If the words of Jesus and His Apostles made No Sense to the original first century audience...Then Jesus and His Apostles are guilty of speaking Nonsense.
If what was written in the New Testament was for an audience 2000+ years in the future...How then was the first century audience, to whom the writings were addressed, to understand what was written?
If what was written in the New Testament was for an audience 2000+ years in the future...Then why did none of the authors of the New Testament writings say so?
Please explain if you can...these are some thoughts that come to my mind when I try to evaluate the New Testament hermeneutic that we use.
July 7, 2010
AUDIENCE RELEVANCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
We might also ask if this principle holds true for all Bible prophecy. For example, did anyone in OT times understand the dual and far-removed fulfillments of Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth? I can't find the document right now, but I also read where there were several OT prophecies with terminology that indicated a rapid or soon fulfillment which turned out to be hundreds of years delayed.
Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
Don't know about you, but I just wouldn't presume to keep God in such a tiny box that He can't make prophecies from "ancient times" for those "still to come". :-)
Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
The Greek indicates basically "a full ship's complement", the number required to set sail. I don't see how any significant number of Gentiles were saved before 70 AD, or that Israel's "hard heart" softened then. Instead, having rejected her Messiah, Israel was put on hold while this number of Gentiles was gathered.
Anonymous...
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I have already published an exposition of the "Fullness of the Gentiles".
Please read that before we move on...It is on my blog at the link below.
http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2010/05/fullness-of-gentiles.html
I can do that, but in the meantime would you address the rest of my comment?
Anon, in your comment you mention the dual meaning of prophecy. i do not see dual meaning. I see types and anti-types, with the same meaning.
But I also see where Peter wrote that much of what the old test prophets wrote they did not understand it as they were writing it.
Even Daniel was told to seal up his vision because it was a far off. His vision encompassed 490 years...John the Revelator was told by the angel NOT to seal up his vision because the TIME WAS AT HAND...so how is it 490 years is a far off...but according to the dispensational futurist system Johns vision is 2000+ years away. Can 490 be a far off and 2000+ years be AT HAND...Where do dispensationalists get the permission or hermeneutic to abuse the language like that?
Is God that cryptic? or is dispensationalism that dis-honest with the scripture?
Can you please explain the reason for the inconsistency of interpretation of the time references?
Check http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/gap.htm for a quick reference to dual prophetic fulfillments and gaps in timing.
And if you can ask whether dispy is "dishonest with scripture" then I can ask whether Preterism is as well, for it must redefine everything to force-fit it to 70 AD.
Now to your "times of gentiles" article:
You begin with your desired conclusion (everything MUST happen by 70 AD) and interpret individual passages from there. Yet if this preterist eschatology is the point being debated, you cannot begin by presuming it to be an undisputed fact. We need to examine the passages first, in their full context (which includes more than the narrow scope Preterism allows), and then see whether they support your eschatology.
Specifically, your narrow interpretation of "the times of the Gentiles" is highly disputable. There is nothing in scripture to preclude it having multiple applications, as was the case with prophecies about Jesus, since he would come as both a suffering lamb and a conquering king-- prophecies that from the perspective of the OT, were apparently contradictory without the hindsight we now enjoy. And there is thus nothing to prevent us from including all of church history in "the times of the Gentiles" since Israel had not existed as a nation for over 1800 years before returning-- a span of time which led to the development of alternative theories such as allegorization of Bible prophecy. That is, some lacked the faith that God would ever bring Israel again to her homeland. But He has.
So it is not others who must redefine terms, but Preterists. They are forced to stuff everything into the time before the destruction of the Temple-- the lone literal fulfillment. I've asked you elsewhere why this point in time should alone be a fulfillment of prophecy, and in fact is crucial to the Preterist view; without it you have nothing. So if this physical, visible, literal fulfillment of prophecy is what everything else in your eschatology is built upon, you have no choice but to allegorize everything in Revelation and the "seventy weeks" prophecy of Daniel. Rather than the "show stopper" you think this is to all other views, it is the greatest weakness in the Preterist package.
(continued...)
(... continued)
So then, "the proper historical context" of the times of the Gentiles is not limited to 70 AD. To prove otherwise you have to show that it is narrowly defined in every passage in which it occurs. You depend heavily on "this generation", which you curiously take absolutely literally in this case. Why? Why was Jesus being literal when he spoke of "this generation", but not of anything else he said about the end times? Here again you seem to be engaging in "special pleading" to pick out only certain prophecies as literal, base your entire eschatology on them, and then forbid that anything else be literal.
You also speak boldly of "the mountain of evidence for a pre-70 dating of Revelation", but the evidence is that it had to be about 90, since it was given during the reign of Domitian, not Nero. From that linked article at Wade's that you claim to have read (http://media.alwaysbeready.com/library/campbell-charlie/studies-topical/preterism/preterism-a.htm):
-- Irenaeus, who lived from 120-202, wrote in chap. 13:18 of Against Heresies that John's vision was seen "TOWARDS THE END of Domitian's reign". Domitian was assassinated in 96.
-- Clement of Alexandria (150-215) concurred, as also did
-- Tertullian (160-220),
-- and Victorinus (d. 304),
-- and Eusebius (260-340),
-- and Jermome (340-419).
-- Laodicea is a prosperous city in Rev. 3:17, but had been destroyed by an earthquake during Nero's reign (61) and could not have been rebuilt and prosperous within a mere ten years.
-- Polycarp, martyred in 155, revealed that Smyrna did not exist during Paul's day, and this city is not mentioned in Acts or any of the epistles. Yet it was one of the cities John was told to write to the church there.
So your bold claim of an early date for Rev. is demonstrably false, and thus so is Preterism. We are clearly still in "the times of the Gentiles", and will continue to be so until the church is no more, at which time God will turn back to Israel, to purify them and complete the judgments against them-- which he would not need to do if they were in a state of belief. Daniel 12 begins like this:
"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Clearly, nothing that happened by 70 could be worse than the Holocaust, worse than two World Wars, worse than many events in history. And just as clearly, the people of Israel were NOT delivered in 70, but scattered. There is not a shred of evidence that "multitudes" were brought to God for judgment, and no point in telling anyone about this if we would be unaware of it because it was allegorical. One has to redefine pretty much everything in Orwellian fashion in order to keep Preterism propped up.
Now your blog keeps giving an error message about "request URI too large".
Anonymous...I would be glad to answer all of your posts but, You need first to tell me where in my article on the Dispensational Dilemma I have misrepresented Dispensational teaching.
And I am going to have to insist on enforcing my long standing rule.
I, Unlike Wade, do not routinely allow anonymous comments on my blog. So if you want to post any more here you will have to identify yourself in some way.
Not that I do not want to continue the discussion...but I see no profit in the lack of attribution. We all should be accountable for what we say in these forums. And in mine that is the rule.
Anon,
Thank you for the article.
I have known Fred Zaspel for over 12 years, and I have known his dad Dr. James Zaspel for over 28 years, and I am well familiar with his "already not yet" position. I have read that article in the past.
I like Fred and I am in the same NCT camp as both Fred and John Riesinger. We have talked face to face about the subject at length. But again, thank you for the article.
While Fred makes some very good points his use of double fulfillment I believe removes any credibility to his position.
It was John Owen who said that if the scripture has more than one meaning, it has NO meaning.
Who is to arbitrate whose meaning to use? If there are two meanings, why can't there be three or four or ten or fifty?
Where does it end?
The double meaning of scripture school of thought has been utterly discredited by theologians for centuries. If there is more than one meaning, then wouldn't there be room for the Mormons to be correct and the Catholics, and the JW's?
Any cult can justify their theology given enough lee-way (SP) in the school of double meaning and double fulfillment. The scripture has but one meaning...perhaps a multiplicity of application, but ONLY ONE meaning. And it is the meaning that was understood by the first century audience...and no other. If we neglect the original audience context and relevance we will never arrive at the actual meaning of the text.
Anon,
It appears Wade may have locked the thread...it will not let me post. But here is an answer to your demand that I admit to falsely accusing you.
...
Here is where I first used the term deluded/delusion. It was in quoting C.S. Lewis.
"Say what you like," we shall be told, "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'This generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."
"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible."
Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385.
I find C.S. Lewis's assessment the thing that should be embarrassed. He is willing to call the Apostles deluded and willing to say that Jesus created that delusion because he is going to hold onto his own scholarship. The bible makes no room for a savior who assisted in deluding His Apostles.
I believe C.S. Lewis is the one who was mistaken and deluded if he thinks that Jesus aided in the delusion of the Apostles.
I also said later that when I adhered to Dispensationalism that I was deluded by that system.
So then you asked if I felt all people were deluded who were dispensationalists? So in trying to be honest...if I in fact admitted that when I believed it, it was due to my own delusion....then I would have to be honest and say that those who still believe it are also deluded.
It is either they are deluded because it is false...or they are purposefully teaching falsehood knowingly. The second option would make them evil. And since I do not want to assume that any of my friends who are dispensational are evil, I choose to believe that in believing this false system they are deluded as was I.
So I do admit to stating that you also may be deluded...Pending your confirmation of your adherence to Dispensationalism. But I cannot say that I have falsely accuses you as I believe the statement is accurate.
Then I went on to outline why dispensationalism is Anti-bible and Anti-gospel, which if this fact is established it would show that those believing it are indeed deluded. And since you have refused to counter my contentions about dispensationalism being anti-biblical and anti-gospel, you then have conceded the point that it is indeed as I have portrayed it.
So if you would like to continue the conversation you would have to now show where my assessment of Dispensationalism is wrong. And if you can show me to my satisfaction from the scripture...then I would indeed owe you an apology for assuming that you and other dispies are deluded. But until you do so, I suppose you will labor in your delusion.
And you might note that the reason I spend so much time like this is to illustrate that you would rather stay in the ad hominem phase of the discussion and not really get to the meat of the scriptural evidence because maybe you are not deluded...maybe you know dispensationalism to be false and you really cannot defend it.
Jeff
Anon,
If you go to Wades blog you will see that three of the posts in the string were deleted. All three of them were deleted by the author...NOT the moderator.
So if any of the deleted posts were yours, and I believe we both know that they were, then it was you who had to have deleted them.
But this continuation about garbage is just keeping us from discussing the issue and the biblical texts, which you are obviously not willing or able to do so.
So either drop the grade school bickering and get back to some adult discussion or drop the whole thing entirely.
Jeff
Anonymous,
So I take it then that you really are not interested in the substance of this discussion?
Jeff
Post a Comment