Hi Ely,
Thanks for your well-reasoned reply. I too love being able to sit with another thoughful believer and "wrangle" over theology and doctrine. Iron sharpens iron and all that. It's unfortunate that so many people respond to doctrinal disagreements by becoming offended. I have some good friends who are hardcore Dispensationalists and we thoroughly enjoy a spirited debate now and then (preferably supplemented with Guinness). Sadly, I've lost other friends who would rather cease fellowship than live with the tension of differing viewpoints.
It's helpful to know where you stand. I
had assumed that you were a "pre-tribber". I think Aaron may have assumed that also. My own journey was from Futurist/Pre-Trib to Futurist/Post-Trib to Historicist to Preterist. I don't recall where along the way I adopted amillennialism, but it was fairly early (long before becoming a Preterist).
On to the point-counterpoint!
I believe that every believing person in all history whether Jew or Gentile has been a de-facto member of the church – the called-out people of God. Thus, believing Jews have always been part of the church.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
So which is the true dwelling place of God, heaven or local churches?
The answer is yes. I think think this is a case of both/and instead of either/or. Jesus is in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father but He is also present here, particularly in the ekklesia.
I knew you’d ask about that! Peter was not ‘spiritualizing’ Joel’s prophecy, if by ‘spirititualizing’, we mean bypassing it’s literal meaning and introducing a new, symbolic meaning.
Hmmm. I don't agree with your definition of "spiritualizing". I don't think of spiritualizing as bypassing the literal meaning and introducing a new, symbolic meaning. Rather, I think it's understanding that it
originally had a symbolic meaning (which the original hearers understood to be such) and not trying to impose a literal interpretation onto it (which, strangely enough, often leads to
re-spiritualizing the text; so that locusts become helicopter gunships, etc.).
For example, the prophets often used animal imagery to depict nations. They often used celestial imagery (stars, sun, moon, etc.) to depict leaders and governments. A government being conquered is likened to a star falling from the sky (Isaiah 13 & 14 for example - and no, I don't think it's about Satan). The ancient semitic peoples were very dramatic and symbolic in their language, unlike the later Greeks who tended to be more
exact and
abstract in their thinking and language.
For example, ancient people had observed lunar eclipses but had no scientific language to explain the phenomena. It was probably fascinating and terrifying to see the "sun turn dark" and the "moon turn to blood". We understand that a "falling star" is just a meteor, but to ancient people it was significant. It's not surprising that they would apply these terms to temporal events.
We do similar things in our own culture. If I said to you that the last Presidential election was John Kerry's Waterloo. Are you going to interpret that to mean that John Kerry went to Brussels and fought alongside Napoleon? Or if I say that Bush "cleaned Kerry's clock" are you going to assume that George is in the timepiece repair business? Is New York City really a giant apple? Are movie actors really stars in the sky?
Peter was saying that the Spirit had indeed been poured out as per Joel’s prophecy. With regard to the cosmic disturbances, he wasn’t spiritualising them to suggest that they were actually taking pace there and then. I understand him to have been saying that this prophecy was bang on track and that before the coming of the “great and awesome day of the LORD”, the cosmic signs would indeed also take place.
So, you are introducing a 2000+ year
gap into Joel's prophecy?
It's clear that Peter, Paul, James, the writer of Hebrews, etc. all believed they were living in the Last Days. I don't think they were mistaken, nor do I think the "Last Days" has gone on for 2000+ years. They were living in a time of tumultous change. Messiah had come to His people but had been rejected and had prophesied judgment. Jesus had fulfilled the Old Covenant and instituted a New Covenant. Things related to the Old Covenant (such as the temple, sacrifices, the priesthood, etc.) were passing away. Pentecost was a big signal of that. 70 A.D. would be another big signal. For the Jews, it was like an eclipse - their sun going dark and their moon turning to blood.
Of course, if you insist and a literal interpretation, we
could apply it to the events at Jesus' crucifixion fifty days previous, but I don't think that's what Peter was getting at.
I know from Matthew 24:29-31 that the cosmic signs will not take place until after the great tribulation and before the Parousia of Jesus Christ.
You probably know that, as a Preterist, I think Matthew 24
in it's entirety is referring to events surrounding 70 A.D.
Verses 29-31 use clearly established prophetic language. For example, in Genesis 37:9 Joseph describes a dream to his brothers in which "... the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me." Verse 10 indicates that Joseph's father clearly understood what the sun, moon and stars symbolized. Revelation 12:1 picks up this same imagery to depict Israel. It's interesting to note that the sun, moon and stars all give light to the earth. In Ecclesistes 12:1-2 the expression, "... while the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened..." is used to symbolize prosperous times. I already touched on Isaiah, where for example, the fall of Babylon is described in these terms:
Behold, the day of the Lord is coming,
Cruel, with fury and burning anger,
To make the land a desolation;
And He will exterminate its sinners from it.
For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises,
And the moon will not shed its light.
Isaiah 13:9-10
Ezekiel describes the destruction of Egypt using similar language:
And when I extinguish you,
I will cover the heavens and darken their stars;
I will cover the sun with a cloud
And the moon will not give its light.
All the shining lights in the heavens
I will darken over you
And will set darkness on your land.
Ezekiel 32:7-8
Here's are two interesting ones from Amos referring to judgment upon Israel (which was fulfilled by the Assyrian invasion):
Alas, you who are longing for the day of the Lord,
For what purpose will the day of the Lord be to you?
It will be darkness and not light.
Amos 5:18
"It will come about in that day," declares the Lord God,
"That I shall make the sun go down at noon
And make the earth dark in broad daylight."
Amos 8:9
Additional examples can be found in Is. 24:16, 34:4, Joel 2:10 (which is speaking about a plague of locusts!), 30-31 (which Peter quoted at Pentecost), 3:15-16, Hab 3:6-11, etc.
In Matthew 24, Jesus' hearers would have known very clearly that He was using established prophetic language to speak of impending judgment. Jesus also made it very clear that the impending judgment was coming very soon.
The phrase "coming on the clouds" is also established prophetic language for God's judgment. I can provide scriptural examples if you wish.
Peter's quotation of Amos is consistent with this usage of cosmic language and is quite germane to the matter at hand - that God is rejecting the temple and will soon destroy it altogether. Peter's hearers seem to have gotten the message.
That’s how I understand it. I’ve explained that James was saying that the future situation ‘agreed’ with the present (to them) situation. Actually, the fact that he begins the quote with ‘after this’ may lend more weight to my understanding. He may have been saying that ‘after’ a time where God will take a people out of the Gentiles for His name, He would return and rebuild the tabernacle of David at which time, the Gentiles would be worshipping the LORD. Maybe.
I don't see anything that indicates that James is thinking about a distant future scenario in any way, shape or form. He is dealing with the matter at hand
right there and then. The acceptance of Gentiles into the "Israel of God" (to use Paul's term) is monumental. It is a part of the whole tectonic shift from an
ethnic Israel to a
spiritual Israel.
That's quite fascinating about the tabernacle of David reference in Isaiah. I'll have to take a closer look at that. I must admit though, I've lost track of the point. Jesus is the King, the heir of David. He is already seated upon the throne. He is also the eternal high priest in the true tabernacle. These are all images to speak of something greater than we have language for.
Let's address this issue of
replacement theology, which is often used in the form of an invective. The way I've typically seen it used (and had it used against me) does not accurately reflect the viewpoint of those it's used against. I believe that there is a common theme throughout the Old Testament scriptures, which is that of the faithful remnant. That faithful remnant, who kept covenant with God are the true Israel. This is a major theme of Paul's letter to the Romans (if you read it as a complete letter and not just cherry-picked verses).
At the beginning of your last post you said:
I believe that every believing person in all history whether Jew or Gentile has been a de-facto member of the church – the called-out people of God. Thus, believing Jews have always been part of the church.
And without disagreeing with you, I would flip it around to say that every believing person in all history, whether Jew or Gentile, has been a de-facto member of Israel.
The New Testament scriptures make it clear that salvation is not based on ethnicity (the flesh) but on faith. The true Israel is believing Jews and grafted in Gentiles, all supported by the same root. As such, the Gentiles didn't
replace the Jews, they
joined the believing Jews to become the people of God.
Lastly, the references to 1948 and the nation of Israel have to do with my initial dialog with Aaron that you and I branched off of. In that dialog I had challenged Aaron's view that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was a God-ordained fulfillment of prophecy. I agree with you that, ultimately, Israel (the nation) is in God's hands (as are all nations). I have to wonder though about the ramifications of Zionist Christians who send millions of dollars to a nation that oppressed Christians. Brother Andrew (remember God's Smuggler?) deals tactfully with this issue in his book "Light Force".
!
.
