ἁρπαγησόμεθα is a future indicative passive verb in Greek! NOT a noun, as "the rapture" would have to be! In fact, ἀρπαγμος would be the noun, and it only appears in Phil. 2:6, where it is difficult to translate. But probably something to do with grasped to his own advantage. So, the Bible does not use the noun, which some want to translate as "The Rapture." In fact, the word does not appear at all in the Septuagint, and the occurrence in Phil 2:6 is not connected to end times at all, but rather is about Jesus and his first coming. I did not find one version that was able to translate this satisfactorily. Here is the NET!
"who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped," Phil. 2:6 NET
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Phil. 2:6 KJV[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Certainly, BDAG is correct when it says the KJV cannot be right! Because, "the state of being equal with God cannot be equated with the act of robbery." (pg 133)
ἀρπάζω or harpazo is the verb, which appears in 1 Thess. 4:17. It means grasp or seize, in the sense that no resistance is offered.
But, for arguments sake, even if harpzo really said "rapture" which it doesn't, you can NEVER make a doctrine out of one verse! Hermeneutically, that is unsound.
So, no, dispensationalism does not take the Bible literally. In fact, it adds a bunch of things that are NOT in the Bible at all! And that means the rapture!
So, not literal because the word "rapture" upon which the entire eschatology of dispensationalism is based, is not in the Bible, so, it is NOT literal.
PS. I am a partial preterist!
Mohammed considers Ismael his forefather, yes.
Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bore unto Abraham. And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa; 15 Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedem; these are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments; twelve princes according to their nations... (Genesis 25:12-16)
Muslim sources trace the genealogy of Muhammed to Kedar, and though it is much disputed by other sources, it is this claim that leads the Islamist to substitute Isaac as the child of promise with Ishmael, and for Muhammad to make the claim that he is the prophet the world was awaiting (the final prophet), and the Quran the final revelation from God. They call Abraham the first Muslim.
Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bore unto Abraham. And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa; 15 Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedem; these are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments; twelve princes according to their nations... (Genesis 25:12-16)
Muslim sources trace the genealogy of Muhammed to Kedar, and though it is much disputed by other sources, it is this claim that leads the Islamist to substitute Isaac as the child of promise with Ishmael, and for Muhammad to make the claim that he is the prophet the world was awaiting (the final prophet), and the Quran the final revelation from God. They call Abraham the first Muslim.
7
my point exactly
locutus picks commentators that support the Preterist viewpoint and disregards scripture that contradicts those people
this fellow Clark, that he is quoting, lived in the 1700's, a time when hating Jews was popular
if you read the quote I posted from Clark, his hatred and disregard for Jews is actually pointed and disgusting, my post #40
here is a sentence from Clark's comments:
The inspired writers excepted, the Jews have ever been the most puerile, absurd, and ridiculous reasoners in the world
so Clark, in his mentality of the day (and apparently still to be found today as well, but Christians should know better) says ALL Jews ...except for the ones who wrote the Bible...so magnanimous of him...are not only puerile, absurd and ridiculous, BUT the worst 'reasoners' in the entire world (Clarks world )
now somebody tell me, when there are many preterists around whose comments are non-inclusive of such personal diatribes against an entire race of people, does the op continually pick any and all (note dead guys who had a hate on for Jews) who sport hatred for the authors of scripture and seem to forget that John indicates that Jesus came to His own..who were not white blue-eyed Gentiles.
7
his point is the same one I have been making
you do not seem to have any concept of what scripture is talking about with regards to the bondwoman and freewoman or how that relates to salvation
I know you think you do and you agree with Clark whose writing style is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and who has no concept of the two women either
further, you should acknowledge the fact that Clark was religious...not a spiritual man at all...and wrote reams of propaganda against Jews and purposefully catered to an ignorant audience
I don't expect you to veer from your present course
you do not seem to have any concept of what scripture is talking about with regards to the bondwoman and freewoman or how that relates to salvation
I know you think you do and you agree with Clark whose writing style is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and who has no concept of the two women either
further, you should acknowledge the fact that Clark was religious...not a spiritual man at all...and wrote reams of propaganda against Jews and purposefully catered to an ignorant audience
I don't expect you to veer from your present course
7
No prattle here - straight scripture, if you don't like those scriptures you can just disregard them and continue in your dispensational daydream...
Like I said to you before, heckling is not a valid rebuttal.
Like I said to you before, heckling is not a valid rebuttal.
straight scripture a la Clark..I don't have his gospel in any Bible I have and that includes the ones online which is pretty much ALL of them
you are only fooling yourself
I have seen some good posts by Preterists in which they actually have something valid to say that a person might consider
but you don't do that. you supply commentary by someone who is a rabid despiser of Jews
too bad you either cannot see that or choose to ignore it