Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To the Jew first
Triablogue ^ | May 26, 2011 | Patrick Chan

Posted on 05/26/2011 11:29:59 AM PDT by topcat54

All of the following material is from Rev. Fred Klett who in turn cites other Reformed sources or authors.

The Westminster Larger Catechism on the Jewish people:

Has God promised anything regarding ethnic Israel? Good people are on all sides of this hotly debated topic. Among Reformed folk there are many points of view. Great men like Puritan John Owen spoke of the revival of the Jewish people and their restoration to the land. Others see the Jewish people as simply one of the peoples of the earth, certainly with a special history. What are the implications of the fact that the Kingdom of God is no longer centered in one geographical location or ethnic group? The meek now inherit the whole earth. Does that mean that the earthly Israel is no longer important? Are the Jewish people no longer of any special concern at all? And what about the Arabs? What is the answer? The Westminster Larger Catechism states:

(Excerpt) Read more at triablogue.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: evangelism
The Westminster Larger Catechism on the Jewish people:
Doug Moo, John Murray, and Clair Davis on the Jewish people:
John Calvin on the Jewish people:
1 posted on 05/26/2011 11:30:00 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Are the Jewish people no longer of any special concern at all? And what about the Arabs? What is the answer? The Westminster Larger Catechism states...

What a cliffhanger! Ping to read later & at the original.

2 posted on 05/26/2011 11:41:15 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Offensive subject line.

Grammatically speaking it reads like the unintentional set up to a slur and classic propaganda diatribes.

The correct phrasing is “Jewish People”, and perhaps “To the Jews”.


3 posted on 05/26/2011 11:41:15 AM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harmonium; topcat54
To the Jew first

Offensive subject line. Grammatically speaking it reads like the unintentional set up to a slur and classic propaganda diatribes.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek....There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek."
-- The Apostle Paul, Romans 1:16, 2:9-10

4 posted on 05/26/2011 11:45:50 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

A cliff notes version for the cliffhanger...

...it’s essentially various perspectives from Christians wrestling with how to hold Jews up as the chosen people, and still resolve the Gospel’s call.


5 posted on 05/26/2011 11:50:17 AM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Alex, Thank you for your post, clipping the reference, however it’s probably not the most appropriate in the context of a subject line, because in the modern age, speaking of the Jewish people as objects has an unintended tone.


6 posted on 05/26/2011 11:53:44 AM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
All of the following material is from Rev. Fred Klett who in turn cites other Reformed sources or authors.

The Westminster Larger Catechism on the Jewish people:

Too late for an "Ecumenical. Play nice, y-all" tag. This should be, not entertaining, but enlightening.

7 posted on 05/26/2011 12:01:25 PM PDT by Lee N. Field (An armed society is a polite society. So keep your soi-disant "prophecy experts" off my lawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harmonium
Just a quote from the Bible.

Those who know the arguments from Scripture recognize it immediately.

Those who don't know Scripture may be offended but you can't please 'em all.

8 posted on 05/26/2011 12:25:07 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

“Those who know the arguments from Scripture recognize it immediately.”

From Christian scripture. Your flippancy is counter to the articles point, which seems to suggest ways to rationalize acceptance, right? Because, these are arguments concerning a party of people who aren’t versed in the New Testament outside of theological curiousity, nor do they ever plan to be.

Such wording is symptomatic of translation, and linguistic changes. Something to keep in mind and be sensitive of for the future.


9 posted on 05/26/2011 1:29:15 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: harmonium
The basic argument is among Covenant Theologians and Dispensationalists.

Those who are serious about the argument are very familiar with Romans 9-11.

This phrase would be instantly recognizable to such.

If a Jewish person was also familiar with the debate, he/she also would know that the phrase was lifted from the New Testament.

Being denoted as "object" doesn't instantly translate to offensive. "To the christian" is used all the time as is "To the American", "To the businessman", etc. and is not normally received negatively.

10 posted on 05/26/2011 2:00:24 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

“”To the christian” is used all the time as is “To the American””

Neither are comparable.

...and as your audience is slightly wider than Christians or Messianic Christian-Jews, you should be aware that such language is received negatively. I understand this is essentially a debate amongst Christians, and so the idea of offending the very topic of the matter might allude you, and I also understand this isn’t the intent.

Judaism by and large describes the G-ds covenant as a responsibility, and the matter of being a chosen people, not as favoritism but as a burden to be a light unto the world, meeting said responsibilities. With that responsibility has come some dark tests.


11 posted on 05/26/2011 2:17:47 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

“the G-ds”

Yikes. A horrible typo, sorry.
Obviously we’re not discussing Polytheism here.


12 posted on 05/26/2011 2:21:04 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

“the G-ds”

Yikes. A horrible typo, sorry.
Obviously we’re not discussing Polytheism here.


13 posted on 05/26/2011 2:21:25 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Many of the theologians in the article are supporting national restoration for Israel; as opposed to individual redemption for elect Jews. What gives?


14 posted on 05/26/2011 3:00:55 PM PDT by dartuser ("Dealing with preterists is like cleaning the litter box ... but at least none of the cats are big.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harmonium
Neither are comparable.

I think they are.

Remember, Paul also says "to the Gentile" in pretty much the same breath.

There is no offense intended in the context of the use of the phrase, either in the 1st century or today.

15 posted on 05/26/2011 3:31:57 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: harmonium

You said: Judaism by and large describes the G-ds covenant as a responsibility..I agree that is why I wish those faithful to G-d’s covenant would also understand G-d created a Marriage Covenant for man and woman, and that covenant seems to be less important not only with some liberal Christian churches but also in some mainline jewish synagogues....

Been reading some fascinating material about the Ring around the planet Saturn has to do with GOD’s ring to mankind in the Holy Scriptures and marraige...


16 posted on 05/26/2011 4:25:02 PM PDT by TaraP (An APPEASER is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

“Remember, Paul also says “to the Gentile” in pretty much the same breath”

Uh, No. Gentile, Christian...these terms do not currently describe an ethno-religious nation or diaspora.

Mind you, if you ever read a bunch of Judaic scholars debating how to deal with “The Goy”, it would be equally as concerning...and still, it doesn’t call to mind pseudo anthropological studies meant to dehumanize one group during the mid-Century.


17 posted on 05/26/2011 7:04:13 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

“that covenant seems to be less important not only with some liberal Christian churches but also in some mainline jewish synagogues....”

I personally don’t believe that marriage was core to the Covenant .... I’m not sure it’s a sin to be single, for example.

More to your point though... the modern world has dictated how denominations evolved and observe. Some adjustments for the secular world make a lot of sense, but what we have today is this identity crises where assimilation has resulted in some sects straying very far from the original doctrines. There will always be issues and attitudes that differentiate from Chapel to Chapel, don’t you think?


18 posted on 05/26/2011 7:13:02 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: harmonium

I’d suggest just letting it go. Failing to recognize an abbreviated Biblical cite in a headline and perceiving the intended meaning in a more modern context isn’t the worst mistake one could make.


19 posted on 05/26/2011 7:20:52 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: harmonium

I think the Marraige Covenant is actually more important than any other covenant, because it is a Covenant between GOD and human beings male and female that was started from day one in the Book of Genesis....

Actually I think the Marriage Covenant that is now being perverted is why the Bible says the last days will be like the Days of Noah, it was the peversion of GOD’s Holy Union and immorality that brought the destruction to Sodom and to Noah’s Days....

The covenant GOD gave to the Jewish People was to bring fourth Monotheism and the law to human kind..

The Marraige Covenant was a sacred covenant between Man, Woman and GOD himself...


20 posted on 05/26/2011 7:36:42 PM PDT by TaraP (An APPEASER is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: harmonium
Uh, No. Gentile, Christian...these terms do not currently describe an ethno-religious nation or diaspora

So what? Should the word "Jew" never be used in your opinion...is it derogatory in your view at all times or acceptable only when used as a subject of a sentence rather than object?

What word in your opinion would be more acceptable as "object"?

21 posted on 05/26/2011 10:45:41 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

I do fear that by over emphasizing the union of marriage it slights the individual Covenant each person has with G-d, and the many Commandments.

In Judaism it really depends on personal observance. Marriage is not considered the most sacred commandment, and never has been, though I’m not discounting it. I’m sure there are Talmudic scholars debating this amongst themselves as we speak somewhere.

When Yemenite and Ethiopeon Jews arrived in Israel, with unique thousand year old traditions, some were still practicing Biblical style polygyny. It was an interesting predicament.

As an aside, it’s considered forbidden to proselytize and act as missionaries for Judaism. Instead, it is said that by living by example, and doing good deeds, the Jewish people are filling their quota, so to speak, acting as ambassadors. One ultra orthodox movement, called Chabbad goes the furthest to do outreach and education, and pushes that line. Still, their focus is typically towards secular Jews.


22 posted on 05/26/2011 10:54:21 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

“So what? Should the word “Jew” never be used in your opinion...is it derogatory in your view at all times or acceptable only when used as a subject of a sentence rather than object?”

Well, there are offensive ways to use it as a verb, or adjective too.
It clearly matters how it’s used. It’s not the word, it’s how it’s used.

Similarly, saying ‘To the Black” when talking about a community is a little iffy. Saying “Black influence” would be fine. Yet, phrasings like “Jew influence”, or “Jew boyfriend” are unacceptable.


23 posted on 05/26/2011 11:13:46 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: harmonium
Similarly, saying ‘To the Black” when talking about a community is a little iffy

Ah, so the ethno-religious grouping as you put it is not the problem.

It's rather a group of some kind which may not want to be classified as "object" in your opinion.

I can see where "to the christian" might be perceived as offensive also depending on context. However, in this context there should be no hurt feelings since it is simply a direct quote from Scripture. The context in Scripture is exactly the same as "to the Gentile" which follows directly afterwards.

24 posted on 05/26/2011 11:43:53 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

“The context in Scripture is exactly the same as “to the Gentile” which follows directly afterwards.”

Which I wouldn’t take issue with. I’m not suggesting scripture be changed.

It’s what was pulled as a title for the blog post, out of context, and the lack of awareness for how it read that I found of concern.


25 posted on 05/27/2011 12:59:35 AM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TaraP
"Been reading some fascinating material about the Ring around the planet Saturn ..

I'll bet you have. :)

26 posted on 05/27/2011 6:42:27 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("I've studied prophecy 30 years" usually means "I have everything Hal Lindsay ever 'wrote'." ~ LNF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Does that mean that the earthly Israel is no longer important? Are the Jewish people no longer of any special concern at all?

Strange questions. Israels restoration as a state after 2000 years is an accident of history? The bible clearly states that Israel will be regathered and redeemed by G-d. The gentiles will then stream to Israel to learn of the law and G-d. Isaiah 2:2-3

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

No, the nations will learn from Israel of G-d.

27 posted on 05/27/2011 10:10:48 AM PDT by blasater1960 (Deut 30, Psalm 111...the Torah and the Law, is attainable past, present and forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Many of the theologians in the article are supporting national restoration for Israel; as opposed to individual redemption for elect Jews. What gives?

Many Reformed theologians, like theologians in general, have believed in a future for national Israel. The difference between their biblical outlook and what goes around in dispensationalist/futurist/rapturist circles is considerable.

Dispensationalists believe that the modern state of Israel is prophetically significant in spite of the fact that they exhibit no true faith towards the triune God of the Bible. Dispensationalists believe we are the terminal generation because of what happened 1948 -- a purely political action -- not because any true faith is exhibited in the nation

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that blessing is predicated on faith, true faith in the God of Abraham, and the Savior of mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ. National repentance will be exhibited in Israel before the return of Christ for His own. That may be in the near future, or, more likely, it may still be many generations away. Of course this is true of all the nations, not just Israel.

28 posted on 05/27/2011 1:14:12 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Dispensationalists believe that the modern state of Israel is prophetically significant in spite of the fact that they exhibit no true faith towards the triune God of the Bible.

It is necessary that Israel does not exhibit true faith in the triune God until the time of the gentiles ends. If Israel comes to Christ before the rapture, I will admit that I was wrong.

29 posted on 05/27/2011 6:58:38 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: harmonium

I understand your points, however *Marraige* in itself is the cornerstone of any civilized society, it is the most *Sacred* because it brings fourth life creating human beings that have both a Male and Female parent that G-d created himself....

This sacred covenant was started before anything else with G-d’s creation of *people* in fact G-d was so angered with what peverted marraige he destroyed the world with a flood in Noah’s Day and he destroyed Sodom...

Can you think of a more Sacred Covenant than the Marraige Covenant?


30 posted on 05/29/2011 9:54:30 AM PDT by TaraP (An APPEASER is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“National repentance will be exhibited in Israel before the return of Christ for His own.”

Now we get into the problematic situation of one groups belief being predicated on another groups dissolution on their religion. All major Abrahamic faiths have a version of this.

It can present a problem of coexistence, unless you arrive at a different interpretation. In other words, can you be faithful to the Gospel and believe Jews have a sacred right to their practices without compromise?

For Jews, it was the Pagan/Amalaks and others who are no longer a factor, and today there is an extreme faction who refuse to acknowledge Israel’s creation, as they believe it contradicts the notion of a Biblical Israel, which they believe requires the building of the Third Temple, which will either usher in a Messiah, or be delivered by the Messiah. Jesus is in no way shape or form a Messiach figure for Torah observant Jews.

Finally, you can support Israel and Jews as brothers and sisters without needing to cite scriptural reasons for it. The biblical argument rarely wins unless it’s an argument amongst others who already subscribe to that doctrine. For example, none of us could give a hoot what the Koran says...although it too does speak of G-D’s covenant with the Jews.


31 posted on 05/29/2011 11:02:49 AM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

“Can you think of a more Sacred Covenant than the Marraige Covenant?”

Are you sure a union between a man and woman is the holiest partnership? I’d say it’s with G-D. It’s with whatever scripture you follow. It’s an eternal one, not a mortal time stamped one. It’s an all encompassing thing, and includes rules of law, and so on.

Abraham’s personal covenant with G-D is discussed in Genesis. Certainly it was stronger than any covenant he could have with another human, even Sarah.

By the way, I would never say your personal beliefs are wrong, but picking up a Jewish Hebrew/English translation version of the 5 books of Moses might be really interesting for you, if you have the time, and give a little more detail that was possibly lost in the New Testament. The sections on commandments are argued about endlessly later in the Talmud (which is a collection of Sages giving theories), many of which were of no importance to Christians, but still would form a better understanding of what Jews mean by a Covenant with G-D.


32 posted on 05/29/2011 11:30:48 AM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: harmonium

No I agree..The Sacred Covenant Man has with G-d as in Abraham is a covenant of promise that can never be broken that is why G-d’s promise to the Jewish nation and Israel cannot be broken..

What I am saying is that G-d’s Marriage Covenant is a Holy one for Male and Female and one that he has brought destruction on nations who have peverted that Sacred Covenant...

The Marriage Covenant is the first one G-d gave to mankind is it not?


33 posted on 05/29/2011 11:44:56 AM PDT by TaraP (An APPEASER is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: harmonium
Good people are on all sides of this hotly debated topic.

The above line is classic "liberal elite". It's code for 'there is no right or wrong'. Which is bull. I didn't follow the jump ... but doubt it got saner.

Oh, and there are differences - the Jewish people created a sane modern, G-d based, democratic culture - which is good. And too many Arabs act like their religion is a control freak death cult with the added benefit of being able to bully women. Yeah, and it's totalitarian - not democratic. Sorry, but that's NOT equal, not the same, and good people aren't on both sides...

34 posted on 05/29/2011 11:56:03 AM PDT by GOPJ (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

“And too many Arabs act like their religion is a control freak death cult”

I mostly agree, only I wouldn’t want to forget that there are Christian Arabs, Jews of Arabic culture, Druze, Kurds, and other non-Muslims who do not fall into that category.

The other thing to point out, is that for Jews, any talk of end times that involves their conversion, redemption, or acceptance of Jesus, is very similar to that same death cult talk. Is that still a source of tension or even frustration? I don’t think so.

No reason that because Israel is added to the mix, suddenly it causes moral confusion.


35 posted on 05/29/2011 3:05:45 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

“The Marriage Covenant is the first one G-d gave to mankind is it not?”

I personally don’t look at it that way, but I understand why that works for you. See, G-d created mankind, but historically speaking, we know Abraham descended from idol worshippers, surrounded by pagans. G-d didn’t doom society then. Also, Adam and Eve aren’t considered the patriarch or matriarch for Jews or Christians.

It just simplifies things to suggest vows between a man and woman act as the cornerstone of any religion. Certainly it’s an important element of keeping an observant household, but again, spinsterhood, and bachelorhood aren’t really at the top of the sins list.


36 posted on 05/29/2011 3:25:26 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
It is necessary that Israel does not exhibit true faith in the triune God until the time of the gentiles ends. If Israel comes to Christ before the rapture, I will admit that I was wrong.

Since God’s timetable is not ours, you and I will probably be quite dead before this ever happens. It's already 2000 years and counting.

37 posted on 05/30/2011 7:17:40 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Since God’s timetable is not ours, you and I will probably be quite dead before this ever happens. It's already 2000 years and counting.

You could be right on this point. The early dispensationalist recognized that the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 represented periods of time between Christ's ascension and his return. They also realized that they were in the time of Philadelphia and the return of Christ could not be imminent because the Church of the Laodiceans was yet to come. They correctly predicted that the Jews would return to their land in unbelief

I do not believe that the rapture is imminent but I think we are in the age of Laodicea. If Israel is to be pre-eminent during the tribulation, they must be left behind at the rapture. I do not see why I should discard the dispensational view at this time.

Watch Israel.

38 posted on 05/30/2011 9:14:34 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
The early dispensationalist recognized that the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 represented periods of time between Christ's ascension and his return.

That’s a bogus interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3. There is nothing in the Bible to support the theory. It’s an example of dispensational allegorizing.

Watch Israel.

What exactly are we watching for? All I suspect is we’ll see her conversion en mass to faith in Jesus Christ prior to His coming.

39 posted on 05/31/2011 12:06:30 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
That’s a bogus interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3. There is nothing in the Bible to support the theory. It’s an example of dispensational allegorizing.

There is nothing in the Bible that gives the meaning of the number “7,” but you can determine the meaning. It’s an allegory. The fact that there are 7 churches adds significance.

What exactly are we watching for? All I suspect is we’ll see her conversion en mass to faith in Jesus Christ prior to His coming.

I, too, am looking for Israel’s conversion but not yet. Her blindness will last until the end of the times of the gentiles. Note here that blindness is another allegory. Consider Joseph from the book of Genesis. Joseph is a type of Christ. I know it does not say so in the Bible, but by observation, we can see the events in Genesis predict things that happen to Christ. Some are history some are still prophecy. All are significant.

Now I speculate. I believe we are in the years of plenty right now. There is an abundance of spiritual food

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
It’s possible the rapture could be part of what brings on a famine. What do you suppose the Jews are going to find when they go looking for food?
40 posted on 05/31/2011 10:11:20 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
There is nothing in the Bible that gives the meaning of the number “7,” but you can determine the meaning. It’s an allegory. The fact that there are 7 churches adds significance.

There were seven real churches in Asia Minor. This fact alone in no way supports the notion that the churches somehow represent distinct and identifiable dispensations within the so-called church age. That is pure dispensational allegorizing.

What do you suppose the Jews are going to find when they go looking for food?

Nothing, since the church will be gone according to the dispensational theory.

According to the Bible and contra dispensationalism, the Church will be preserved until Christ returns at the Second Coming. It will hold forth the truth of the gospel to all nations until the end.

41 posted on 06/01/2011 7:30:57 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
That is pure dispensational allegorizing.

What criteria do you use to determine if a passage of scripture is an allegory? The Lord is my Shepherd. I see two allegories here. Shepherd and sheep. If we see the meaning of the allegory in this passage, is it the same elsewhere?

42 posted on 06/02/2011 2:37:01 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
What criteria do you use to determine if a passage of scripture is an allegory? The Lord is my Shepherd. I see two allegories here. Shepherd and sheep. If we see the meaning of the allegory in this passage, is it the same elsewhere?

It should spell out the allegory clearly, e.g., Galatians 4 where Paul used the images of the bondswoman/Mt Sinai and the freewoman as allegories of the two covenants; one depicting earthly Jerusalem and other the heavenly Jerusalem. Earthly Jerusalem is in bondage, while “the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

Revelation 2 and 3 have no characteristics of a biblical allegory. The notion that they depict dispensations/ages within a dispensation is pure invention.

43 posted on 06/03/2011 5:23:59 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
It should spell out the allegory clearly, e.g., Galatians 4

It looks like this is the only allegory in the whole Bible. The word appears but once in the KJV.

If you suspected that the number 7 had some specific meaning, how would you find it? It would require that the use of the number is consistent throughout scripture. It would also help if its use in nature is consistent with scripture. Has God done this? There may not be a lot of allegories in scriptures, but it is replete with metaphors, figures, types and shadows. The prophetic character of history in scripture also helps interpret.

Does the allegory in Galatians 4 apply to Abraham's descendants or does it end after one generation?

44 posted on 06/05/2011 10:01:07 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson