End Times Q&A (Part 1 of 3)
March 13th, 2007
The following questions are representative of the Q&A cards that were handed in during the Shepherds’ Conference. If you have other questions (not included in this list), please ask them in the comments section. We will do our best to respond to them in a timely fashion.
Also, one resource we did not note in yesterday’s list is J. Dwight Pentecost’s work, Things to Come. The entire manuscript is available online.
*****
Questions and Responses (in no particular order):
1. Please explain Jeremiah 3:8 and Amos 5:1–2 in light of your premillennial stance. Has God remarried Israel?
In Jeremiah 3:8 and Amos 5:1–2, the prophets speak of God’s rejection of Israel (and her impending judgment) because of her religious apostasy. But these passages do not suggest that God has permanently rejected His elect nation (cf. Isaiah 45:4).
In the same chapter of Jeremiah, it states that God will take Israel back in the future (vv. 16–18), restoring her to Himself. This is similar to Hosea’s restoration of Gomer which was a picture of God taking back His wicked, adulterous people. Or Ezekiel’s depiction of Israel as an idolatrous harlot (in Ezekiel 16), at the end of which God says:
Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. … And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 16:60, 62)
Amos 5:1–2 refers to the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrian army (and not to the permanent rejection of Israel as a nation). In Amos 9:11–15 the prophet predicts that in the future Israel will be restored in the land.
A related comment should be made about Joshua 21:43–45 (which some suggest was the final fulfillment of the land promise). It is anachronistic to argue that the later prophetic passages (where the land promise is reiterated as a future hope) were fulfilled centuries earlier during the time of Joshua. As Zaspel writes in his article:
It is often assumed that Joshua 21:45 declares a full and final realization of God’s covenanted promises to national Israel. But the verse does not say that at all. Joshua was merely claiming that God had come good on all He had said. That in no way rules out a further and fuller realization of the same promises; this is evidenced by the (later) announcements of the prophets that God was yet to give Israel her land, and that as a permanent possession (e.g., Amos 9:13-15). In other words, Joshua was not at all saying, “This is it! That’s all!” He was merely showing God’s faithfulness in doing as He said He would do. If that is so, then the verse does not end the discussion of Israel’s inheritance of the land.
For much more on the millennial perspective of the Old Testament, please see this article.
*****
2. Can you comment more on the importance of a consistent literal hermeneutic? Given that the NT authors don’t always seem to follow a literal view of the OT, amillennialists claim that their approach to the OT is demanded by the NT. Any thoughts?
At the heart of the debate over millennial views is the issue of hermeneutics. All sides in the debate agree that interpreting Old Testament prophecy literally leads naturally to premillennialism. Amillennialist Floyd E. Hamilton candidly acknowledges that truth: “Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures” (The Basis of Millennial Faith, 38). Postmillennialist Loraine Boettner agrees with Hamilton’s assessment: “It is generally agreed that if the prophecies are taken literally, they do foretell a restoration of the nation of Israel in the land of Palestine with the Jews having a prominent place in that kingdom and ruling over the other nations” (“A Postmillennial Response [to Dispensational Premillennialism],” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, 95).
As far as the New Testament’s use of the Old, Thomas Ice addresses that topic in detail in this article. Ice (based largely on the work of Fruchtenbaum) demonstrates that a consistently-applied literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic (and the premillennial conclusion that results) is not at odds with the NT use of the OT.
Robert Thomas, from The Master’s Seminary, also has an extensive journal article on the New Testament’s use of the Old.
*****
3. How should we interact with our amill brethren? Should we invite them to teach or preach in our local churches?
We would consider eschatology to be a secondary doctrine (in the spirit of Al Mohler’s theological triage). We believe its implications are considerable, since it effects how one interprets roughly one-fourth of the Bible. But we would not exempt godly men, who are committed to the essentials of the gospel, from being guests in our pulpit simply because we disagree with them on this issue.
*****
4. Can you elaborate on Hebrews 8 and how the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) applies to the church?
The New Covenant was made with Israel, with the Jews (Heb. 8:8, 10). The New Covenant is not made with the church. Rather, it is made with the same people the Old Covenant was made with: Israel. Gentiles can be beneficiaries of the New Covenant, just like they could be beneficiaries of the Old (cf. Gen. 12:3). But both covenants were made with Israel alone. Israel as a nation rejected God by rejecting His Son. But God has never rejected Israel, nor has He transferred His covenant with her to anyone else.
For the time being, the Gentiles share in the blessings of the New Covenant—as spiritual descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:7–8, 29). But this does not negate the unconditional nature of the New Covenant made with ethnic Israel. One day, after Gentiles have had sufficient time to respond to the gospel, all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26). She will be grafted back into the trunk of covenant salvation (cf. Rom. 11:17–24).
For more on this, we would direct you to the articles by Andy Woods, Larry Pettegrew, and Bruce Compton. You can also read John MacArthur’s exposition of Hebrews 8 at Grace to You’s website.
*****
To be continued tomorrow. Please note that we will address passages like Ezekiel 40-46; Acts 1:6-8; Romans 11:26; and Revelation 20:1-6 tomorrow and Thursday.
46 Responses to “End Times Q&A (Part 1 of 3)”
1.God hasn’t rejected Israel because that was never His plan. His plan was to preserve a remenant of the Jews and Gentiles. Christ brought the Gentiles who were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Eph 2
2. The problem with dispensationalism is that it translates the Bible literally when it wants to then spiritually when it wants to. Matthew 24 is a perfect example of dispensationalists translating part of it spiritually and part of literally.
3. That’s good news. R.C. Sproul should be able to teach a few people some good doctrine on the end times
4.Wow! I guess that’s good news for those Jews who never accepted Christ as Savior and are living in hell right now. “How long have you been here?” “Too long but I’m getting out someday because God never finished giving me all the promises He promised…how about you?” “Naw, I’m just a gentile who is totally depraved and wasn’t elected or a Jew.” “Bummer!”
But seriously, if we are in Christ and Gal.3:16 is true, then we are fulfilling those promises now and 2Cor. 1:19-20…we, through union with Him, share in these promises…all of us Jew and Gentile alike.
Where does Paul use the word “spiritual” with “descendants” in the passage cited in Galatians? That seems to be spiritualizing the text. Like Sarah said, Dispensationalists take what fits their system literally and spiritualize what doesn’t. What about Romans 2:28-29? What about Revelation 1:6? Is the Church not a literal kingdom when Revelation 1:6 says it is? Is the church not composed of true Jews since it is made up of those who are Jews inwardly (Rom 2:28-29)? Was not John the Apostle partaking in the kingdom (and tribulation and perseverance) literally when he wrote Revelation (Rev 1:9)? The answer to all of these three questions is YES! The church is the kingdom, it is composed of true Israelites (Rom 2:28-29; Gal 6:16, which cannot mean believing, ethnic Jews since that interpretation would destroy the entire argument of Galatians), and the Apostles themselves were partakers in it nearly 2,000 years ago.
One more comment. In the OT the promises are always designated as everlasting, eternal, &c. How does 1,000 years fit into a literal reading of words like “everlasting?” Nowhere do the OT prophets say the kingdom will be a kingdom limited to 1,000 years. A literal reading of the OT leads one to believe the promised kingdom would never end. That sounds more like the eternal state (where Amils place it) than a 1,000 year kingdom on a sinful earth.
None of that is written necessarily to change anyone’s mind (although that would be a welcome side-benefit), but only to say, “Let’s stop the hermeneutical mud-slinging, and really start to discuss the text.” Maybe the church should have a modern council to hammer out eschatological issues face to face, where I think the only real progress will be made on a broader scale.
While I find Rom 10-11 a very challenging passage for every eschatalogical view, I think Sara is on to something. Whatever is going on there has to conform with the more clear statements of God’s work in salvation.
Rather than make this a very broad question, I’d like to posit two simple syllogisms for consideration.
Argument #1
[a] All Israel will be saved.
[b] Judas Iscariot is in racial Israel.
[c] Judas Iscariot will be saved.
Argument #2
that the Pharisees are the sons of the devil, not Abraham, as demonstrated by what they do
[1] The sons of Abraham will inherit eternal life
[2] Christ says (John
[3] The Pharisees will not inherit eternal life
Here’s my question, then:
It is possible that both of these are true, but they seem to indicate that there are some Jews who are not saved — some who are in Israel but not of Israel. How does the premill position resolve these syllogisms? Does it accept both as truth, neither as true, or does it choose one but not the other?
Thanks for thinking about this with me.
Durn Smilies. That’s [ john 8 ], not John
Sarah, Cent,
Read the paper by Dr. Thomas.
No offense, but I don’t think you are getting it.
Sarah, don’t you think your demeanor a bit provocative? Theres no need to be sneering, if I have misinterpreted I apologize.
A quick response to Robb’s statements regarding OT prophecy.
Which OT prophecy explicitly state that Christ would have two distinct arrivals on earth? There may be clues, but the thought of a second return is not fully revealed until the NT. If we go only by OT, Jesus only comes once, without clarification from further revelation.
Why is this not also possible in regard to the understanding of the millennial reign? Is it possible to have the eternal reign and a millennial reign packaged into such prophecies just like the two arrivals of the Messiah? Could we see Is. 65:20-25 in the vein of just being eternal though death is still evident? That is not an easy pill to swallow.
I do though agree that it would be interesting to have such a council regarding end times. But, as was mentioned in the post, it is of secondary importance, especially with the rise of so much heterodox teaching.
[...] End Times Q&A (Part 1 of 3) [...]
[...] John MacArthur’s Pulpit Magazine is answering questions in a three-part series. Many other bloggers are sharing their input as well. Check out our post for the latest. [...]
Is it possible to be more amillenial in the majority of one’s theology (i.e. reformed) while viewing the actual millenium mentioned in Revelation 20 in a historic premellenial fashion which was held by almost all the early church fathers up until Augustine?
LeeC,
Dr. Thomas’ thesis appears to revolve around this statement: “The ISPA meaning of the OT passage did not exist for man until the time of the NT citation, being occasioned by Israel’s rejection of her Messiah at His first advent.”
That statement is impossible to support exegetically. Jesus and the Apostles all said that what happened to Jesus and the events following His death and resurrection were foretold in the prophets. They explained the proper meaning and intention of the OT, and they rebuked people for not having seen it in the text. With all due respect to Dr. Thomas, that statement is a huge presupposition that is unsupportable.
A second reason to reject it is that the rejection of the Messiah by Israel was foretold in the OT. The OT reader could have seen that, factored it into reading the OT, and came to the same conclusions the Apostles did in their “ISPA” use of the OT.
What is plain is that Jews who read the OT do not understand it unless they see Christ as the center of it (not Israel the ethnic nation as the center of it). 2 Corinthians 3 is plain that the OT can only be properly interpreted and understood using Christ-centered interpretation as revealed in the NT.
PuritanD,
I think you bring out an excellent point. Much of what was said about Christ’s coming was mysterious and difficult to understand until it actually happened. So it is with His second coming.
I’m afraid that this series and the message that prompted it brings out the worst in Christians. We have to admit that these are very difficult issues that are NOT as clear as we would like them to be.
I think Hoekema’s words are helpful in this regard: “If believers like John the Baptist could have problems of this sort with predictions about Christ’s first coming, what guarantee do we have that believers will not have similar difficulties with predictions about Christ’s second coming? We are confident that all predictions about Christ’s return and the end of the world will be fulfilled, but we do not know exactly how they will be fulfilled” (The Bible and the Future, 133).
I would also plead with Dr. MacArthur and others who hold his view and present it in a similar tone and fashion to re-read that Amillennialists believe that all the predictions will be fulfilled. It is slanderous to say that Amils cancel the promises or negate them or say they aren’t going to happen. We are to speak truth to one another, and it is not true to say that Amils teach God is not going to keep His promises.
Robb, Sarah, Frank…
Thanks for your comments. It is a joy for us to be able to go to God’s Word, like the Bereans, to see if what we believe measures up to the Scriptures.
Regarding “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, we will address that particular passage tomorrow. So I’ll wait to comment on that.
Regarding the “inconsistency” of the premill hermeneutic (as Sarah and Robb both suggest), please read the articles by Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Thomas Ice, defending the fact that the premillennial position can maintain a literal hermeneutic consistently (in both the OT and NT).
Regarding Galatians 3:7-8, 29 — to my knowledge every commentator (no matter his eschatology) believes this is a spiritual relationship to Abraham, as it is not a physical or ethnic one.
Regarding Gal. 6:16 — premillennialists believe that this refers to Jews who had been converted to Christ, and was not a reference to the church in general. (We would be happy to discuss this passage in greater depth if you would like.)
Regarding Rom. 2:28 – 29 — Premillennialists like Arnold Fruchtenbaum would argue that, since the context in 2:17-3:20 is specifically aimed at those who “bear the name ‘Jew’” (2:17), that Paul’s focus here is on ethnic Israel (not Gentiles). Gentiles then would be introduced for the sake of comparison not redefinition. Other commentators, like Cranfield, take a more mediating approach — noting that while Romans 2 may apply the term “Jew” to believing Gentiles, it is a stretch to draw replacement conclusions from this passage. Cranfield writes, “These verses [2:28 - 29] do not stand by themselves, and if they are interpreted in the light of 3.1 – 4 and also of 9.1 – 11.36, they can hardly bear this meaning [that the church is] the new Israel of God” (1:176).
Regarding Rom. 9:6 — Please see Michael Vlach’s helpful article here.
Regarding Rev. 1:6, 9 — It is difficult to see how these verses present a serious difficulty for the premillennial position. More traditional dispensationalists (like Robert Thomas) see both references as future (perhaps a prophetic present). More-progressive dispensationlists (who see a principle of “already/not yet” in the NT epistles), interpret it as a reference to the kingdom of salvation (cf. Col. 1:13). J. Hampton Keathley says this regarding Rev. 1:9:
***
Though we may experience tribulation, we also share in a kingdom that enables us to become overcomers in affliction. This refers to Christ’s kingdom and rule. There are three aspects of this in which all believers in Christ share:
(1) There is the present mystery form, the kingdom of God within you which includes God’s sovereign provision, control, and deliverance: Compare Col. 1:12-13 with the mystery parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13 which describes the present mystery form between Christ’s first and second comings.
(2) The predicted millennial reign on earth in which all believers will take part with varying degrees of responsibility and rewards depending on their faithfulness to walk with the Lord (cf. Rom. 8:17; 1 Cor. 3:12f; Rev. 2:26; 3:12, 21; 20:4).
(3) The eternal form of the kingdom, the eternal state (Rev. 22:1-22:5).
***
Anyway, I hope that helps to bring some clarification to the discussion. Thanks again for your comments.
- NB
I used to ask the same question that Robb asked regarding the use of “everlasting” and “eternal”, specifically in conjunction with the land promises of the Old Testament (example Gen 17:8). After I studied more (and continue to study), the meaning of the Hebrew word should be contextually determined because it has a range of meaning. It might specify “eternal” or “everlasting,” BUT it could also denote “indefinite continuance into the very distant future” While it could refer to endlessness, the word does not contain in itself the meaning of endlessness as it may simply refer to a long age or period (see Theological Wordbook of the OT, “olam”). Context is important in each case.
In the context of the land promises of Gen 17:8, how should the “everlasting” possession be understood? The verse says, it is the land of Abraham’s sojournings. Gen 17:8 does not communicate an unending possession, but appears to be communicating possession of the land for an unspecified long period of time into the distant future. How do you communicate that smoothly in an English translation? In this case, the use of “everlasting” is not incompatible with premillennialism. Any thoughts?
Similarly, the land promises in the rest of the Old Testament are incredibly clear that they are speaking of the physical land in the area of Palestine. Among others, reference, Deut. 30:1-6; Jeremiah 30:3, Ezek 36:18-38; and Ezek 27:24-28. Each time the text qualifies the future land to be possessed as being “the land which your fathers possessed” (Deut 30:5) or “the land that I gave to their forefathers” (Jer 30:3, Ezek 36:28) or “the land . . . in which your forefathers lived” (Ezek 37:25). These texts do not appear to be compatible with the view that the land is the eternal state, given these qualifications. How do amillennialists interpret these statements in the text?
There is inconsistency with literal interpretation on the part of the dispensationalist. I’ll take an example I heard from Dr. Sproul. Matthew 24. John M. says the the signs (moon turning to blood the shaking of the heavens etc)literally happen, but then he turns around and says about “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place”Matt24:34 that this means, “This cannot refer to the generation living at that time of Christ” The MacArthur Study Bible. C.I Scofield wrote, “It is then permitted-while holding firmly the historical verity-reverently to spiritualize the historical Scriptures.”…he says this with the knowledge that they interpret Scripture literally “all the time” and he was a huge dispensationalist. John Walvoord says that OT prophecies of Israel must be taken literally to mean Israel then and of today but that the same OT prophecies speaking of other nations(say the Philistines?)refers only to the land that these nations once inhabited and that whoever is inhabiting the land now can fulfill these prophecies.
I could be wrong but I do believe that Paul was writing to Gentiles in the book of Galatians…that the book was for them and now for us. I don’t believe he wrote them saying, “This book is for the Jews and it’s a look at what they get and you don’t.” With that said I must quote from Galatians 4:21 “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through the promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Abrabi, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of US ALL. For it is written: ‘Rejoice, O barren, you who do not bear! Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband.’ Now WE, BRETHREN, AS ISSAC WAS, ARE CHILDREN OF PROMISE. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.’ So then, BRETHREN, WE ARE NOT CHILDREN OF THE BONDWOMAN BUT OF THE FREE.”
And lastly we are all co-heirs with Christ.
Lee, I accept you apology. Some humor is needed in “heavy” dialogue. And I ask your apology if I hurt you somehow.
Nate,
Thanks for your comments. I see what you’ve done the same way you probably see what I do in interpreting Scripture, namely, explaining away the obvious to maintain your system. I’m sure that neither one of us is intentionally trying to maintain an extra-biblical system, but to the other side of the debate, that’s often how it comes across.
While I could go through your points one at a time with counterpoints (which I’m sure you could then counter back), I’m not sure such debate would be profitable, especially in the comments section of a blog. I do appreciate the time you put into your post.
Your brother in Christ,
Robb
Robb,
Thanks for your comments. I remember you from our TMS days. It’s good to interact again.
I greatly appreciate your gracious spirit, and hope the tone of our whole discussion here on Pulpit mirrors that same attitude.
On a parenthetical note, for those interested in Galatians 6:16, I did want to add one resource. S. Lewis Johnson, among others, has done some excellent exegetical work on Galatians 6:16. Thomas Ice draws from it (and other sources) in this article.
Anyway, thanks again Robb. Our sincere hope is that the Lord will bless your ministry there in Kansas.
In Christ,
NB
Sarah,
Regarding Matthew 24:34, the premillennialist position holds that the “generation” being discussed in verse 34 is the same generation who sees “all these things” in verse 33 (which refers back to the cosmic signs of vv. 29-31). It is the literal generation (that literally sees the literal signs) that Christ is referring to as “this generation.” Since the cosmic signs have not yet been literally fulfilled, the generation being discussed is yet future. It is difficult to see how this approach to the text violates a consistent literal hermeneutic.
For more on the Olivet Discourse, please see Larry Pettegrew’s article.
Thanks for your comments. I hope this helps.
- NB
But that is not a true literal interpretation. A true literal interpretation would be for the apostles to think it was the generation in which thery were living. To say that Jesus means that “this generation will be no means pass away till all these things take place” means the generation that experiences them, is no great revelation. That’s like saying the people who live in 2140 will by no means pass away until the events in 2140 happen. Well, yeah! If they live in 2140, then they will see the events in 2140.
Sorry, I didn’t finish (episode in the household here
)Anyway, the reason the apostles would think that He was speaking of their generation if they interpreted literally would be because immediately before that He says, “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when YOU SEE all these things, know that it is near-at the doors!”.
One last one I promise! John 1:29 “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Literal interpretation: a real lamb that that John saw. Figurative interpretation: God instituted in the OT the sacrificing of lambs which was symbolic of what Christ would do for us, and therefore, the play on words to tie OT and NT together for us to see the whole picture. I’ll shut up now till the next post.
Sarah,
Your last comment brings up a good point, and one that is worth responding to. If dispensational premillennialists take everything literally, then they must think Jesus is a literal lamb, rock, door, vine, light, or fountain of water. Right?
Actually, this is a common misconception about what is meant by the term “literal hermeneutic.” Perhaps the term “normal” or “plain” is better than “literal.” Charles Ryrie defines a literal hermeneutic like this:
***
This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. …
If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense.
***
In John 8 — The readers of John’s gospel would have understood that the reference to a lamb was metaphorical (as John himself intended it). Thus, the normal interpretation of the passage recognizes the metaphorical use of “lamb” in that verse.
Hope that helps.
- NB
sarah,
It is a valid literal interpretation of “this generation”, let me show how:
If I am answering questions about what is going to happen in the end times, when is the temple going to be rebuilt, and so on, I start explaining about that time. I start talking about the events of that time and about the people during that time. I say, “this generation [logically understood to be the generation of people I have been talking about – the people alive during the events I am describing – will not pass away until all these events I’m describing occur.”
It is literal and it does work. Why Jesus said (or the Holy Spirit superintending the recording of the event had the author write) the word “this” – which I have to admit could go either way – I don’t know, but He did and I’m sure He had a good reason for it.
It could certainly be interpretted as “this generation Jesus is talking to” or as “this generation Jesus is talking about”. Literally and logically it can be interpretted either way. So to say it CAN’T be ‘the generation alive during the events Christ describes’ is patently untrue.
Since we’re clear it could be interpretted either way literally, it is not a passage either side can use on its own to conclude a point in their favor.
Perhaps Jesus was giving a dual prophecy that referenced the events of 70AD as well as the events of the end times. I don’t know, but regardless, whichever view we take has to stand on other passages as that phrase/verse is not clear proof of either viewpoint on its own since it can be intepretted either way.
Ok, how can I keep my mouth shut when people keep talking to me?
….I just can’t help myself I have my aunt’s genes! Jay, I agree with your whole thought process because I had that thought too. Without seeing Jesus talking to His disciples we can’t imagine His hand movements or His eyes were looking etc etc…all the things you watch when you are talking to someone. So I would agree except that He did state, “So you also, when YOU SEE all these things, know that it is near-at the doors!”. Was He looking beyond His disciples at the horizon and “talking” to the generation that would not pass away and saying, “You guys know that when the branch gets tender and the leaves come out it is almost summer, so in the same way, you will also know when you see all these things that the end is near-at the doors.” Or was He looking directly at them and answering the apostles’ plain question they asked of Him? See what I mean? Picky, I know, but that’s the nature of this.
Nate,
This is just my opinion, which isn’t much, but it isn’t fair to have such a large disclaimer hovering over the definition of “literal translation”. As if to say, “Because everyone knows what lambs were always used for, we don’t have to throw that one in with the figurative speech” It’s like having your cake and eating it too. Even if they can interpret literally every time(they can’t per above example I gave concerning the land), my biggest problem is that they do interpret literally where they shouldn’t. The sacrifices talked about in Ezekiel 40-46 shouldn’t be literally translated or you go against NT command specifically Hebrews 10:10-18.
Jay said: “Perhaps Jesus was giving a dual prophecy that referenced the events of 70AD as well as the events of the end times”
A dual-fulfillment scheme is untenable in light of Mt. 24:21:
“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
The point is that it has only happened once: in AD 70.
As to the meaning of “this generation,” every other time it is used in Matthew, it means the generation to which Jesus was speaking. Further, Jesus said “this” generation, not “that” generation, indicating the present (in Jesus’ day) generation.
This only makes sense considering the context of Mt. 23 (note v. 36), where Jesus declares impending judgment upon the apostate Jews and the first part of Mt. 24 where Jesus says the temple will be destroyed. So the disciples’ logical question is “when?”
I’ll go with Spurgeon on this one:
[On Matthew 24:34] “The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.” It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled.”
“So you also, when YOU SEE all these things, know that it is near-at the doors!”
You’re completely ignoring the word “also” in your exegesis of that verse. “Also” makes much more sense if He was talking about the future generation of the end times and then He wants to also give a warning to the listeners about the very near 70AD drama that would unfold in their lifetime.
So if He was only ever referring to those present when he says “this generation”, He wouldn’t have needed the word “also” to clarify that He was speaking to the present listeners. His use of the word “also” seems to make the case more strongly that He was previously referring to a different generation – the one alive during the end times when all those signs would come together – and not the listeners present at that time.
“Also” makes much more sense if He was talking about the future generation of the end times and then He wants to also give a warning to the listeners about the very near 70AD drama that would unfold in their lifetime.
Positing a futurisitic interpretation upon “also” is very shaky and forced. It’s a transition word/phrase; there’s really nothing to go on there, unless you engage in eisegesis. Plus, I’m rusty on my Greek, but the NASB says “you too,” the ESV says “so also, you,” and the KJV says “So likewise ye.”
I find it ironic that everyone who trumpets “literal” interpretation has to explain away what should be the plain meaning of “this generation.”
Robb, Nate B.
I offer a quote from Professor H. Lummis, Methodist, Monson, Mass.
“When anxious Herod heard that one had been born King of the Jews he evidently dreaded interference with his own claim on the crown of Palestine. But when he asked where the Messiah should be born, unhesitatingly the Scribes, conversant with the prophets, replied: ‘In Bethlehem, of Judea, for out of these shall come forth a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.’ This place was Bethlehem, the very birthplace of David, literal Bethlehem; the birth was not mystical, but literal; was Israel to be mystical Israel, and the rule mystical rule?”
And another:
“To ’see the Kingdom of God’ is spoken of as a privilege in the Gospel. But an important prerequisite to the privilege is named by Christ himself: ‘Except a man be born from above he cannot see the Kingdom of God.’ (John, chap 3.)”
In other words:
How many unregenerate men have seen the church? Quite a few have. In fact, not an insignificant number have been members of the church. To say that these unregenerate men were part of the Kingdom is to contradict the clear statement of scripture.
Professor Lummis’ paper “The Kingdom and The Church” was published in “Premillenial Essays of the Prophetic Conference of 1878″ edited by Nathaniel West. It treats the subject in far more detail than I can begin to relate here.
The book itself is an excellent work written primarily by men of a Reformed perspective. Unfortunately, it appears to be no longer in print. It is the best resource I have seen on premillenial theology.
Jay,
the “also” isn’t including a group of people but a cluster of knowledge here is the whole thing: “32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you ALSO, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!
Yeah I didn’t bother to look it up in context. Thanks for the correction.
Pardon me for jumping in, but I read PuritanD’s point about “packaging” two comings into one prophecy. I believe it is important, and telling. In order to explain why, a ground statement: Dispensationalism, for all the faults it may have, is to be commended for a whole-hearted commitment to the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture.
Now, PuritanD suggests that, on a “plain” reading of the Old Testament, you would expect the Messiah to come once only (I demur, and explain below). This was clarified by further revelation–further canonical revelation.
So what further canonical revelation will there be to confirm this view of millennial reigns and multiple comings of Christ? Whither then the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture? And whither then its “plain meaning”?
But the truth–PuritanD alludes to it–is that there were “clues”: shadows, subtle tensions and the like, all of which could only be resolved by two distinct comings. No-one before Christ saw this, and we are unsurprised, because that was the status of revelation–incomplete, unfulfilled. That simply isn’t the case here. And so the teaching of the New Testament is sufficiently clear and unambiguous: Jesus is coming back and when he does so, he will judge the world, and then reign over his people on a renewed earth–forever.
Sarah,
No one believes that Jesus was literally a door, rock etc. Literal interpretation is really summed up in this statement “When the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense.”
No one accuses those who interpret Revelation and other prophecies as symbolic as interpreting everything as symbolic. It seems a bit strange to accuse those with a literal ineterpretaion with being selective in what is literal, when those who think Rve. is symbolic do the same thing. (Just an observation and definately said with Christian love)
Hayden
Sarah,
It’s not myself I that am worried about being hurt.
The terminology I am used to by the way is the difference between “literal” and Literalistic” interpretation.
“”For The Eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth…”
2 Chronicles 16:9 NKJV
Is not referring to two big orbs roving over the land, Jesus is not a wooden door ect those would be literalistic. A metaphor has to be a metaphor of SOMETHING, and that something has to be available in the text.If it is simile then there should be something in the text that the object is like (His hair ws like white wool)
Or as in a recent study I am doing Brian Toews wrote this:
“Defense of Literalism
• This is the normal interpretation when we read any book, essay, poem, letter, etc.
• We presume the literal until the nature of the document or context may force us to another level. The non-literal is always a secondary meaning (level) which presumes an already existing literal understanding of literature. For example, the parable of the sower is comprehensible only with the context of literal language.
• Only in the priority of literal exegesis is there control on the exegetical abuse of Scripture. All strange and unbiblical meanings are forces in Scripture by some form of allegorical interpretation.
Misunderstanding of Literal Interpretation
• Literal interpretation does not overlook figures of speech, types, symbols, and valid allegories which are in Scripture.
• Inspiration and interpretation are two different issues.
• Literal interpretation does not imply an unawareness of how metaphor penetrates even the literal level of language.”
Presuming that the “literal” (a usually undefined term into which people import arbitrary meaning) is the primary level of meaning sounds kind of like materialism. It is assuming the primacy of the natural over the supernatural. But in God’s world, the opposite is true.
Further, it is to deny that there are several genres of literature. The fact is that you don’t read poetry the same way you read history or philosophy.
It is wrong to say that all unbiblical interpretations come from allegorical interpretation. Many, in fact, come from an overly literalistic method. Transubstantiation, the papacy and other doctrines come from a misreading of Scripture based upon literalism.
If that were the case there would be no refuting the gnostics.
We’re not talking about gnosticism here (ie. spiritual vs material)–that kind of hierarchy is pagan. It is unbiblical because God created matter and declared it good. Maybe we could say that the supernatural precedes and establishes the natural.
Materialism or naturalism says that reality is completely comprehended in and of itself. Thus miracles, God, etc. are intrusions into a natural closed system. My point is that literalism does something similar exegetically.
To elaborate upon my point, another example is Jesus’ disciples, who often misunderstood His parables because they took them too literally.
Besides, the whole point in discussion here the interpretation of prophecy. And the arbitrary rule of “always literal” is untenable.
Hey, guys I’m not for consistent literal interpretation. I know that God’s eyes are not “two big orbs roving” or that our hearts are doors…that’s exactly my point. Dispensationalist interpret literally when they want and then have their disclaimer when it doesn’t fit into literal interpretation…very convenient for them!
Maybe this will help, Sarah?
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-N-6.htm
Should have added this which shows verses using the word dispensation.
http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=dispensation
And maybe these concerning interpretation(which will involve literal versus figurative, parable, simile, metaphor, exaggeration, irony, metonymy, synecdoche, personification, etc. In other words, deep stuff!)?
http://www.preceptaustin.org/inductive_bible_study.htm
http://sites.silaspartners.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID34418%7CCHID784254%7CCIID,00.html
http://www.amazon.com/How-Study-Your-Bible-Inductive/dp/0736905448/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/102-0097580-7734566
Mrs. Burrows,
I’m not confused on their doctrine…more like showing them absurdity of it. BTW, John M. definition for dispensationalism is partly wrong because he is including other doctrinal thoughts into it which can’t be done and he certainly can’t take Scripture’s definition because it doen’t line up with his at all.
“You see, that is just a label that they throw. What do you mean a dispensational point of view? The word dispensation is a NT word, Paul said “It was committed unto him the dispensation of the grace of God, dispensation of the mysteries.” It simply means a stewardship, it’s simply a term, that’s all. This is the accusation over and over again that Dispensationalism popped up with J. N. Darby, and C. I. Scofield, and all of that? But we are not working our way through a system, but rather attempting to interpret scripture on its own merit.”
John M. seems to be talking to someone who knows nothing of the history and roots of dispensationalism, and therefore, can call it “just a label they throw”
“Ok, you have some basic things to deal with. Dispensationalism, by the way, is simply a title for theology that recognizes a literal nation Israel to be restored in the future. And recognizes a literal kingdom, and a literal tribulation, and a literal return, and a literal rapture, and that is dispensational. The other perspective is what’s called non-dispensational or covenant theology, which has no place for Israel, no kingdom in the future, and spiritualizes everything rather than making it literal.”
Here is the accurate definition of dispensationalism
http://sjonee.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/defining-dispensationalism/
Philip Walker,
I am in need of clarification of your post. In what way is the NT completely clear and understandable and in regard to what?
In ohter words, could you further explain this statement, “That simply isn’t the case here. And so the teaching of the New Testament is sufficiently clear and unambiguous: Jesus is coming back and when he does so, he will judge the world, and then reign over his people on a renewed earth–forever.”
Are you saying that since another canonical revelation is not prevelant, we are unable to explore and unpack what exactly Revelation speaks regarding any millenial position?
Thanks!
PuritanD: What I’m saying is that we have God’s final written word, Scripture, and that it therefore is sufficiently clear and unambiguous. Please watch words like “sufficiently”, because I don’t just throw them in for the good of my health! I didn’t say “completely”, because I didn’t mean “completely”.
I’m saying that because we neither have, nor will receive, further canonical revelation, all that we need to know is contained within Scripture. If I am correct [and standard dispensationalism agrees with me], then either: a position is clearly taught in Scripture; or else we simply cannot know, and no-one can make definitive statements.
That goes for you, too; you can’t say that there is a mystery there and you know what it is, because mysteries are unveiled by the Revealer of Mysteries, and not by human intellect. And we know that no further revelation will be forthcoming. So there cannot be a mystery. QED.
Please, though, look more closely at my questions about “plain meaning”. Under your logic, were the OT saints who believed in one glorious coming of the Messiah believing in the “plain meaning” of the text? By analogy, amillennialists are the confused version of the OT saints today, right? And yet presumably, it is also thus we who are holding fast to the “plain meaning”?
[...] These are just a few statements and of course they are defended on his blog. I tried to take ones that could stand on their and not be taken to far out of context. Of course read for yourself to get exactly what he is saying. [...]
Seems there are a plethora of definitions, Sarah. It is best to let Scripture explain Scripture. That should keep folks busy for a lifetime and pave the way for unity.
http://www.levitt.com/essays/progdisp.html
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2006-20,RNWE:en&q=dispensationalism+
Mrs. Burrows,
you’re right people should get their definition of dispensationalism from Scripture but they don’t. The dispensationalists’ build their doctrine around an unscriptual definition and around an unscriptural definition of Israel which leads their doctrine into falsehood.
I “somewhat” disagree(depending on who is meant and which flavor of dispensationlism is the topic), respectfully, on the last part(and do hope you know I wasn’t picking on you by suggesting inductive study…rather the hope was and is that it would be taken as a general suggestion for those reading, including myself, to foster unity where divisions could instead easily take place). John MacArthur’s teachings are appreciated and those that my eyes have met with have been in agreement with others such as Zola Levitt concerning Israel in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation. On the other hand, I’m not into labels muchly that God doesn’t require so don’t get “too” warped over them and do look for ways to study further(in those times of disagreement) to come to agreement according to what God says with those whom God desires me to have unity. Instead, reading or hearing John MacArthur teachings supplemental to first digging inductively(and being on a learning curve with that method) with the Holy Spirit sought as the Illuminator of Truth has been a blessing to me(for example, I blended judgement of nations with the separate White Throne judgment and was confused on other issues until studying a bit and then some alongside him…see links below that touch on this.)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2378.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2379.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2380.htm
Many blessings of our precious Lord to you, Sarah~
Sara, I’m curious in Matt24:34 which generation did Jesus say would see the signs that are mentioned? yes or no: Did that particular generation see the signs of which Jesus spoke of?
Maranatha!