2 Peter 3...Elements or elements!

[Guest]

Sean, i understand now.

Instead of taking the general concept of peter, flood=judgment; your adding flood+effect of flood, which moves from judgment to total world destruction judgment .......................which is why you conclude that fire=judgment must be fire=total world destruction judgment.

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

I just get the feel that from that paragraph, the judgment of ungodly men is the main idea, rather than the total destruction of the earth.

Peter did say that the "end of All things were at hand", no? Was it not in their lifetime?

gotta run, its the sabbath!
Jim.

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

I apologize for this late and meager reply. I’m in a situation right now where I have very little time to participate in these forums, which is frustrating since there’s so much good discussion going on.

The article quotes John Owen thus:

Quote:
"Isaiah's prophecy of a gigantic highway-construction project [Isa. 40:3-5] is not interpreted literally in the New Testament, but metaphorically, of the preaching ministry of John the Baptist [Luke 3:4-6]. And Isaiah's prophecy of a "golden age" when the wolf dwells peaceably with the lamb [Isa. 11:1-10] is condensed and cited by St. Paul as a present fulfillment, in the New Covenant age [Rom. 15:12]!)"

1. Whoever says that Isaiah 40:3-5 must be interpreted in literal manner? Not any premillennialist that I know of. This appears to be a textbook straw man argument which is thus of no use to his argument.

I think you may have missed the point. This isn’t intended as a straw man, nor does it function as one. Chilton (not Owen) is bringing up a general point about hermeneutics; that one should observe how the New Testament writers treat Old Testament prophecies. His point is that the NT often treats OT prophecies as having been fulfilled, though not in a literal sense. This observation by Chilton was a preliminary point in answering his self-imposed question, “Where in the Old Testament does God promise a New Heaven and Earth?” He then goes on, having given the hermeneutical reminder, to cite Isaiah 65 & 66 as an answer to the question.

2. Paul's partial quotation of Isaiah 11 in Romans 15:12 does not indicate that the whole chapter was being fulfilled (so as to preclude a literal fulfillment) in Paul's own day…

The challenge here (for us) is that the Jews did not delineate their scriptures with chapter and verse. Thus when Paul references this section of Isaiah, is he only excising a few verses or is he linking to the entire prophetic thought? I believe it’s the latter, which means that Paul is giving a “hyperlink” (so to speak) to Isaiah 11 (and 12, which is part of the same oracle).

If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that, yes, these OT prophecies can be applied figuratively to what was the present time of Peter and Paul, but that doesn’t negate the possibility of them having a more literal fulfillment beyond the 1st Century. Granted, but I then have to wonder: if a clear application has already been made, why should we gloss over it in search of an additional application so as to satisfy our preconceived eschatological framework?

I don't see why this passage, and other similar citations of OT "Kingdom passages" in NT requires us to relinquish a consistent (not the straw man wooden) literal understanding of the original prophecies in favour of an allegorical one.

But the language of OT oracles is highly allegorical in nature. That is part and parcel of the Hebrew communication style. To try to hammer them into conformity to a consistent literal (aka Greek) understanding is unnatural.

For example, when Isaiah writes, in chapter 11,

“The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.”

Is he referring literally to some type of biological upheaval, or is he using figurative word-pictures to describe a social transformation where the violent and powerful no longer oppress the vulnerable?

Here's an interesting little website about Greek vs. Hebrew ways of thinking and communicating: http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1854

As far as time frames, it seems that Peter, Paul, John, the author of Hebrews and even Jesus for that matter, recognized that they were at the front end of a process in which the old covenant was on it’s way out while the new covenant was on it’s way in (like a mustard seed or leaven in a lump of dough).


Sean, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that since Peter refers to a literal destruction of the earth (or it’s surface anyway) by water, he must then logically be referring to a literal destruction of the earth by fire in the next sentence. As you said,

The point? If God did it once, He can (and apparently will) do it again. This time with fire…

But surely Peter and his audience would be familiar with the following scriptures:

Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night,
will never cease.
- Genesis 8:21-22

He built his sanctuary like the heights,
like the earth that he established forever.
- Psalm 78:69

Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
- Ecclesiastes 1:4

Is Peter’s emphasis on the object and scope of the judgment or on the imminence of the judgment? I think it’s the latter.

Here’s a crude paraphrase of what I believe Peter is saying:

In the last days people will scoff, saying, “Where is this coming judgment? Nothing has changed!” They thought like that in Noah’s time too. Even though God had formed the world out of water, he used water to destroy it. For these present-day scoffers, everything they know, their entire “heavens and earth” will be destroyed by fire.

If you have time, read 2 Peter 3:11-13 and then go read Isaiah 24 & 25 and see what you think.

[Guest]

Hey Mort...I couldn't say it any better myself.

Thanks pal...Mike

[Guest]

Hey Mort, Ihad nmotcied your lack of participation. Looking forward to when you get more time. In the meantime, I'm going to flood this board with premillennial propaganda. Mwuahahahahaha

2. Paul's partial quotation of Isaiah 11 in Romans 15:12 does not indicate that the whole chapter was being fulfilled (so as to preclude a literal fulfillment) in Paul's own day…

The challenge here (for us) is that the Jews did not delineate their scriptures with chapter and verse. Thus when Paul references this section of Isaiah, is he only excising a few verses or is he linking to the entire prophetic thought? I believe it’s the latter, which means that Paul is giving a “hyperlink” (so to speak) to Isaiah 11 (and 12, which is part of the same oracle).

Okay, well, at least you accept that we need to make a judgment here. Is he saying the whole portion in question is being fulfilled at the time of writing so as to negate any future literal fuflilment. Or, as I suggest, is he showing that part of the passage has appliaciton to the time of writing without allegorising anything, and thus allowing for a literal fulfillment of the other parts of the passage? My suggestion lead you to say:

Granted, but I then have to wonder: if a clear application has already been made, why should we gloss over it in search of an additional application so as to satisfy our preconceived eschatological framework?

"Gloss over"? Mort, my brother, why do you assume that I have impure motives in interpreting this text? Unfortunately, I often hear this the kind from amillennialists. The real issue does not concern preconceived (what a horrible word that is) eschatological frameworks but hermenuetical frameworks. We all have hermenuetical framework form which comes our eschatology, soteriology, Christology, demonology and any other "ology." The challenge is to demonstrate which hermeneutical is the right one.

I don't see why this passage, and other similar citations of OT "Kingdom passages" in NT requires us to relinquish a consistent (not the straw man wooden) literal understanding of the original prophecies in favour of an allegorical one.

But the language of OT oracles is highly allegorical in nature. That is part and parcel of the Hebrew communication style. To try to hammer them into conformity to a consistent literal (aka Greek) understanding is unnatural.

There you go again bro! I could just as easily turn around and say that you are trying to unnaturally hammer the prophetic writings into a consistent allegorical (Greek) understanding!

What is "unnatural"? How do we define "natural" from "unnatural" interpretation Scripture? When it comes to many things, what someone considers "natural" is really that which has been conditioned by his upbringing. I found whole idea of amillennialism laughable when I first heard about it. Alot of people may have stopped there and never bothered to check it out. But I'm not like that. I realise that my reaction may have been due to premillennialism being the popular view and I the fact that I had only been exposed to the popular view.

Basically, like you (and anyone reading this, hopefully), I aim to interpret the OT in the same way Jesus and the apostles did. The problem is, I'm yet to be shown credible evidence that their normal mode of intepreting OT prophecies (even if we only focus on the "Kingdom" ones) was to allegorise them.

Ely

[Guest]

Mort, my brother, why do you assume that I have impure motives in interpreting this text?

No, nothing of the sort! We all struggle with the tendency to read scripture in light of our various presuppositions. These presuppositions cause us to "gloss over" or de-emphasize certain texts and/or their implications without even realizing that we're doing it.

One's eschatological framework may be a product of one's hermeneutical framework or it may just be the result of accepting what one has always been taught without thought to the underlying hermeneutic. In the case of futurist eschatology, I find the latter to often be the case, which leads me back to the point about presuppositions.

There you go again bro! I could just as easily turn around and say that you are trying to unnaturally hammer the prophetic writings into a consistent allegorical (Greek) understanding!

You could say that, but my point is that we shouldn't be trying to hammer the prophetic writings into any Greek understanding. Instead, we should take the "natural" approach of letting the Hebrew scriptures speak from a Hebrew understanding. This is challenging for us because we have inherited a Greek way of thinking.

What is "unnatural"? How do we define "natural" from "unnatural" interpretation Scripture?

What is "unnatural" is to try read a text in a way that it was never intended to be read. The way to do this is by assuming that the text conforms to our current (Western/Greek) literary milieu and disregard it's original (Eastern/Semitic) milieu.

Basically, like you (and anyone reading this, hopefully), I aim to interpret the OT in the same way Jesus and the apostles did. The problem is, I'm yet to be shown credible evidence that their normal mode of intepreting OT prophecies (even if we only focus on the "Kingdom" ones) was to allegorise them.

Fair enough, and I agree with your first sentence, but perhaps in the second part of your statement you're making the error of imposing Greek rhetorical classifications (such as allegory) backwards onto ancient Hebrew writings. I think it never would have occured to the Apostles to allegorize OT prophecies - which implies converting them from literal - because they read them in their Hebrew cultural context, which used distinctly Hebrew modes of expression.

[Guest]

Okay Mort,

I guess my basic point is, why not let's sit down and analyse the Scriptures rather than making assumptions about people's motives. In other words, let's take an innocent until proven guilty approach rather than vice-versa.

in Christ (or "Moshiach" if you would prefer, Hebrew boy ),
Ely

[Guest]

in Christ (or "Moshiach" if you would prefer, Hebrew boy ),
Ely

Actually Mort, your last couple posts made me think.

I usually hear it said that premillennialists intepret OT prophecy in the same way that the scribes and pharisees did, in a literal manner. It's said (usually without much evidence) that they intepreted the Kingdom passages to mean that the Messiah would be a Warrior-King-type figure who would literally destroy Israel's enemies and restore her kingdom. Now Mort, you're saying that to literally interpret such passages is actually not a Hebrew thing but a Greek phenomenon!

Confusing

[Guest]

Ely,

...let's sit down and analyse the Scriptures rather than making assumptions about people's motives...

Where, exactly, did I make any reference to your motives?

I usually hear it said that premillennialists intepret OT prophecy in the same way that the scribes and pharisees did, in a literal manner. It's said (usually without much evidence) that they intepreted the Kingdom passages to mean that the Messiah would be a Warrior-King-type figure who would literally destroy Israel's enemies and restore her kingdom. Now Mort, you're saying that to literally interpret such passages is actually not a Hebrew thing but a Greek phenomenon!

I can't recall ever hearing that particular comparison in terms of the scribes and pharisees having a literal interpretation of OT prophecy so much as that they had constructed a prophetic scenario which revolved around their interests and position being affirmed and vindicated by God.

[Guest]

Where, exactly, did I make any reference to your motives?

You appeared to do so (at least indirectly) when you said:

If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that, yes, these OT prophecies can be applied figuratively to what was the present time of Peter and Paul, but that doesn’t negate the possibility of them having a more literal fulfillment beyond the 1st Century. Granted, but I then have to wonder: if a clear application has already been made, why should we gloss over it in search of an additional application so as to satisfy our preconceived eschatological framework?

This (to me) says, if anyone should see a yet future application of the Isaiah passage, then they do so because they are glossing over the text in order to satisfy preconceived end times expectations. It implies dishonest exegesis. Like I said, maybe this is an accurate description of some people's motives, but it's not right to assume this to be the case for every premillennialist.

I usually hear it said that premillennialists intepret OT prophecy in the same way that the scribes and pharisees did, in a literal manner. It's said (usually without much evidence) that they intepreted the Kingdom passages to mean that the Messiah would be a Warrior-King-type figure who would literally destroy Israel's enemies and restore her kingdom. Now Mort, you're saying that to literally interpret such passages is actually not a Hebrew thing but a Greek phenomenon!

I can't recall ever hearing that particular comparison in terms of the scribes and pharisees having a literal interpretation of OT prophecy so much as that they had constructed a prophetic scenario which revolved around their interests and position being affirmed and vindicated by God.

That's interesting, I hear it all the time from amillennialists/preterists. For example, in this very forum, Steve (Gregg) has said things like:

Why didn't the Jews understand the meaning of these prophecies? Because the meanings were spiritual, not literal, and "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).

Therefore, the Jews, for example, understood the prophecy about Elijah (Mal.4:5-6) to be about the literal Elijah. Jesus, by contrast, told the people, "If you are willing to receive it," John is Elijah who was predicted to come (Matt.11:14). Why would they not be willing to receive it? Because it was a spiritual truth, and the natural man does not receive such things.

When we study the way in which the New Testament writers (spiritual men) interpreted Old Testament scriptures, we will find that they always spiritualized the kingdom texts that the Jews and the dispensationalists insist on taking literally. The disciples were "willing to receive" the spiritual fulfillment—most of the Jews (and the dispensationalists) clearly were not.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=300
Here's another example from elsewhere:

When Christ appeared at His first advent, many religious Jews imagined He would reinstate the then defunct earthly throne of Israel and reign victorious over the physical nation of Israel. They believed that the appearance of Messiah would usher in a period of physical and spiritual bliss for Israel in which their enemies would be totally destroyed. The Jewish expectation was a literal visible territorial kingdom of which the Messiah – the King – would rule over. They believed He would immediately destroy every enemy that withstood the house of Israel. Their wrong thinking was guided by a hyper-literalist interpretaion of OT Messianic prophecies.

http://p214.ezboard.com/fthechristianca ... 21&stop=40

This is why I'm quite interested by your recent comments which seem to be saying that literal interpretation of the "Kingom prophecies" in the OT has it's roots in Greek not Hebrew thinking.

Ely

[Guest]

Ely,

Re: Motives: My intent was not to bring your motives into question. I'm sorry that you took it that way. I actually hold you in very high regard. When we're taught a particular way of looking at scripture, it can nearly blind us to things that are there. For example, it was a revelatory, eye-opening experience for me when I realized that one of the strongest (if not the strongest) themes that runs through the entire Bible is God's concern for the poor and marginalized. I had been taught an Evangelical Charismatic form of Christianity that, frankly, was more concerned with personal salvation and personal spiritual gifts and personal growth, etc. Another example is when I discovered the core value of community, going all the way back to the Trinity. Another was preterism. Each of these (and others) caused me to see things in the Bible that were always there but that I had tended to unwittingly gloss over. I know that this process of discovery will continue, which is part of the reason why Bible study is so rewarding and challenging.

I imagine, as diligent a digger in the scriptures as you are, that you have had similar experiences.

Anyway, that's what I was getting at.

As far as the quote from Steve that you cited, I can't really comment on it other than to say that I wouldn't describe the situation in that way. I don't see the issue with the scribes and Pharisees as being one of literal vs. allegorical interpretations. But more (as I said earlier) that they had constructed a prophetic expectation that exalted themselves, as Jews and Pharisees. I think where they blew it (among other things) was in missing their vocation to be God's image to the world and missing the scope of God's redemptive intent.