How to Read the New Testament

Townhall ^ | 5/21/2007 | Mike S. Adams

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Okay, here is a great exercise for us. Which of the words in your post above should I take literally and which of those should I take figuratively???

Maybe if he wrote you a second letter and TOLD you which ones were figurative, maybe that might be a clue?

[Uncle Chip]

Maybe if he wrote you a second letter and TOLD you which ones were figurative, maybe that might be a clue?

And then perhaps a third letter to identify the figuratives in the second.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Okay, that's fine, but then please invest some time in explaining the "unbiblical nature" of the dispensationalism of the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem here in Acts 15:

Thank you for picking one of the very best sections of the New Testament to destroy the heremeneutic of the dispensational crew. In Acts 15 we have the first "problem issue" on how to incorporate the Gentiles into what was, up until now, an almost exclusively Jewish church. It was unthinkable that these persons could be "saved" and not have to obey the distinctions of the covenant people that had been followed for years. In hammering this out, we had first Peter stand up and say in essence "God saved US by faith and we could not keep the law, so why do you want to saddle them with what we could not do, since we are both saved by faith alone." Then Paul and Barnabas stood up and told about all the miracles and changed lives God was doing by faith. Finally James stands up and quotes Amos and says THIS SCRIPTURE IS FULFILLED HERE. What is most interesting about this is that this scripture was NOT fulfilled ";iterally" There was no fallen tabernacle of David which had been restored and yet James specifically states that the Gentiles flocking to Christ are a direct fulfillment of this prophecy. I cannot think of a better example of "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing" an OT prophecy than James does right here.

This is a classic example of how dispensational hermeneutics is in opposition to the scriptures itself, and the insistence of "literal" interpretation of OT apocalyptic genre is in fact, contrary to the scripture itself.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

And then maybe you could argue with him and tell him he is not allowed to use figurative language? Or at least that we have to interpret it literally, even though he has told us it is figurative?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

DoP,

“Whatever they were, they were NOT advocates of a premillineal “rapture” and a reconstitution of the nation of Israel and the other loopy stuff you find in dispensational writings.”

When you make pejorative statements against other believers who have studied convictions, you come across as judgmental, critical, mean, etc. Is that really what you want?

ampu

[Uncle Chip]

Finally James stands up and quotes Amos and says THIS SCRIPTURE IS FULFILLED HERE. What is most interesting about this is that this scripture was NOT fulfilled ";iterally" There was no fallen tabernacle of David which had been restored and yet James specifically states that the Gentiles flocking to Christ are a direct fulfillment of this prophecy. I cannot think of a better example of "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing" an OT prophecy than James does right here.

So now you're accusing James of allegorizing the scriptures here??? He is doing no such thing. He is expounding upon Amos 9:11-12 as relates to the issue before the apostles, and his very exposition becomes scripture through the pen of Luke.

The "tabernacle of David" is not the temple, per se, but the city of Jerusalem, the city that David built, where the throne of David was and where Jesus will reign from. The prophets tell us that Jerusalem will be called "the throne of the Lord".

James is perfectly clear here, telling us that God will first visit the Gentile nations to take out of them a people for his name, after which He will return to rebuild and restore the city of David.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

When you make pejorative statements against other believers who have studied convictions, you come across as judgmental, critical, mean, etc.

You left out "bigoted, hateful, spiteful, self-righteous, malicious, proud, arrogant, haughty, insolent, rude, intolerant, full of myself, disgusting, abhorrent, foul tempered and truculent."

That would be a more fitting description! Actually, I am not trying to unnecessarily beat up on anyone. I don't take myself real seriously, and I will be quick to beg your pardon if you tell me "I really don't like that." You may call me if you think I am inappropriate at any time, and I appreciate it when you do.

Let me give you an example of a group that had sincere, dedicated beliefs at one time. They were the Hesychasts. They were mystic monks who lived on Mt Athos in the 14th century. They believed that you achieved a state of spiritual oneness with Christ by gazing intently at your navel and repeating "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." until the Holy Spirit came and posessed your faculties (I am not making this up!). These brethren were most sincere, and humble. I think they were loopy, even if they were sincere and passionate and humble.

I think some of the dispensationalist stuff is just plain weird, even if it is held by the most studied of brethren. I can disagree with folks on a broad number of topics from baptismal mode to church gov't to chiliasm to any number of topics and we can remain friends. One of my closest friends in TX was a Bible church pastor and graduate of Dallas Seminary, with whom I went round and round over this.

I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings here. Nor do I expect to change anyone's mind in an internet forum. The best I can hope to do is have someone say "hmmmm, maybe there is more to this than I thought there was."

Feel free to comment on style and substance. I have a very thick skin, and there is no accusation one can make of me that the truth is not worse.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

dop,
I do not care personally what anyone else believes - I just
have to have a studied conviction internally as to what is
true. I posted on another thread that being a lightening rod
isn’t bad, if you’re well grounded!

Having said that, I believe you should reread some of your
posts and ask yourself whether Christ would want you to
express yourself toward other believers in the way you did.
I think we all need that at times.

As to flat out heresy, well, Paul called the heretics and
legalists “Dogs”. :-)

Frankly, apart from Romans, which I understand far
differently than you as to the restoration of Israel,
and I find that idea repeated from the OT onwards...

... most importantly, in Jeremiah 23:7,8

“7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that
they shall no more say, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up
the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; 8 but, As
Jehovah liveth, who brought up and who led the seed of the
house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the
countries whither I had driven them. And they shall dwell
in their own land.”

American Standard Version. 1995 (Je 23:7,8). Oak Harbor, WA
Logos Research Systems, Inc.

After the restoration of Israel, the Jews will no longer talk
about being delivered from Egypt. The restoration will be so
incredible that the nation of Israel in its restored land
will talk about the restoration.

Jews still celebrate the deliverance from Egypt. Some day,
that will be eclipsed by something more dramatic.

I will end this post here. If too much information is covered
in each post, it becomes difficult to follow.

best,
ampu

[HarleyD]

However, the testimony of the Church Fathers is that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written by John near the end of the reign of Domitian in AD 96.

At the end of the day, it really gets down to ONE Church father who said this, Irenaeus. All the rest of the Church fathers essentially say, "Irenaeus said it." In your article it also said that they referred to "unnamed sources". This sound like the precusor of newspapers.

I wouldn't want to try to date Revelation based upon the uninspired writings of essentially one person.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

So now you're accusing James of allegorizing the scriptures here???

Of course he is. That is, he is giving us the true meaning of the text (aka interpreting it for us) That is the plain, common sense reading of the scripture at hand. I can see you prefer the KJV so, to quote again:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

He is saying here, OK guys, Peter has told you about how God is doing good things with the Gentiles. taking out "a people for his name" (interesting choice of words. that was reserved for Israel in the OT)

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

And so, James says, THIS IS IN FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY (DING DING DING!!!!) which I am about to quote.

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

A couple of observations: 1) Literally, the Hebrew does not say "after this" but "in that day" referring to the day of the restoration of Israel (check it out, Amos 9), and its consequent dominion over Edom and all the heathen. 2) James clearly states that THIS PROPHECY IS BEING FULFILLED NOW, not that this prophecy will be fulfilled later. That would be silly (more on that below). This is clear because it is the whole issue of the GENTILES that is at stake, and James is saying "LOOK GUYS, DON'T YOU SEE? THIS IS THE DEAL GOD TALKED ABOUT ALL THRU THE SCRIPTURES. HE SAID THAT THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL WOULD BE EXPANDED AND RULE OVER THE GENTILES!! THIS IS IT! THEY ARE COMING TO THE TRUE FAITH, EVEN NOW!!. GOD SAID IN PICTORIAL LANGUAGE THAT THE RULING HOUSE OF DAVID WOULD BE RESTORED TO PRIMACY AND THE GENTILES WOULD BE RULED OVER BY THAT HOUSE! WE HAVE DAVID'S GREATER SON RULING AND HE IS BRINGING THE GENTILES IN SUBMISSION TO HIM!!!!"

The view you are putting forth really makes no sense at all in its context. It is like Peter says "IT IS BY FAITH FOR THEM AND US" and Paul and Barnabas stand up and say "YEAH!! AND GOD IS DEMONSTRATING HIS POWER AND GOODNESS BY CHANGING LIVES AND PERFORMING GREAT SIGNS!!" Then imagine James standing up and saying "YAY! AND YOU KNOW WHAT, GUYS, SOME DAY GOID IS GOING TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE/CITY OF JERUSALEM/DAVIDS' HOUSE (or whatever that "literal" thing was.... i think you called it the city of Jerusalem. hmmmmmmmm). I can see the whole assembly going quiet and saying "what in tarnation does that have to do with what we were talking about?" It just doesn't follow, it is out of context, and doesn't fit into the discussion at all.

The ONLY reason one would adopt such a reading would be an unbiblical predetermination not to allow 'allegorization" even if the Holy Spirit spoke it through the mouth of James. And He did.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

The "tabernacle of David" is not the temple, per se, but the city of Jerusalem, the city that David built, where the throne of David was and where Jesus will reign from.

Glad you cleared that up for me. Literally, I am.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

At the Jerusalem Council, the Apostle James quoted verses 11 and 12 to support his view that the Gentiles of his day did not need to submit to circumcision and the Mosaic Law to obtain salvation or to live as Christians (Acts 15:13–21). He knew that the judgments of Israel were not yet over (cf. Matt. 24:1–22; Luke 21:5–24; Acts 1:6–7). He also knew, from this passage and others (Isa. 42:6; 60:3; Mal. 1:11), that when God restored the house of David Gentiles would have a share in that rule as Gentiles. James concluded, therefore, that Gentiles did not need to become Jews to enter into these (millennial) blessings. He did not mean that the church fulfills the promises to Israel but that since Gentiles will experience millennial blessings as Gentiles they do not need to become Jews in the church.

Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Am 9:12). Galaxie Software.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

James is perfectly clear here, telling us that God will first visit the Gentile nations to take out of them a people for his name, after which He will return to rebuild and restore the city of David.

Actually, you have the temporal order of the scriptures exactly REVERSED here. IT says very specifically that the tabernacle of David would be restored AND THEN BECAUSE OF THAT the Gentiles would be brought into submission to that "fallen tabernacle" which has been restored.

Again, the scriptural order is:

1) Restoration first
2) Gentiles second

You have it backwards. No other way to say it.

It makes MUCH more sense to assume that the fallen tabernacle of David refers to the "house" or "lineage" of David, meaning his kingly line. Jesus is that great King of Israel, who is now reigning and has restored that line. A sign of this is His dominion over the Gentiles, which he is exercising now.

THAT makes much more sense when arguing to a bunch of Jews wanting the new Gentile converts to "submit" to the law of Moses and circumcision. James is saying, in effect, "the submission you are looking for is already happening, just as the scriptures have stated. Don't demand more" Again, this makes much more sense in its context, besides being 180 degrees out of phase with the order of things, if we take your view, to avoid "allegorization" (ignoring for the moment your allegorization of the tabernacle of David).

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Am 9:12)

Who?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

a bit further development of my previous post...

The actual words of Jame's speech in Acts 15

James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me: 14Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: 17That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles,

American Standard Version. 1995 (Ac 15:13). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

A bit more explanation...

15:15 James reminded his hearers that the Old Testament prophets supported the salvation of Gentiles apart from Judaism. Note that James did not say the salvation of Gentiles then was the fulfillment of these prophecies. He said the prophets’ predictions of future Gentile salvation harmonized with the present salvation of Gentiles apart from Judaism (cf. 2:16).614 James then quoted Amos 9:11–12 as a representative prophecy.615 Neither Amos nor any other prophet said Gentiles had to become Jews to enjoy the blessings of salvation (cf. Rom. 11:12).

Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Ac 15:15). Galaxie Software.

Please note that James does not say that the prophecy was fulfilled by the Gentile conversion. Just that the Gentile conversion was in harmony with what the prophet wrote in Amos.

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Google it my friend!

And focus on what is true... not just who said it.

:-)

[Uncle Chip]

Actually, you have the temporal order of the scriptures exactly REVERSED here. IT says very specifically that the tabernacle of David would be restored AND THEN BECAUSE OF THAT the Gentiles would be brought into submission to that "fallen tabernacle" which has been restored. Again, the scriptural order is: 1) Restoration first 2) Gentiles second You have it backwards. No other way to say it.

No --- you have it backwards. Verse 14 comes before verse 16. There is no other way to read it --- unless you stand on your head.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

BTW

I studied under Tom as one of my Bible teachers
and he is a man of immense character. As evidence of
this, he took his life work of Bible Exposition
and made it available for free on the internet.
You can get it free here... A wonderful resource.

http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm

[Uncle Chip]

It makes MUCH more sense to assume that the fallen tabernacle of David refers to the "house" or "lineage" of David, meaning his kingly line.

Why not both. They are inextricably intertwined.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

You are essentially telling me that a view that really does NOT make sense to me at all should be adopted because Mr. Constable says so. That is why I said "who?" I don't find that view supported by anyone I have read, including FF Bruce, Calvin, Luther, or William Hendricksen. Moreover, it just doesn't fit with the flow of the argument. The biblical order of things according to the passage is (again) the restoration of the tabernacle of David, leading to the ruling of that house over the Gentiles. Your view requires 1) that we take the view that this is not a "fulfillment" of the prophecy, but an event "in harmony" with it. I have to be honest, that seems a VERY artificial distinction. Again, the plain common sense use of the language seems to indicate that when "the scriptures said this would happen" and "this agrees with those scriptures" then we have a fulfilled prophecy. The ONLY reason one would insist that this is not so is to protect a hermeneutical rule which -as I am sure you realize- is the bulwark for your whole system of doctrine re: end times stuff.

Secondly, there is NO reason to insert some discussion of the "millenium" or the argument that "in the millenium the gentiles will be blessed and so they don't need to be circumcised" This is a highly contrived argument and at the very minimum would have reqired James to pull out his charts to explain it to the assembled brethren. It confuses me even after Mr. Constable has "explained" it to me. It is a very weird argument, and simply does not fit with the flow of the discussion in Acts 15 at all, but demands some sudden discussion of millenial state of blessing in an argument over whether Gentiles have to become Jews to be Christian. My response would be "what in the sam hill does the Gentile state in the millenium have to do with it?" Sorry, but that dog just won't hunt.

regards,

DoP