Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Covenanter

Interpetation of prophecy

Recommended Posts


Do you disps read & believe Hebrews?

1:
1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past u
nt
o the fathers by the prophets,
2
Hath in these last days spoken u
nt
o us by his Son,


2:
3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed u
nt
o us by them that heard him;

4
God also bearing them witness, b
ot
h with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


The teaching of Jesus & his Apostles overrides the writings of Moses & the prophets. OT prophecy was fulfilled in & by Jesus. All the many chapters detailing the OC rituals, the tabernacle & sacrifices, the priesthood, monarchy & everything else OC was completed, perfected, fulfilled, etc, by Jesus.

Jesus is the rebuilt tabernacle of David. Christ himself is the NC temple, built with living stones. There can NEVER be a rebuilt temple of God where acceptable animal sacrifices for sin can again be offered by a human priesthood.

It only works out this way if you DENY a LITERAL interpretation of Scripture! I reject that proposition!


Why indeed? Ezekiel was prophesying from captivity, with the temple in ruins, & its treasures removed. His prophecy is to encourage the faithful who are ina state of abject desolation. They see themselves as dry bones. (37)


Oh, I see - just get rid of the LITERAL interpretation that comes from simply reading the passage, and then spiritualize it all away - or should I say Allegorize?



The LORD sees them according to his eternal purposes in Christ. They will return to the land, they will rebuild the temple, and Messiah will come, all the promises will be fulfilled in him. Ezekiel's temple, like the tabernacle is a picture of the heavenly temple, & perfect worship in Christ, in Spirit & in Truth. There will NEVER be an acceptable man-made temple.

I don't see what your problem is with their being a temple built in Jerusalem for use in the 1,000 year reign of Christ. At the END of that 1,000 years, the entire UNIVERSE is destroyed - including the Ezekiel temple - and an entire new universe is "created" where sin has no place. II Peter. 3:9-13, Revelation 21.
P.S. - THEN it comes to pass as you say, that Jesus Christ becomes the Temple of God (Rev. 21)


There I do agree. But that river is the Holy Spirit flowing freely from the throne of God & the Lamb.




Zec. 14:
8
And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem;


John 4:
14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up i
nt
o everlasting life.


Rev. 22:
1
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.


The connection between John 4 and Zech/Revelation is not the right connection. Zechariah and Revelation are describing specific PHYSICAL events, while John 4 is referring to the new birth. The contexts of these passages are not even remotely related. So there you go, stretching things again to find an allegorical interpretation, instead of "rightly dividing" the word of truth to see the DIFFERENCES between the passages.


Your idea of the state of affairs after Jesus returns is a mockery of the glorious hope we have in Christ.


2 Peter 3:
11
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12
Looking for and hasting u
nt
o the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the eleme
nt
s shall melt with ferve
nt
heat?

13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be dilige
nt
that ye may be found of him in peace, without sp
ot
, and blameless.



Strong words - mockery, anti-semitic, etc.
And it is based upon two faulty assumptions.
1. We do believe in an entirely sin free/Satan free FUTURE, as recorded in Revelation 21-22. How does this "mock" the glorious hope we have in Christ?
2. Your treatment of Scripture is abhorent to me - stretching things to fit that don't fit, overlooking obvious LITERAL references, and allegorizing things instead of simply believing what it says, where it says it, to whom it is said. Not everything in the Bible is directed to NT Christians. In fact, the vast majority of the Bible is directed at Israel. Furthermore, your treatment of Scripture denies several specific promises made to Abraham, the land, and his offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It only works out this way if you DENY a LITERAL interpretation of Scripture! I reject that proposition!




Oh, I see - just get rid of the LITERAL interpretation that comes from simply reading the passage, and then spiritualize it all away - or should I say Allegorize?




I don't see what your problem is with their being a temple built in Jerusalem for use in the 1,000 year reign of Christ. At the END of that 1,000 years, the entire UNIVERSE is destroyed - including the Ezekiel temple - and an entire new universe is "created" where sin has no place. II Peter. 3:9-13, Revelation 21.
P.S. - THEN it comes to pass as you say, that Jesus Christ becomes the Temple of God (Rev. 21)


The connection between John 4 and Zech/Revelation is not the right connection. Zechariah and Revelation are describing specific PHYSICAL events, while John 4 is referring to the new birth. The contexts of these passages are not even remotely related. So there you go, stretching things again to find an allegorical interpretation, instead of "rightly dividing" the word of truth to see the DIFFERENCES between the passages.



Strong words - mockery, anti-semitic, etc.
And it is based upon two faulty assumptions.
1. We do believe in an entirely sin free/Satan free FUTURE, as recorded in Revelation 21-22. How does this "mock" the glorious hope we have in Christ?
2. Your treatment of Scripture is abhorent to me - stretching things to fit that don't fit, overlooking obvious LITERAL references, and allegorizing things instead of simply believing what it says, where it says it, to whom it is said. Not everything in the Bible is directed to NT Christians. In fact, the vast majority of the Bible is directed at Israel. Furthermore, your treatment of Scripture denies several specific promises made to Abraham, the land, and his offspring.


I am amazed at your continued claim that you read prophecy literally. In Eric's interpretation of Dan 9, he adds to scripture and misquotes it several times to get it to agree with his point pf view. Scripture prophecy is continually interpreted. Try Joseph's interpretation of dreams and Daniels interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That is exactly the problem - any future blood sacrifices would be a gross affront to our Saviour & his FINISHED work.



The future sacrifices that will be offered in the "Tribulation Temple" will be a gross affront to the finished work of Jesus...

However, let's keep this in mind...

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Hebrews 10:11
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:


All of those sacrifices offered in the Old Testament were a foreshadowing of Christ's ultimate sacrifice of himself...they were not a means of salvation in and of themselves...yet, God required them.

Why?

Hebrews 10:3
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

Those sacrifices showed the awfulness of sin's consequences. Imagine what that must have been like. Time after time...killing...the blood flowing...time and time again...year after year...killing...the blood flowing.

Just as the law couldn't save...

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

...nor could the Old Testament sacrifices take away sin. Yet, God required them.

Now, there will be a future temple during the millennial reign of Jesus Christ on earth (Ezekiel 41-47)...complete with animal sacrifices. Why?

Just as the Old Testament sacrifices showed the awfulness of sin and the consequences of sin...without taking away sin, these future sacrifices will do the same.

Imagine with me a moment...

Jesus is reigning on earth...a time of perfect peace. Yet, he will rule with a rod of iron. No democracy in his kingdom; it will be a Theocracy. Rebellion will be dealt with swiftly.

During Christ's millennial reign, there will be multitudes of people born...with a sin nature...a heart of rebellion. They will hear of Christ's sacrifice for their sin, yet they still have a heart of rebellion. They won't like "the rules". They won't appreciate the perfect world they live in. Just as those of us in America take what we have for granted, these "kingdom citizens" won't appreciate what they have.

However, they will be pointed to those sacrifices taking place at the temple. They will be shown sin's consequences through those sacrifices. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices couldn't take away sin, neither will those; however, they will show their fulfillment in the sacrifice that Jesus made for their sins.

Are future sacrifices an affront to Christ's finished work? Tribulation sacrifices - yes. Millenial sacrifices - NO! They will be a compliment to Christ's finished work by showing what he did to pay for man's sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amazed at your continued claim that you read prophecy literally. In Eric's interpretation of Dan 9, he adds to scripture and misquotes it several times to get it to agree with his point pf view. Scripture prophecy is continually interpreted. Try Joseph's interpretation of dreams and Daniels interpretations.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Joseph and Daniel received direct revelation about DREAMS directly from the LORD Himself. I make no similar claim, and we are not dealing with DREAMS.
We are now dealing with a WRITTEN BOOK. The Bible gives us the rules for how it is to be interpretted:
1. Rightly Divided - II Timothy 2:15
2. Not privately interpretted - II Peter 1:20-21
3. Comparing Spiritual things with spiritual - I Cor. 2:13
4. Seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit - John 14:26, John 16:13, I Cor. 2:13
And that is just for starters.

Some things the Lord never gives us permission to do:
1. Add to the word of God
2. Subtract from the word of God
3. Change the word of God
4. Allegorize the word of God

All I attempt to do is believe what it says - without changing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible ought to be interpreted according to the intent of the author. Passages which are written in a literal fashion should be interpreted literally. Passages which are written in poetic form are to be interpreted as poetry which represent a literal truth. Symbolic passages are to be interpreted as symbols of something else real. Otherwise you get seven-headed monsters running around, but for some reason dispensationalists allegorize that one and he ends up looking like nicolai carpathia instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister, you should know that I'm not "leaning" towards Replacement Theology! Just ask Invicta, Ian, and Anime if they think I'm leaning that way. :-)


Thank you for the acknowledgement. I used to be a dispensationalist when I joined this board, but it was hard to remain one when I didn't see it in the bible. As for replacement theology, I can testify to the fact that you indeed do not lean towards it. However, I doubt that Ian, David, or I actually believe there is a replacement. We believe that spiritual Israel has existed from day 1, consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person who will be saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. During the old covenant, established at mt Sinai, and destroyed at Christ's death, most, but not all, of the spiritual Israel was made up of ethnic Israelites. The covenant with Abraham, however, which promised that he would become the father of many nations through the seed (Jesus Christ) was fulfilled in the New covenant, which brought in the gentiles, and made of two, one new man. So, there was nothing to replace, other than the old covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're starting to get off track. The important thing here to realize is that there is a future physical, earthly, Jewish, Millennial kingdom.

You seem to acknowledge in #32 that Jesus & his Apostles have little to say that can be interpreted as a future millennial kingdom inhabited by a mixed population of believers, unbelievers, resurrected saints, changed saints, unregenerate, Jews & Gentiles, ruled in person by Jesus from Jerusalem, with all the tribes owning territory, & renewed sacrifices for sin.

The King and this future kingdom are the focus of the Old Testament, and the kingdom is also referred to in the New Testament. The physical promises of a land grant and national salvation for the Jews, given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David are not done away with in the church. Post #32 clearly lays this all out.

I have looked at #32 & note your attempt to "shoe-horn" the millennium into the NT. That's reading in, not literal reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Israel’s future restored 1,000 year kingdom symbolic or literal?

Is “Zion” symbolic of the Church rather than the city of Jerusalem?

Is the “desert blooming as a rose” (Isaiah 35) a picture of the present fruitfulness of the gospel rather than a literal future condition on earth during the Millennium?

Is the temple (Ezekiel 40:1-48) a symbolic representation of the church rather than a literal future temple?

Is your interpretation of the book of Revelation totally symbolic? Are the judgments (seals, trumpets and vials) upon the earth, the wars, the Two Witnesses, the sealing of the 144,000 Israelites, the binding of Satan, and the 1,000 year earthly rule of Christ symbolic? Is there anything in the book of Revelation which you would interpret as "literal"?

Did Jesus return in 70AD? Which prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD? Are we living in the Millennium now? And if so, is Satan already bound?

Edited by LindaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we all agree that there can be no true temple of God, & if the Jews were to build a temple, it would be built in unbelief & go against the unique once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, & the universality of worship in Spirit & in truth.



The Tribulation period temple will be built by the Jews...they are preparing for it now...they have the implements, the priestly robes, a school for priests, etc...

I agree that this future temple will be built in "unbelief" and go against the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ; however...

Jesus, himself, will build the Millennial Temple...

Zechariah 6:12-13
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

____________________________________________________________________________________________



I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude, but I'm interested...

If 70 A.D. is when all was fulfilled, how is this explained (v. 21)?

Matthew 24:15-21
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Was not WW1, WW2, and other wars much worse than what happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? The answer of course is yes. Would not this make Jesus a liar?

Respectfully,
No Nicolaitans

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We believe that spiritual Israel has existed from day 1, consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person who will be saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is no such thing as "spiritual Israel"....the term is nowhere found or even implied in Scripture. The Apostle Paul called the Body of Christ/the Church, "one new man" (Ephesians 2:15) and saved Gentiles are the "spiritual SEED of Abraham" (Galatians 3:28-29)

Israel is the nation chosen and created by God to preserve His truth in the world and to prepare the way for Christ’s coming. The first mention of Israel is in Genesis 32:28 where God renamed Jacob Israel. Therefore, Israel didn't "exist from day 1 consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ." It began with the calling out of Abraham. (Genesis 12:1-3)
During the old covenant, established at mt Sinai, and destroyed at Christ's death, most, but not all, of the spiritual Israel was made up of ethnic Israelites. The covenant with Abraham, however, which promised that he would become the father of many nations through the seed (Jesus Christ) was fulfilled in the New covenant, which brought in the gentiles, and made of two, one new man. So, there was nothing to replace, other than the old covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant was not fulfilled in the New Covenant. The national physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant have not yet been fulfilled. That will happen at the Second Advent of Christ when He sets up His earthly 1,000 year Kingdom in Jerusalem.

Every New Testament believer partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ, but there is nowhere in Scripture that states that this covenant has been transferred from national Israel to the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude, but I'm interested...

If 70 A.D. is when all was fulfilled, how is this explained (v. 21)?

Matthew 24:15-21
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Was not WW1, WW2, and other wars much worse than what happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? The answer of course is yes. Would not this make Jesus a liar?

Respectfully,
No Nicolaitans

WW1 and WW2 were much worse than what happened in Jerusalem in 70AD....BUT the Tribulation, especially the last 3 1/2 years (called the Great Tribulation or Time of Jacob's Trouble - Jeremiah 30:7) will be much much worse than both World Wars. In fact, WW1 and WW2 will look mild compared to what is going to happen during those 7 years when God pours out His wrath upon the Christ rejecting world. I believe that there will be a period when people will want to die but will be unable to do so.

Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Revelation 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Men will also ask that the rocks fall on them to hide them from God's wrath:

Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Much worse than 70AD and both World Wars combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: post 32 – RS

The various refs to the kingdom do not imply a millennial kingdom after the Gospel age & before the eternal NH&NE state. You quote 1 verse from the Kingdom parables, & we need to look at all of these.

Mat. 25 follows on from the general injunction “watch & pray” to teach aspects of Christian living in the Gospel age.

You begin by acknowledging that the letters are concerned with living in the present age, looking forward to our Lord's return, but with no emphasis on future millennial details. That honest appraisal indicates that you have to look for millennial support from the OT & Revelation.

It is perhaps possible to read a millennium in 1 Cor. 15 in bewteen 23 & 24:

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

However the literal reading is that Jesus will put down all rule and all authority and power at his coming. Paul says he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. That means that he is presently reigning. When he comes he will raise the dead & so our last enemy will be destroyed.

You previously raised the question about Jesus reigning over the present mess. That we must consider.

II Tim. 4:1, “I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;”


You state - “Two things here: the appearing and the kingdom. Both come later!” The general judgement is to take place when Jesus appears, & then his eternal kingdom is seen. It's not a millennial kingdom with another resurrection, judgment & kingdom.

Mat. 13 has 7 parables:
The sower shows various responses to Gospel preaching of the word.
The tares shows a kingdom populated by children of God & children of Satan, with both growing together until the harvest – resurrection & judgment. Again the Gospel age.
The mustard seed & leaven show the growth & progress of the small & insignificant.
The treasure & the pearl show the tremendous value of our relationship with Christ worth everything.
The drag net teaches that many will be drawn by the Gospel, but not all will be saved. At the judgment, separation will take place.

It is possible to see a kingdom comprising believers & unbelievers, as at present, with a great separation at his appearing and his kingdom. What is not apparent is a future millennium comprising saints & sinners.

Acts 1:6, “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”


RS - After spending three and a half years with Christ, the apostles ask if the kingdom is going to come now to Israel. This is either because they were stupid and didn't listen to Jesus trying to tell them over the course of three and half years that there is no kingdom for Israel (what kind of teacher does that make Jesus out to be?) or they had every right to ask that question because one day there is going to be a wonderful kingdom for Israel. You decide.

Not at all – the concept of a future kingdom for Israel was clearly missing from his teaching, or they would not have asked. He repeats the great commission. When the Holy Spirit is poured out, they understand that membership of his kingdom is dependant on repentance & faith in Christ. The question is not again considered, & as you have acknowledged, absent from their writings.

Acts 3 shows their inspired thinking:
ntntntnt
23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will n
ot
hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.


25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covena
nt
which God made with our fathers, saying u
nt
o Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

<a name="en-
KJV
-27023">
26U
nt
o you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, se
nt
him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


Note v. 24 – these days. These Gospel days.

Revelation is for another posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


WW1 and WW2 were much worse than what happened in Jerusalem in 70AD....BUT the Tribulation, especially the last 3 1/2 years (called the Great Tribulation or Time of Jacob's Trouble - Jeremiah 30:7) will be much much worse than both World Wars. In fact, WW1 and WW2 will look mild compared to what is going to happen during those 7 years when God pours out His wrath upon the Christ rejecting world. I believe that there will be a period when people will want to die but will be unable to do so.

Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Revelation 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Men will also ask that the rocks fall on them to hide them from God's wrath:

Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Much worse than 70AD and both World Wars combined.


WQhy don't you take notrice of what the scripture says? It does not say it will be the worst, but there will not be any "SUCH AS."

There was never any treibulkation such as when the city was surrounded by an 'enemy' who was pleading with them to save their city and temple, and those in the city were fighting a civil war with three factions fighting between theirselves, and all the priests were murdered and those who had lately worn the robes and vestments of the priesthood had their bodies thrown naked into the streets and trampled upon. The house of archives holing the Jewish genealogies was burnt down and the sacrifice failed because no one could prove their right to be a priest. No there never was a triobulation SUCH AS that, never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. So Jesus just meant that there would never be a time in which all those details would happen ever before or after.

He didn't mean that the Great Tribulation would be the worst period of time in which the world has ever seen?

He didn't mean that the trouble the Jews would go through at 70 A.D. would be the worst they've ever seen, before or after?

He only meant that the situation would be unique, sort of.

That's convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. So Jesus just meant that there would never be a time in which all those details would happen ever before or after.

He didn't mean that the Great Tribulation would be the worst period of time in which the world has ever seen?

He didn't mean that the trouble the Jews would go through at 70 A.D. would be the worst they've ever seen, before or after?

He only meant that the situation would be unique, sort of.

That's convenient.


Show me where it says, "The Worst", please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come Jesus said this in Matthew 24:22 about the future 7 year tribulation period (speaking of the last 3 1/2 years):

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Apparently this didn't happen in 70AD.....but there will be a future period that will be much worse than 70AD, because Jesus said that "except those days should be shortened, there should be no flesh saved: ... " The word "worse" is definitely implied here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come Jesus said this in Matthew 24:22 about the future 7 year tribulation period (speaking of the last 3 1/2 years):

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Apparently this didn't happen in 70AD.....but there will be a future period that will be much worse than 70AD, because Jesus said that "except those days should be shortened, there should be no flesh saved: ... " The word "worse" is definitely implied here.


You nailed that one, sister! Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible ought to be interpreted according to the intent of the author. Passages which are written in a literal fashion should be interpreted literally. Passages which are written in poetic form are to be interpreted as poetry which represent a literal truth. Symbolic passages are to be interpreted as symbols of something else real. Otherwise you get seven-headed monsters running around, but for some reason dispensationalists allegorize that one and he ends up looking like nicolai carpathia instead.


The intent of the author??? HHHMMMM, I thought that GOD was the Author! How about looking for HIS intent??? God tells us His intent in the verses listed below!!!
The Bible should be interpretted according to how the Bible tells us how to interpret it. Please give us Scripture to support your "system" of interpretation that you have outlined above!
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice that the first thing mentioned here is DOCTRINE.
Notice that we are NEVER told to "symbolize" or "allegorize" ANYTHING.
Notice that this extends to ALL Scripture, including poetry.

The system you gave us simply dismisses the doctrinal content and importance of the largest book in the Bible (Psalms) which has a great deal of prophetic material relating to the Tribulation period, the Millenial Kingdom, the 2nd Coming of Christ, etc.
It also dismisses the single most important chapter describing the Devil (Job 41).

I said it before, and I'll keep saying it until the Lord Jesus Christ returns for us. I CANNOT accept the "Covenant" position because it DENIES THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION of Scripture!!! Your post just proved my point!!! So, thank you for helping my cause! Edited by Steve Schwenke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



The intent of the author??? HHHMMMM, I thought that GOD was the Author! How about looking for HIS intent??? God tells us His intent in the verses listed below!!!
The Bible should be interpretted according to how the Bible tells us how to interpret it. Please give us Scripture to support your "system" of interpretation that you have outlined above!
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice that the first thing mentioned here is DOCTRINE.
Notice that we are NEVER told to "symbolize" or "allegorize" ANYTHING.
Notice that this extends to ALL Scripture, including poetry.

The system you gave us simply dismisses the doctrinal content and importance of the largest book in the Bible (Psalms) which has a great deal of prophetic material relating to the Tribulation period, the Millenial Kingdom, the 2nd Coming of Christ, etc.
It also dismisses the single most important chapter describing the Devil (Job 41).

I said it before, and I'll keep saying it until the Lord Jesus Christ returns for us. I CANNOT accept the "Covenant" position because it DENIES THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION of Scripture!!! Your post just proved my point!!! So, thank you for helping my cause!


The whole dispensational theory is an interpretetion based, not on scripture but on the teaching of the Plymouth Brethren of J N Darby and continued and added to by Scofield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole dispensational theory is an interpretetion based, not on scripture but on the teaching of the Plymouth Brethren of J N Darby and continued and added to by Scofield.


Dispensationalism is just an offshoot of historical PreMillennialism, which has been around since John wrote Revelation. Justin Matyr, Tertullian, Irenaues, Polycarp... all Premillenial. The only real difference is that Dispensationalists take it a little further than PreMills do, but we BOTH believe in a future, literal, earthly reign of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If Amillennialism was around before the third century, it wasn't a very strong teaching. Everyone's favorite church father, Origen, who gave us our corrupt Alexandrian texts changed all that of course. PostMillennialism came from Augustine and his City of God book in the fourth century where he taught that Rome was New Jerusalem.

I haven't figured out if you're a Post-Millennial or an A-Millennial, but either way those are your roots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Dispensationalism is just an offshoot of historical PreMillennialism, which has been around since John wrote Revelation. Justin Matyr, Tertullian, Irenaues, Polycarp... all Premillenial. The only real difference is that Dispensationalists take it a little further than PreMills do, but we BOTH believe in a future, literal, earthly reign of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If Amillennialism was around before the third century, it wasn't a very strong teaching. Everyone's favorite church father, Origen, who gave us our corrupt Alexandrian texts changed all that of course. PostMillennialism came from Augustine and his City of God book in the fourth century where he taught that Rome was New Jerusalem.

I haven't figured out if you're a Post-Millennial or an A-Millennial, but either way those are your roots.


You might want to check into the reasons Spurgeon and virtually all conservative pastors/churches in England rejected Darby and Dispensationalism when they first surfaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Rick, I have said before and Ian has also told you that I am historical PreMillennialist. I would add that dispensationalism has nothing to do with the former.

I once said to a pastor that we cannot all be right, but we can all be wrong. He replied "I'm not wrong." I don't think anyone on here teaches what he did, which I suppose is a type of historic a-milleniamism probaly mixed with a bit of futurism.

Thinking further, I beelieve that dispensationalism is just the opposite fof historicism, which considers the papacy to be the Antichrist, and has done sice the Papacy fully obtained its persecuting powers in about 1260.

Dispensationalism and futureism in general, were invented by papists to counter the claims of baptists. This has had a huge damaging effect on the church, allowing Rome to be accepted by the ecumenical community as a genuine christian church, which without futurist teaching, it never would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You might want to check into the reasons Spurgeon and virtually all conservative pastors/churches in England rejected Darby and Dispensationalism when they first surfaced.


That is correct. His teaching was not accepted apart from his Plymouth Brethren, until the end of the 19th century. Up till then it was widely considered to be a heresy.

I have a confession to make. When I was a child we attended a PB assembly and us children the Sunday School. When I was 15 we moved to London and attended a non denominational church where evangelist Lindsey Glegg was pastor. It was there that I was first challenged with the gospel when a visiting pastor stood in the door as I was leaving and asked "How are you with the Lord?" I could not get past him without and answer, yet I had no answer. I went into the back with him and prayed and genuinely thought I was a Christian. Oh yes I believed, but I didn't trust. I guess I got worse and worse, then some years later I remembered those words I had heard several years before. "How are you with the Lord?" I knew I was lost, then remembered Peter's word when he was sinking, "Lord save me." I called out those words and from then I knew I was safe.



I was sinking deep in sin, far from the peaceful shore,
Very deeply stained within, sinking to rise no more,
But the Master of the sea, heard my despairing cry,
From the waters lifted me, now safe am I.
Refrain
Love lifted me! Love lifted me!
When nothing else could help
Love lifted me!
All my heart to Him I give, ever to Him I’ll cling
In His blessèd presence live, ever His praises sing,
Love so mighty and so true, merits my soul’s best songs,
Faithful, loving service too, to Him belongs.
Refrain
Souls in danger look above, Jesus completely saves,
He will lift you by His love, out of the angry waves.
He’s the Master of the sea, billows His will obey,
He your Savior wants to be, be saved today.
Refrain

I continued in the Brethren, even though my father continually warned me that their teaching on the second coming was wrong. Then I moved to Kent and joined with the Brethren and there I met my wife who was converted at one of their camps.

I was there for 12 years. You may ask why I did not absorb their teachig after all that exposure? Well I asked questions and did not find the answers in the bible. I once attended a meeting on prophecy after which my wife remarked, "He said this would happen and then that would happen and so on, expecting it all to be written in the bible, but it just wasn't there"

We then moved again, and attended various churches and ended up in a Grace Baptist Church. When the pastor resigned we left and eventually joined our present church, and Evangelical Baptist Church. Apart from on here, I have n ever met an Historicist, except for my father, who left me a number of books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WQhy don't you take notrice of what the scripture says? It does not say it will be the worst, but there will not be any "SUCH AS."

There was never any treibulkation such as when the city was surrounded by an 'enemy' who was pleading with them to save their city and temple, and those in the city were fighting a civil war with three factions fighting between theirselves, and all the priests were murdered and those who had lately worn the robes and vestments of the priesthood had their bodies thrown naked into the streets and trampled upon. The house of archives holing the Jewish genealogies was burnt down and the sacrifice failed because no one could prove their right to be a priest. No there never was a triobulation SUCH AS that, never.


Hi Invicta,

Thanks for your response. I did take notice of the scripture...here it is again...

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

You're correct...it does say "such as"...however, it doesn't stop there. It continues with "was not since the beginning of the world..."

In context, the tribulation that Jesus speaks of is so terrible, there won't be any "such as was not since" before it, and "nor ever shall be"...therefore, it will be the worst tribulation ever. Hence my use of the word "worst". As a preacher, part of my responsibility is to expound upon the scripture. I (nor any preacher that I know of) will only quote scripture for our sermon...without trying to explain it...without telling how it applies to our lives...without explaining what the scripture means...

Jesus is addressing his disciples, and telling them the "signs" that would precede his return. Granted, he is speaking to Jews about things that will happen in Israel; however, the context of verse 21 doesn't confine the tribulation to Israel, Jerusalem, and the Jews only...here's the verse again.

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Jesus is saying that the future tribulation will be so bad, that even nothing since the beginning of the world could even compare to it.

Let's think about this..."since the beginning of the world"
  1. There was no nation of Israel...until thousands of years...after the beginning of the world
  2. There wasn't even a Jew...until thousands of years...after the beginning of the world
  3. There wasn't a Jerusalem...until thousands of years...after the beginning of the world

Yet Jesus is saying that the future tribulation will be worse than any tribulation...since the beginning of the world.

I can think of one tribulation that was worse than what happened in 70 A.D. It was such a terrible tribulation than only one family in the whole world survived. It was so terrible that God said that he would never do it again...and it happened after the beginning of the world...but before the establishment of the Jews, the nation of Israel, and Jerusalem...and long before 70 A.D.

Was not the great flood a much more terrible tribulation than what happened in 70 A.D., or is Jesus a liar? Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The whole dispensational theory is an interpretetion based, not on scripture but on the teaching of the Plymouth Brethren of J N Darby and continued and added to by Scofield.

Wrong - dispensationalism has been taught from the beginning of the Church age until present.... Edited by Steve Schwenke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...