Posted on 05/21/2007 1:31:42 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Everyone I know seems to be reading the Bible these days in search of answers. That is usually a good thing but not always. In fact, too many of the Biblical discussions I get into with friends and family members relate to the “End Times” and whether they are upon us. That is a shame because reading the Bible can enrich one’s daily life provided one is not obsessed with using it as a device to decipher the future.
Because of one relatively simple error in dating one book of the New Testament, author Tim LaHaye has misled tens of millions of people into thinking that a great time of tribulation is near. He has Christians everywhere looking for signs of an emerging anti-Christ and, ultimately, in a cowardly fashion, looking forward to a time when Christ will rapture his church away from earthly troubles.
If Christians would simply study the New Testament themselves – instead of relying upon 21st Century “prophets” writing fictional books for 21st Century profits – they would arrive at a few very simple conclusions:
1. The Revelation to John was written around 65 AD, not 95 AD.
2. The anti-Christ was Nero, not some world figure yet to emerge in the 21st Century.
3. The tribulation occurred in the First Century around the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
4. The “rapture” never happened and it never will.
5. The words of Jesus in Matthew 24 plainly reveal that most of the discourse in The Revelation to John is based on events in the First Century.
Once an individual realizes he is stuck here on earth and will not be raptured away from all of his troubles, he can begin to read the Bible the way it was intended to be read. I have a word of advice for those who have never really thought about reading the Bible as an end in itself rather than as a means to some goal such as predicting the future. My advice is actually borrowed from a friend who received a moving card from his wife just a few months ago.
After receiving the cherished card from his wife, my friend would sneak into their bedroom late at night (she always fell asleep while he was finishing his last TV show). After giving her a kiss while she was sleeping, he would take the card off his dresser and go into the spare room to read it by the light of a small lamp.
There were certain lines he would read three and four times over: “It is a privilege to know you, to share myself with you,” “I never knew such a person could exist until I met you,” and “You lift my spirits to places where my troubles seem so much farther away.”
Be the first to read Townhall.com. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
It was wonderful to hear that a dear friend had found his “soul mate” and all of the joy that comes from lifelong companionship. But, at the same time, I could not listen to his story without thinking of all the other friends I know who have suffered through a painful divorce or, in some cases, never even met someone with whom they share a special bond of love. And some are growing older and lonelier by the day.
But, recently, I received a new insight into what seems to be an unfair distribution of soul mates among God’s children. It came as I was listening to a pastor named “Mike” whose last name I do not even know. His message was broadcast from Port City Church in Wilmington to a theater rented out to handle the overflow of his growing congregation.
He urged each member of his church to read the First Letter of John during the coming week. He also urged them to read it as if it were written just for them by someone who is madly in love with them.
I was so intrigued by this take on the proper approach to reading the New Testament epistle that I immediately bought a copy of the English Standard Version – a version I’ve been meaning to read for quite some time. Later that night I opened it and started reading by the light of a small lamp:
“…Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling… I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake … Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure… We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him…”
After reading those lines, it occurred to me that I had only been skimming through this great epistle on my last several runs through the New Testament. My zeal to get to The Revelation to John has been such that I have hardly noticed those great words in the years following the attacks of 911.
We all need to learn to read the Word as if it were written for us personally by someone who could not love us more. When we cannot get enough of it in the here and now, the future seems so much less important. And a little uncertainty is hardly the end of the world.
Actaully, No. Again. 14 is the fact of the Gentiles coming then James says, this is in accord with the following 1) restoration, 2)gentiles.
v 14 is James' description of Peter's description and not a part of the passage he was quoting, which (again) states that the order of things is FIRST the restoration of david and THEN inclusion of Gentiles.
. Well, not really. BUT even IF you take that position, then you are forced to recognize that the kingly reign of Christ is the fulfillment of the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David, and thus we have a fulfilled prophecy on our hands here, with blows the whole dispensational hermeneutic out of the water.
“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.”
My view requires ONLY that you read the passage and see
what James actually said and was recorded.
He said (and every translation agrees) that the Gentiles
coming to faith in Christ “AGREES” with the prophecy of Amos.
Doesn’t say it fulfills it. I even double checked in Greek.
I am not putting a single word into Jame’s mouth. I am
reading what he said. If you are going to make him say
more that he said, well, than that isn’t something we can
really have meaningful discussion about.
Have you ever paused to consider that perhaps you are so
emotionally worked up about this concept that you have
no room to see what is there? It is very human to do so.
best,
ampu
I don't buy the exposition of Acts 15. To be honest, he is protecting his hermeneutic here, rather than letting the text speak for itself. I don't mean that hatefully. All of us do that, or something like it.
It is just that the fact that someone who did an expositional commentary on this holds no weight for me if I can't look at it and say "yep, it looks like he expositorily commented on this one correctly." Again, I think he is protecting the fort, here, rather than dealing with the text itself.
Let me wipe the froth off my mouth and get back to you on that one.
Actually you are right. It is very human to do so. It is also common to fall so in love with a position that we refuse to admit that our position is very weak even as we argue it. I know, having done both. Actually, though, I am having fun, and not very emotionally into this. I am avoiding work right now. (I am the boss so I am only cheating myself!)
Careful there pard. You will wipe out about 80 percent of the fulfilled prophecies in the NT if you take that tack. I am just a simple man, but that looks like an awfully tight corner you are in, there. Again, I could be wrong, but it looks real squishy in there.
Your friend (really!)
DoP
“Actually, though, I am having fun, and not very emotionally into this. I am avoiding work right now. (I am the boss so I am only cheating myself!)”
been there, done that!
ampu
“but it looks real squishy in there.”
Jame’s use of the passage to show that God’s plan
all along was to include Gentiles seems, to me,
the easiest explanation. His actual words would back up that
usage. And like EF Hutton, when he spoke, everyone
listened!
If actual words and context don’t carry a huge
amount of interpretive weight, I’m not sure where
we would go next...
best,
ampu
PS - gotta run for now, dinner time and cleaning the pool...
(suffer, how I suffer...)
Nope --- "After this I will return" --- After what???? --- After visiting the Gentiles [nations] to take out of them a people for his name. Was God finished visiting the nations and taking out of them a people for his name when James said this in 49 AD???? Nope. It was ongoing. It started at the House of Cornelius and it is still going on today. We haven't reached the "after this" part yet.
Is Jesus sitting on the throne of David right now??? Don't kid yourself or anyone else.
The scripture clearly says that He is sitting on the right side of His Father's throne until His Father makes his enemies his footstool.
And the prophets clearly tell us that Jerusalem will be called the throne of the Lord and when Jesus returns to His holy city, the kingdom will come with Him.
No worries mate! (Sorry for the delay in responding.)
I am a premill dispensationalist - but I disagree with certain details of the dispensationalist theory.
:)
Tom, that’s just plain empty-headed.
Great men of God search the scriptures seeking to understand God’s prophetic plan.
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories...”
“* Lovers and winners shape the future.
* Losers and whiners try to predict it.”
Your calling Daniel a LOSER.
Daniel 9:2
In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Tom, you need to lay aside you theology. It is keeping you from appreciating the breadth and depth of the Word of God.
Dr. E,
If Nero was the antichrist, then when exactly did Jesus destroy him with the breath of his mouth and the brightness of his parousia???
“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.” - 2 Thes
As my dad pulled a mobile home out of its berth, the hired man was appointed to watch. He watched as a power line slowly went across the roof, snagged the chimney, and pulled it off. Afterwards he told dad, "Hey, I figured that was going to happen!"
The problem with dispisensationalism is that it breeds a generation of passive spectators, convinced that they can't do a damn thing about that which is ordained to happen. I mean, if God Himself has ordained the failure of the gospel within history, who am I to resist God by proclaiming the power and hope of the gospel?
TOM!
The Jesus who questioned if he would find faith when he returned is the same Jesus who told us we would definitely take his gospel to all the ends of the earth.
Paul told us what to expect in Thessalonians - intense trouble followed by His glorious return.
I have found that it is Calvinism that causes men to sit on their hands and wait out the inevitable - especially when the theology is in the hands of someone who really just want’s to be lazy anyway. Get the point?
“The problem with dispisensationalism is that it breeds a generation of passive spectators, convinced that they can’t do a damn thing about that which is ordained to happen”
Tom, your Dad sounds like we was a person with a lot of skills. But I’d be willing to be he’s not the one who taught you to PAINT WITH SUCH A BROAD BRUSH!
It is my personal experience that dispensationalism injects Christians with a sense of Godly urgency - urgency to reach the lost of this world for the hour is late.
“I mean, if God Himself has ordained the failure of the gospel within history, who am I to resist God by proclaiming the power and hope of the gospel?”
More silliness! You are very silly today. What gives??? Surely you don’t really believe your own strawman arguments!
But, Tom, the return of Jesus to this earth to reign from his throne in Jerusalem is part of the everlasting Gospel. To deny such is to deny an integral part of the Gospel itself. So who is really failing here?
Plain passages should be used to explain more obscure passages.
In John 18:36 we read "my kingdom is not of this world". That simple statement alone should indicate that 99% of the speculation on the book of Revelation is on the wrong trail.
God expects us to use common sense. Jesus called Herod a fox. Does that mean that Herod is a literal hairy four legged little animal?
Is calling Herod a fox literally true or literally false?
Is calling Herod a fox figuratively true or figuratively false?
Is calling Herod a fox true or false?
Figurative truth is just as valid as literal truth.
If we always keep in mind the clear context of the Bible it helps greatly in knowing what the figurative language is about and not about.
Never ask a question that you haven't looked to see if there are other answers which in fact make more sense than the one you are extending. A couple of observations here:
1) James is quoting Amos, Amos is NOT quoting James. For your scenario to be true AMOS would have to be quoting, cognizant of, or responding to the statement by James in v 14. This is, simply, nonsense. AFTER THESE THINGS refers NOT to the "things" James quoted in v 14, but to the "things" AMOS (remember, that is who James was quoting) had referred to earlier, which was the judgment and dispersion of Israel. If you read Amos 9 (remember, James is quoting Amos, Amos is NOT quoting James re: the statement of Peter about the Gentiles coming to faith), you will find that there is the typical apocalyptic scenario. Israel will be judged (see verses 9-10), but "in that day, or after these things" God will preserve a remnant who will, under His mighty hand, find themselves under the kingship of David and rule over the nations in a golden age of grace and God's favor. In Amos 9, this takes the form of the restoration of the "fallen tabernacle of David" so that "Edom" is subjected to the rule of the covenant people. Amos further explains this by expanding the definition of "edom" to show that it represents all the heathen (Gentiles). That is the clean and clear flow of thought in Amos. James uses the LXX to frame his quote, which might be rendered "after this" (Hebrew is "in that day"). Any time reference from Amos HAS TO refer to AMOS, and not to the words of Peter, as if Amos was commenting on that. That would be just silly. Again, READ AMOS on this, and not just some dispensational commentator, who has an axe to grind.
2) The second reason (not as important as the first, but worth something) this is not a valid construction of James's speech in Acts 15 is the fact that NO ONE PROPOSED THIS KIND OF CONVOLUTED REASONING BEFORE DISPENSATIONALISM CAME ON THE SCENE. I looked up Wesley (John), and he doesn't make this into some silly two stage reference to God saving the Gentiles now and then "promising millenial blessings." Ditto for Matthew Henry, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Toplady, John Gill, JA Alexander (whom Spurgeon termed the best commentary on Acts), JW McGarvey, and other "older commentators. THERE IS NOT ONE MAN WHO MENTIONS THIS KIND OF INTERPRETATION? ALL of the ancients saw this as a fulfilled prophecy and James treating it as a fulfilled (past tense) prophecy. One must ask the question, "why is that?" The answer is quite clear that no one would come up with such a twisted view where (again) one must make Amos refer back to PETER from the mouth of James in order to make the argument. That is, unless you had a vested interest in NOT going there, because you recognize that this will in fact establish what you cannot permit, the horrid "allegorizing" of prophecy. Yet here we have it. It is the clear meaning of the text (READ IT AGAIN before you argue with me about it, please), it is the UNIVERSAL VIEW of men who commented on it before the rise of dispensationalism, and (finally) some of your better modern commentators (FF BRUCE, John Lane and others) have demolished this artifical construct far better than I.
I have great respect for anyone who looks at the Bible, and I DO understand how one's emotional commitments make it difficult to "see the other side" of things. I have had personal commitments to men that absolutely prevented me from shifting my perspective. That happens to all of us. However, there is simply no other explanation for what is happening here. It is clear that James has given us an example in the very first church council, no less, of the fact that apocalyptic passages in the OT were in fact MEANT to look for their fulfillment in the new people of God, and that "literal" passages are in fact interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit to have a figurative fulfillment. This is by no means the only one. The whole New Testament is filled with examples of this claimiing the right to re-interpret the OT prophetic passages and find their fulfillment in the "Israel of God" or the "true circumcision" or the "remnant" or any number of other ways that God says over and over and over and over "ONE PEOPLE, ONE PROMISE, ONE RESPONSE, ONE FAITH, ONE DESTINY."
This is why I cannot be a dispensationalist. It is, in fact, arguing with the Holy Spirit as he says that the fallen tabernacle of David (there is no reference to "throne" here, btw) HAS been raised up, and the worldwide entrance of Gentiles into God's forever family IS the fulfillment of Amos 9:12. Resisting that means, as you have done, making Amos respond to James, which is clearly impossible. Think about it.
There is theory, and then there is practice. Thank God that the Holy Spirit does not abandon us to our logical conclusions. I am a Calvinist (5 point), and yet the "logical" follow to that is that we need not present the gospel because..., well, you have already heard the rest of that objection many times(and doubtless answered it!). There were great missionary movements launched by the Holy Spirit through men who understood God's sovereign grace, as you doubtless know.
It is also true that Hudson Taylor and a whole gaggle of other godly men passionately expended themselves (in a way to make most of us ashamed) to bring the gospel to the lost. They were clearly dispensationalists.
If God waited for theological purity for reclaiming this rebellious world, the disciples would never have made it out of Jerusalem.
End times fever, "holiness" navel gazing, hypercalvinist indifference to the lost, there are gazillions of ways the evil one will subvert all of us from the goal. Thank God for the Spirit of Christ, or none of us would do anything.
Grace to you,
DoP
Actually, it is neither Calvinism nor dispensationalism, nor "second blessing" charismatic teaching, nor paedobaptism nor believers baptism nor covenant theology, nor arminianism which "cause" any number of errors. This is not to say that there are not grevious errors of life which flow from errors of thought. The problem is, men's hearts are a sinkful of depravity and evil and we can figure out how to twist even the pure unadulterated truth of the Westminster Confession (smile) into an agency for evil. I know, because I have done it. Also, it is a great mercy of God that he - in the words of Spurgeon - "uses crooked sticks to draw straight lines." Otherwise, we all would have to shut up and sit down, and then where would Free Republic be?
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.