Posted on 05/21/2007 1:31:42 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Have you ever read George Eldon Ladd's little book "The Last Things?" I think it is OOP, but from what you are saying, I think you might find it very interesting.
Actually, just checked and it is in print. Again, I think you might find it MOST interesting, given your expressed views http://www.amazon.com/Last-Things-George-Eldon-Ladd/dp/0802817270
But we ARE the new Jerusalem, the one from above, (compare to John 3:3 -- anothen can be translated "from above" as well as "again") the Jerusalem that is free, loyal to Jesus, the one where the King reigns now. Having the King in residence now is indeed the good news. Rejoicing in our Lord's present presence and power and program does not in any way eliminate the joyous hope of the final resurrection. We joy, though, in having something valuable and rewarding to do now. We rejoice in the expectation of seeing the victory purchased at Calvary, and launched at the empty tomb, manifesting itself in our lives and in our day.
This is so true, and so gracious! How kind our God is to enlist us in His service, "warts and all."
Absolutely. And everything that can be taken literally should be taken literally. Clearly Herod being a four-legged animal can't be taken literally.
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.
99% is pretty high. But let's understand something regarding John 18:36. The Lord's Prayer reads: "Thy Kingdom come ... on earth as it is in heaven".
He taught his disciples to pray for His Father to send the Kingdom of Heaven to the earth. Jesus's Kingdom is not of this world. It is in Heaven at the moment. But it will be established on this earth when He returns. His Father will send the King along with the Kingdom when the time is right.
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.
Absolutely ---
....Absolutely. And everything that can be taken literally should be taken literally.
These are two radically different statements. The second one is profoundly unbiblical. Remember Acts 15?
"8Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD. 9For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. 10All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us."
Has this above all been fulfilled yet? or is it being fulfilled now and more in the future. As a matter of fact, while the house of Israel is being sifted through the nations, God is visiting those nations to take out of them a people for his name, just as James said. And "after this" includes both the sifting of Israel through the nations as well as the taking out of those Gentile nations a people for his name. They have been going on simultaneously for centuries.
Furthermore James may be quoting just Amos here, but he is acknowledging that he did his homework and read all the prophets from Isaiah to Jeremiah to Ezekiel to Zechariah to Malachi ..., and they all prophesied that what Peter said was happening to the Gentiles would happen and would continue to happen until it was finally finished, then He would return.
Not just Amos but all the prophets were in agreement with what James and Peter said, prophets like Isaiah:
"For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land, and the sojourners shall be joined with them and they shall cling to the house of Jacob".
And Zechariah: "I will dwell in the midst of thee [O daughter of Zion]. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people ... and the Lord shall inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and choose Jerusalem again".
And Amos: " 11In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12That they may possess the remnant of Edom [should be men not Edom], and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. 13Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God."
What about Acts 15???
Unless something has changed since the last time I posted on this to you, they still occur after.
Has this above all been fulfilled yet?
Jeremiah and Ezekiel certainly thought so. So did James.
However, I have learned from talking with people sometimes that we should expect a retort of "well, kinda... but the REAL fulfillment is ...." and we are off to a land of charts. The problem is that THE TEXT SAYS that this (the Acts 15 events of the Gentiles coming to faith) is the fulfillment of the passage in Amos 9:11ff.
The rest of your post deals with other pericopes of scripture, which I would happily discuss with you at another time.
Back to the original point. You pointed that Acts 15 was a lynchpin in support of the dispensations. My contention is that it is NOT, but is rather a refutation of the very guts of the dispensational hermeneutic, as we have a clear and unambiguous statement by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of James that there is a SPIRITUAL fulfillment of a literal promise. This is, again, the clear and common sense reading of the passage, and that is why before the rise of Darbyism that ALL the earlier church fathers (reformed, and non-reformed, as I mentioned John Wesley earlier, but left out the Catholic fathers, as I didn't figure you would put much stock in their writings) viewed it as a simple figurative (or "allegorical" if you prefer) fulfillment of the prophecy. So do I. So did the whole church before some Irvingite charismatic milkmaid helped the whole church to see that their hermeneutic in interpreting OT prophecy had been wrong for 1800 years.
It is a demonstration that the principle of "literal whenever possible" is unbiblical...., unless you can show me the "literal" tabernacle of David being raised up during the period in Acts like James said it was....., that is, unless you are still claiming that the first phrase of Amos 9:11 was referring to a speech James made in about AD 50, and then the rest of the verse jumps forward past the events in Acts 15 to the millenium. You are not still claiming that, are you?
James says “After this I will return ...”. When did Jesus return????
Amos's prophecy is in the first person singular of YHWH.
Therefore it is improper to insist that the "return" be the "return" of the second person of the Godhead, especially since the first coming had not even been mentioned yet in the verse. As you know, "return" can mean a variety of things in the scriptures. The most obvious is "return to me, and I will return to you." That clearly makes the most sense here, as the obvious meaning in Amos is that God judges, and then returns with his presence and restores. A mark of this restoration is the raising up of the tabernacle of David and the ruling of Israel over the Gentiles. As we have covered about 800 times so far, the plain common sense meaning of the scripture is that James considered this prophecy to be fulfilled in the coming of the Gentiles to faith.
I have no idea how you came up with some second coming of Christ to the earth from this passage. You are REALLLLLLYYY reaching, here. I am still waiting for an explanation of why the church missed this for 1800 years.
James said no such thing. He said that it would be rebuilt after Jesus returns --- and Jesus had not returned by 50 AD and has still not returned as of today. The tabernacle of David will not be rebuilt until He returns.
Note that the words: "After this I will return" are James' words not Amos's. He then begins to quote Amos after that phrase, meaning that after Jesus returns, He will build again the tabernacle of David.
So has Jesus returned yet????
so when is James returning?
and remind me again just HOW this miasma of eschatological details has the slightest bit of relevance to whether or not the 1st century Gentile converts have to become Jewish in form and substance to be Christian?
You wrote: He said that it (the tabernacle of David, my insertion) would be rebuilt after Jesus returns --- and Jesus had not returned by 50 AD and has still not returned as of today. The tabernacle of David will not be rebuilt until He returns.
Note that the words: "After this I will return" are James' words not Amos's. He then begins to quote Amos after that phrase, meaning that after Jesus returns, He will build again the tabernacle of David.
I think I at least have a partial reason why the church missed this explanation for 1800 years. I can't follow the reasoning and it is right here in front of me. Imagine the poor souls who didn't have the advantage of someone laying it out for them. I see that this shifts from James, (ostensibly qoting Jesus?) uttering only 6 words, and then shifting to the quote from Amos, telling the church council that the Gentiles could skip circumcision because Jesus is going to return sometime and restore the tabernacle of David and rule over the Gentiles....., in the millenium...... sometime in the future......., when Jesus returns a second time. Yeah. I think I would have missed that one too. Thank God for CI Scofield.
At His coming and confirmed by His resurrection.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." -- Matthew 28:18-20"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Here's a nice, succinct blog entry that answers your questions via the words of Scripture...
Rome. The Great Whore (Jerusalem) rode the beast, using the Imperial power of Rome to persecute the church, as we see several times in Acts. But Rome (the sea beast) eventually destroys Jerusalem (the great whore/land beast). I'll go more into detail here in a later blog. ••Has Rev. 20:2-3 (the chaining of Satan) already come to pass? Yes. Luke 10:18-19. Christ has bound the strong man and is currently plundering his house (Luke 11:20-23) ••What does this mean with regard to occultism and demon-possession (which apparently still happens in missionary areas)? Christ's plundering of Satan's former possessions continue. ••There are many Christians (even today) who have been protected by angels. Are demons hindering us in the same way? Satan always hinders us and looks for weaknesses in our armor. However, he has been defeated by Christ, and the work of the church today is merely a mop up job. If only the church could understand that.••Who is the beast of Rev. 19:19-20?
Meant to ping you to 295, too.
Says who??? One of your misguided professors. That is a lot of hogwash. Anyway the words: "after this I will return and" are James' words, not Amos's.
especially since the first coming had not even been mentioned yet in the verse.
And why does it need to be mentioned at all??? More hogwash. Is that what you learned in Bible College --- call them up and ask for your money back. It doesn't have to be in the verse. It is understood by the meaning of the word "return". You can't "return" to a place unless you have already been there before.
I have no idea how you came up with some second coming of Christ to the earth from this passage. You are REALLLLLLYYY reaching, here. I am still waiting for an explanation of why the church missed this for 1800 years.
The church that had and read and believed their Bibles did not miss it. They've known it all along. But those who think that the sun rises and sets on the mantles of those who teach the Bible but really don't believe it can be easily misled into misunderstanding the plain and simple and straight-forward meaning of words and passages therein.
and remind me again just HOW this miasma of eschatological details has the slightest bit of relevance to whether or not the 1st century Gentile converts have to become Jewish in form and substance to be Christian?
Because as we see in Acts 15:17 as well as Amos there are two groups of people mentioned: "the residue of men" and "the Gentiles who are called by his name". If they had already become ONE, then why are they still TWO.
II.) The Muratorian Canon states "…for the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the order of his predecessor John, he wrote to only seven churches by name, in the following order…”. Paul was killed in 68 AD by Nero. Since Paul copied John's example of writing to 7 churches, then John wrote Revelation prior to 68 AD.
III.) In his work Against Jovinianum (1:26), Jerome states, “But if thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What an happy Church is that, on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.”
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.