If there is to be no millineum.......

[Guest]

Aaron,

Jeremiah was written at the beginning of the exile of the Israelites to Babylon (roughly 626-585 B.C.). The promise in 31:10 was fulfilled in 537 B.C. when the remnant returned from exile.

Likewise, Ezekiel was written during the Babylonian exile and 34:13-14 refers to the promised return from exile.

These scriptures clearly apply to their immediate historical context. On what basis are you projecting them 2500 years into the future?

[Guest]

Okay, how about this one.....

Amos 9:13-15
13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
(KJV)

You'll notice in v 15 it says that when he brings them back together, they will no longer be pulled up out of the land. That cannot be the return after the Babylonian captivity because they were dispersed all over the world.

[Guest]

Acts 15
13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.


Understand this better by listening now to this 5-1/2 minute recording on the end of Amos 9 from Steve's Amos series. http://www.livebytruth.com/Amos9.mp3

[Guest]

That's a good point Allyn. The NT apostles quoted the OT prophets and applied them to the church age. Like the passage you quote, it talks about David's tabernacle (booth, Dynasty) being rebuilt. Was it literally rebuilt? If not, why did they quote this and apply it to thier time?

Aaron,
Amos was also written before the captivity.

[Guest]

That's a good point Allyn. The NT apostles quoted the OT prophets and applied them to the church age. Like the passage you quote, it talks about David's tabernacle (booth, Dynasty) being rebuilt. Was it literally rebuilt? If not, why did they quote this and apply it to thier time?

Aaron,
Amos was also written before the captivity.

You didn't get the point Sean, they are said in Amos to return and never be plucked out of their land again. After their return from Babylon they were plucked out of their land again. It has to be a future fulfillment -
God's credibility is on the line.

[_Steve]

Hi Aaron,

I think Sean's point is that, since Amos wrote before the exile, it is most natural to see any regathering (if it is physical and geographical) as a reference to the regathering that took place after Amos' time—that is, the return of the exiles from Babylon.

Of course, that return did not involve very many of those in the Northern Kingdom, to whom Amos prophesied, but it is the closest historical event, after the time of prophesying it, that could resemble a physical regathering.

I believe that the quotation of Amos 9 by the apostles (Acts 15) idicates that they spiritualized this passage, and saw it as a prediction of the gathering of the Gentiles, and the faithful remnant of the Jews, into the Kingdom of God, in their own day...a process still continuing 2000 years later.

I am aware how difficult it is for us to apply these literal-sounding descriptions to a spiritual gathering, a spiritual fruitfulness and a spiritual security. However, difficult as it may be initially, it would appear to be the way the inspired apostles understood the passage, and I feel that I can do no better than to take it as they did.

There are other examples of this same phenomenon. For example, Isaiah predicts that "the remnant shall return" (Isa.10:22), sounding like a geographical regathering, but Paul quotes Isaiah as meaning "the remnant shall be saved" (Rom.9:27), meaning coming to Christ for salvation in the present age.

Spiritualizing does not come naturally to us in our accustomed way of understanding things—"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God...neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).

Spiritualizing biblical passages without apostolic warrant will not lead to correct understanding, but where there is evidence that the apostles understood a passage in a certain way, it is my opinion that we should follow their lead.

[Guest]

Thanks for the responses
I guess the thing that makes this difficult is that I don't see the apostles spiritualizing this scripture the way that you do. To understand Israel building the waste cities, planting vineyards and gardens, and making there home in the land never to be pulled out of it again, in an allegorical way is too difficult for me to understand.

I can honestly see how some of the passages are spiritualized such as Christ being a stone of stumbling...because it is simple to see that it can't be taken literally. But to hear the passage in Amos, it is plainly understood in a literal way. The literal understanding of it is not strange at all. But if our savior came to earth as a literal "stone" that would be odd.
I suppose this is just an area of disagreement that I'm not gonna cross over on and neither are you guys. But that's cool I suppose.

Thanks again,
Aaron

[Guest]

I guess the thing that makes this difficult is that I don't see the apostles spiritualizing this scripture the way that you do. To understand Israel building the waste cities, planting vineyards and gardens, and making there home in the land never to be pulled out of it again, in an allegorical way is too difficult for me to understand.

I can honestly see how some of the passages are spiritualized such as Christ being a stone of stumbling...because it is simple to see that it can't be taken literally. But to hear the passage in Amos, it is plainly understood in a literal way. The literal understanding of it is not strange at all. But if our savior came to earth as a literal "stone" that would be odd.
I suppose this is just an area of disagreement that I'm not gonna cross over on and neither are you guys. But that's cool I suppose.

I would agree with you that the Amos passage should be taken literally, except that the apostles refer to it in a spiritual sense. We should always view the OT in light of the NT, especially when the NT references the OT and explains it.

How do you respond to the Acts 15 reference where the Amos passage is applied to Gentiles entering the church?

Acts 15:12-18
12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.
14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things
18 known from of old.’

[Guest]

You didn't get the point Sean, they are said in Amos to return and never be plucked out of their land again. After their return from Babylon they were plucked out of their land again. It has to be a future fulfillment -

Hi Aaron,

Sorry for the delay in responding. It looks like those who did respond said pretty much what I would have said, only they did it much more eloquently than I could have. Nevertheless, I'll throw in a few thoughts...

Regarding Amos 9:11-15, it is actually impossible for this to ever have a literal fulfillment. As Steve touched on, Amos was a prophet to the Northern Kingdom (referred to as Israel, as opposed to the Southern Kingdom which was Judah). Amos prophesied to Israel for a number of years - up until Assyria wiped them out in about 721 B.C.

Assyria's modus operandi was to assimilate a conquered people by scattering them throughout the empire (unlike the later Babylonians who allowed their people to stick together and maintain cultural and ethnic identity). The Northern tribes (Israel) who Amos gave these prophecies to were conquered, scattered and assimilated. They ceased to exist as a people (hence the term "the lost tribes of Israel").

The key point here is that the tribes that Amos gave this prophecy to have not existed for 2700 years. They disappeared from the face of the planet. There is no "Israel" (in the way that Amos used the word) to plant in their own land. The Babylonian exile occurred over 100 years later to the Southern tribes (Judah). Amos was not speaking to Judah. It is impossible to literally apply Amos 9:11-15 to modern-day Israel. The best you can do is to spiritualize the extinct Northern tribes to represent the modern nation of Israel (which is descended from Judah). The problem though with making this association is, on who's authority do you do so? Your own, because it sounds good to you?

We do have an authority on how to apply this scripture: The New Testament. As has been pointed out, in Acts 15:12-21 James applies Amos' prophecy to the observation that God is "...taking from the Gentiles a people for Himself." This is consistant with Paul's theme in Romans about the "true Israel" being those who live by faith (Jew & Gentile).

If you believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, and James to be authoritative, then why would you want to go beyond what he described as the fulfillment of Amos 9:11-15? And on what authority do you do so?

This goes back to a question I asked in an earlier post, Aaron: On what basis are you projecting Old Testament prophecies 2500 years into the future? Especially when, as in the case of the three examples you've given, they can be shown to already have a fulfillment in the past?

I would like to encourage you, brother, to pick up a copy of a book entitled "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart. It is an excellent guide for learning how to interpret scripture based on context, genre, exegetical rules, hermeneutical principles, etc. BTW, I have no idea whether or not they are Preterists. I feel so strongly that you would be blessed by this book that if you email me your address, I'll buy a copy and send it to you (mort_coyle@integrity.com ).

Let me finish this overly long post with one other thought. If I were a nutritional supplement salesman and I came to you and told that I don't know much about nutritional supplements, but mine are the best in the world, would you believe me? Probably not. If I wanted to be a good salesman of my nutritional supplements, I would need to thoroughly learn all about supplements to understand why (and if) my brand were the best. If I wanted to have integrity, I would need to conduct thorough and open-minded research into how my supplements compared to others on the market. I hope you get my analogy (poor as it is). Why not assess the various eschatological viewpoints with a fair and open-mind, not holding on to an a priori position that you feel you must try to defend, though you're not yet equipped to do so.

[Guest]

Hi Mort,
Thank you for your response (as well as all the other ones). I'm sorry that I don't see what James said directly reflecting what Amos said. There are a lot of references to OT scriptures that are similar but not quite exact in the NT, but this doesn't even look close to me. Just to make sure I'm not wrong I want to lay them out side by side...

Amos 9:13-15
13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
(KJV)

Acts 15:12-18
12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.
14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things



I'm not gonna be dogmatic that this is not a reference to this scripture but it barely (if at all) resembles it to me. That it's been said that there are the "lost tribes of Israel" is something that we can understand as specific tribes, but can't God gather what He wants from what appears to not be there as we know it? I mean, when the resurrection takes place, our bodies are to be changed and we shall be like Christ. From what I understand, His body was changed using what He had as a body on earth. So all those whose bodies throughout the years have long since been deteriorated into dust or whatever, will have to be drawn back together. We don't say it's impossible for a literal resurrection to appear.

Also I've heard claims that refute what you are saying anyhow so how am I to know who to believe? Maybe you are correct with what you say, but I can't be totally sure of that.

Although you have something specific you link the last part of Amos to (which may or may not be a quote from James of it ), do you have a reason to spiritualize passages like "nations shall not learn to make war anymore"

I just tend to think that the preterist position tends to go a little crazy with the spiritualization. I believe that there is good reason to spiritualize much of the prophecy we find in the Bible and many dispies don't see the symbolism that I believe should be obvious. But I also think the preterists seem to go too far to the other side of it and spiritualize practically everything they read. This is just something I'm observing from hearing from either side of this issue. It seems somewhere in the middle would be a better understanding. I'm still trying to figure the correct way of doing this out though.

And thanks for the offer of a book, Mort!! But you don't have to do that - If I ever get that book I'll buy myself a copy, but that was awfully nice of ya,

Later on bro,
Aaron