The harlot in Revelation 17 is Jerusalem of Jesus' day

OK I've had 10 years study on Full and Partial Preterism and every field that Dr Bob mentions and then some and I can refute it... You start the ball rolling... Brother Glen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Many of you may not know that there are Four Views of Revelation. The person then reads each verse and understands it from one of these perspectives:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Preterist - In Revelation, everything was fulfilled in AD30-100 or at least during the Roman Empire<LI>Historical - Revelation is a panorama of church history from the Apostles until the consummation of the world<LI>Idealist - Revelation does not represent actual events; it's a symbolic depiction of the battle between right and wrong, good and evil<LI>Futurist - Revelation, beginning with chapter 4, describes literal future events acceompanying the end of the age.[/list][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUT - one need not adhere to only one view. Due to the nature of apocalyptic writing, a combination of all 4 views can be present

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


BUT - one need not adhere to only one view. Due to the nature of apocalyptic writing, a combination of all 4 views can be present
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed.

 

I believe the key to understanding the book of Revelation is verse 1:19 - Write the things which thou hast seen (chapter 1), and the things which are (chapters 2 and 3), and the things which shall be hereafter (chapters 4 through 22).

The seven churches in chapters 2 and 3 (the church age) represent seven successive periods of church history from Pentecost to Rapture.

Revelation chapter 17 has to be a prophecy concerning Roman Catholicism. It is a mixture of Christianity and the old MYSTERY, BABYLON religion. "Sitteth upon many waters" means it is world-wide (catholic). There is only one church that masquerades as Christianity "With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication." If you've ever seen the costumes the priests wear you notice they are "purple and scarlet colour."

"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." This is obviously referring to Rome (the city on seven hills). The "great whore" is the Roman Catholic church.

As long as we're looking at prophecy, check out Revelation 13:11 - And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

I believe the "two horns" represent the apostate Protestantism and Roman Catholicism ecumenical alliance.

 

Dr. Bob:

this has been something I have just started studying and have just finished a book against Dispensationalism (Rightly dividing the people of God or something like that).
It made some sense and I admit I have always had questions about the Rapture, 1000 year reign of Christ (which seems pointless, a Satan is freed at the end of it and leads most of the world after him)so on. Also I can't help but feel the early church in Scripture felt they were in the end times.
I am chewing apart Scripture in my study but would enjoy hearing the thoughts of those of you much more intelligent than I as I have come to no conclusions yet.

paul

 

Dr. Bob, what Chris and Aaron are referring to is commonly called the "Eclectic" view. It is embraced by recent commentators like Beale (NIGTC). Basically, wherever the interpreter believes one of the four standard interpretive approaches best explains the text, they apply it for that text. The dispensationalist argues against it with a statement like "No controlling hermeneutic", but on the other hand, is a completely consistent hermeneutic possible with the book of Revelation?
This is a difficult issue. Walvoord's commentary is largely overly simplistic with exegesis that woodenly forces passages into a template, but then on the other hand, I am not entirely comfortable with a wide-open-anything-goes-approach either.

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
but then on the other hand, I am not entirely comfortable with a wide-open-anything-goes-approach either.

Chick<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor am I. I believe for Revelation to have any meaning to its first Century audience, it must be largely preterist in style, yet the Second Coming is future. I hold an amillennial position.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paul hadik:
this has been something I have just started studying and have just finished a book against Dispensationalism (Rightly dividing the people of God or something like that).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont' know if you are referring to the book by Gerstner (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth), Mathison (Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God), or Kimbrough (I can't remember the name but I believe it is something similar to these). All of these books were very similar in their approach in that they misrepresented Dispensationalism, often either outright or by appealing to the "fringe lunatics." Unfortunately, they have been read by many and believed to be accurate representations.

I have read most or all of all of these three books and found them very disappointing in terms of their representations and arguments.

Of course, I am a committed dispensationalist because I cannot see any other way to interpret Scripture consistently.

I would hardly consider the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth "pointless" since it is the fulfillment of OT prophecy. If it does not happen, then there are OT prophecies that never get fulfilled. That creates serious problems for Scripture and God's faithfulness. I realize many ingenious ways have been devised to circumvent explicit passages of Scripture but they cannot do justice to the biblical text, IMO. That Satan is bound and then freed at the end of it is really a matter of biblical revelation. There is no legitimate way to shoehorn that into current times. That the early church believed that they were living in the end times is certainly true. The whole church age has been living in the end times. I do not see that as a problem at all. In fact, I think it strenghthens the case for dispensational premillennialism.

I would be interested in discussing this more, addressing your individual questions as times permit.

R.L. Thomas has far and away the best commentary on Revelation to date. It is published by Moody in two volumes.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


Nor am I. I believe for Revelation to have any meaning to its first Century audience, it must be largely preterist in style, yet the Second Coming is future. I hold an amillennial position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think Revelation can be preterist in any fashion because 1) It would no longer be prophecy in spite of the fact that it makes explicit claims to prophecy; 2) It would not be a very accurate history since nothing in the first century corresponds to what John prophesies about.

To talk of a consistent hermeneutic, is valid, but is not really a problem. There are obviously some literal passages and some symbolic ones. Normal hermeneutics (the dispensational hermeneutic) freely admits that. Of course, it is sometimes difficult to know what is what and I think it is impossible to be dogmatic on what the fulfillment will be in most cases. However, that does not mean that we look through history to try to find the closest resemblance to a passage and then unite the two.

Chris's charge of Revelation having no meaning to the first century church in a futurist interpretation falls in the light of OT prophecy with the same problem. No one (or at least most) tries to assign OT prophecies to a contemporary fulfillment. We know them to be many years in the future. I see that as a straw man.

Chris, I thought you said in an earlier thread you were a historic premill?? Now you seem to have reverted to your amillennialism. We are going to have to revive the discussions so you can explain to us what you think the OT prophecies mean. I never did get an answer from you on Jer 31, Zech 12-14, and some others.

 

Pastor Larry:

Thanks a bunch. It was Mathison's book. Possibly you could start a thread explaining for me what dispensationalism is. Mathison's main idea was this difference between Israel and the church.
I will come up with some questions for end-times for you in the near future.
again,
thanks

paul

 

Jer 31, as all OT prophecy must be interpreted in light of NT revelation. This was articluated in the post Canonical Heremneutics of which most chose not to comment upon

There, it is said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dispensationalists often accuse covenantalists of reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament. If this charge means that covenantalists read the OT in light of the NT, it is readily conceded. Covenantalists believe that the very idea of a progressive revelation requires that we read the earlier in light of the later, that we use the greater light provided by later stages to help us understand that which was given only in a shadowy way, in seed form, in previous times. We ought to use the advantage of maturity and the increase of knowledge.
Dispensationalists, on the other hand, claim to read the OT on its own terms, taking it literally (the sensus literalis) according to what the authorial intent behind a given OT text would have been, given the author's historical context. Dispensationalists are certain that covenantalists cannot practice historical-grammatical exegesis in their reading of OT prophecy, that they are engaging instead in something akin to the allegorical method (though typological exegesis may be a more accurate description). At any rate, dispensationalists are sure that covenantalists are engaged in eisegesis -- artificially imposing the NT upon the OT -- and are not reading the OT in a natural (i.e., literal) way, as the contemporaries of the prophet would have understood his message.

The covenantalist approach, however, is canonical. It insists that we read the OT texts from a canonical perspective, that the normative interpretation of these texts is determined by the "macro-genre" of the canonical Scriptures of the Christian church (a literary unit) and how these smaller subunits (whether pericopae or books) communicatively function within this higher level of textual organization. We must read any text contained in Scripture according to the genre-conventions of this larger unit of canon and according to its structuring and shaping (and otherwise influencing) of the content -- according to its enkaptic leading/directing-function over the various subunits whereby they are made to serve the canon. To say this is to say that the entire Bible -- OT and NT -- is New-Covenant canon and all the literature included in the Christian Bible is to be read from the stance of the New Covenant that constitutes them as canon and regulates their meaning as a narrative covenant of New-Covenant witness. Accordingly, what the dispensationalist is in effect proposing is that we read OT texts in a noncanonical way, and this is contrary to what the New Testament teaches concerning the witness of all the Scriptures to Christ. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So of what is Jer 31 speaking? The NT covenant in Christ. This is proved by the NT quote of Jer 31 in Hebrews 8:

Hebrews 8:5-9 (ESV)
They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." [6] But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
[8] For he finds fault with them when he says:
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
[9] not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

As for Zech 12-14, space does not permit an extensive exegesis, but it too is concerned with the New Covenant promises of Christ and the church.

Matthew Henry says it well:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>INTRODUCTION TO ZECHARIAH CHAPTER 12

The apostle in Gal 4:25-26 distinguishes between

"Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children"—

the remaining carcase of the Jewish church that rejected Christ, and

"Jerusalem that is from above, that is free, and is the mother of us all"—

the Christian church, the spiritual Jerusalem, which God has chosen to put his name there; in the foregoing chapter we read the doom of the former, and left that carcase to be a prey to the eagles that should be gathered to it. Now, in this chapter, we have the blessings of the latter, many precious promises made to the gospel Jerusalem by him who (#Zec 12:1) declares his power to make them good. It is promised,

I. That the attempts of the church’s enemies against her shall be to their own ruin, and they shall find that it is at their peril if they do her any hurt, #Zec 12:2-4,6.

II. That the endeavours of the church’s friends and patrons for her good shall be pious, regular, and successful, #Zec 12:5.

III. That God will protect and strengthen the meanest and weakest that belong to his church, and work salvation for them, #Zec 12:7-8.

IV. That as a preparative for all this mercy, and a pledge of it, he will pour upon them a spirit of prayer and repentance, the effect of which shall be universal and very particular, #Zec 12:9-14.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

Chris,

I didn't comment on that because of time. It was a valid discussion.

The problem with your approach is that Jer 31 must be interpreted in its own context. It is talking about the New Covenant without a doubt. But there is no legitimate way using grammatical historical interpretation (even in light of NT revelation) that you can evict national Israel from the passage. The covenant is made with the same people with whom the Mosaic covenant was made with, people who are called the house of Israel and the house of Judah, who broke the covenant. That can in no way refer to anyone but the nation of Israel. Allowing for the moment that the church is called Israel (something which cannot be defended from Scripture and which I grant only fro the sake of discussion), the church was never involved in the Mosaic covenant and the church never broke it. Therefore, the context limits by explicit statements who Jeremiah is referring to.

Furthermore, God clarifies that the people under discussion will not be cast off from being a nation before him. The church (which you want to call NT Israel) is specifically said to not be a nation; there is no longer Jew or Gentile, etc. So your "NT Israel" involves a direct failure of God's promise to not cast off the subjects of the New Covenant prophecy from being a nation.

Furthermore, you would say that Israel as a nation has been cast off because they broke the Mosaic Covenant and now the promises have been transferred to the church. Yet the Jer 31 prophecy specifically says that Israel will not be cast off for what they have done, so long as the celestial bodies maintain their fixed order.

Heb 8 does not help your position because the only thing it does it quote the passage which says what it says. It does not transfer it to anyone but the house of Israel whom he led out of Egypt.

In another thread, a while ago, I laid out a more detailed explanation of the passage. I do not believe you ever responded to that.

Canonical context might clarify the meaning of a passage but it cannot contradict it. I assert that if God through Jeremiah had intended to communicate something such as you have suggested, he would have used words that would have communicated that. Instead, he used words that are explicit, that involve no symbolism, and that were understood by the nation to just as dispensationalists understand them today.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

You have the same problem with Zech 12-14. While Matthew Henry talks about the church, Zechariah does not. Zechariah uses specific terms that preclude the church. This is the great problem with covenant theology in its hermeneutics: it cannot let a text stand on its own merits. It removes meaning from anyone who does not have the complete canon. Therefore, it destroys the whole idea of progressive revelation and makes OT revelation of no significance to the Israelites.

If you read the OT apart from your preconceived notions about it must say, you would never come up with what you have. That is why the first century Jews believed in a coming kingdom of God on earth. That is why the disciples in Acts 1 asked about the coming kingdom. They expected one because of what they knew from the OT. It is most significant that Christ did nothing to correct their view. He allowed them to continue thinking that there was a kingdom such as they were imagining; it was just not for them to know the time. Furthermore, this kingdom is the one that Peter preached in Acts 3:19-21.

I assert that if there is no kingdom, then you have to explain how the promises of God are not compromised since they are not fulfilled to the people with whom they were made.

 

Chris Temple said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe for Revelation to have any meaning to its first Century audience, it must be largely preterist in style, yet the Second Coming is future. I hold an amillennial position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chris, I have to camp with Pastor Larry on this one, no offense, but my dispensationalism is to the left of Ryrie and Chafer and just a pinch to the right of Blaising/Bock. I still have enough dispensationalism to embrace the millennial kingdom. As to your statement above, are there not many examples of NT usages of OT prophecies where the fulfillment of the OT prophecy is such that the original audience would have had absolutely no idea of the meaning? I realize that the potential exists for an OT passage to have a "here and now" application, and then a larger, later, prophetic fulfillment (i.e. out of Egypt I have called my Son). Is it not based somewhat on genre? Clearly we trust that an epistle made full sense to the recipients--but what about prophecy? Isn't part of the nature of that genre that immediate understanding from the original recipients is not expected? Would not this be further amplified by a prophecy that also employed the apocalyptic genre? The whole point of an apocalypse is that the meaning of the revelation is sealed up for later clarification. I am just thinking out loud here, and maybe I'm all wet. If so, it won't be the first time. What do you think?

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
(i.e. out of Egypt I have called my Son). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind this is not a prophecy. It is often misrepresented as such. In Hos it is a historical statement and Matthew uses it as an analogy or an illustration.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]Furthermore, God clarifies that the people under discussion will not be cast off from being a nation before him. The church (which you want to call NT Israel) is specifically said to not be a nation; there is no longer Jew or Gentile, etc. So your "NT Israel" involves a direct failure of God's promise to not cast off the subjects of the New Covenant prophecy from being a nation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NT makes it quite clear that the promises to Israel are fulfilled in New Israel, the Church. There is no failure of fulfilment to Israel, as Paul's apostolic interpretation of the promise is authoritatively articulated in Romans 11. Israel will be grafted back in, not to possess the material land, but the spiritual kingdom along with believing Gentiles.

Rev 5.9b For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth."


Both believing Jews and Gentiles will possess the New Heaven and the New Earth with Christ forever.

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


Keep in mind this is not a prophecy. It is often misrepresented as such. In Hos it is a historical statement and Matthew uses it as an analogy or an illustration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

!?!?

It most certainly is a prophecy! What does Matthew say?

Matthew 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."

A prophetic word was spoken and fulfilled. That is prophecy.

This is the problem with the dispensational hermeneutic.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
Chris, I have to camp with Pastor Larry on this one, no offense, but my dispensationalism is to the left of Ryrie and Chafer and just a pinch to the right of Blaising/Bock. I still have enough dispensationalism to embrace the millennial kingdom. As to your statement above, are there not many examples of NT usages of OT prophecies where the fulfillment of the OT prophecy is such that the original audience would have had absolutely no idea of the meaning? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you're right. I probably overstated in my earlier statement. In fact, I would say that most OT prophecies were not (fully) understood by the audience.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I realize that the potential exists for an OT passage to have a "here and now" application, and then a larger, later, prophetic fulfillment (i.e. out of Egypt I have called my Son). Is it not based somewhat on genre? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Absolutely.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Clearly we trust that an epistle made full sense to the recipients--but what about prophecy? Isn't part of the nature of that genre that immediate understanding from the original recipients is not expected? Would not this be further amplified by a prophecy that also employed the apocalyptic genre? The whole point of an apocalypse is that the meaning of the revelation is sealed up for later clarification. I am just thinking out loud here, and maybe I'm all wet. If so, it won't be the first time. What do you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points Chick. My view of revelation is that it is the cyclical history of the church age, beginning in John's time, thereby having immediate application, and future, and culminating in the Second Coming.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]