[soundofgrace] Re: [soundofgrace] Significance in Language

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : December 2005 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: Terry Rayburn <terryrayburn@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Doug,

With all due respect to Alford, his statement is foolish.

All one has to do is study the New Testament gospels
and epistles, look for Old Testament references, and 
see how Jesus and the apostles interepreted the Old
Testament passages. 

When the Old Testament passages were prophetic, 
and were "literally" fulfilled, they nevertheless often had 
a totally different meaning then would have been given
to them in a "literal" interpretation.

Or they were fairly literally fulfilled, but no one could 
have understood what they meant until the prophecy
came to pass.  This is why I believe it's a mistake to
"force" a meaning on obscure prophecies today.

I've never met a "literalist" who has done such a study
of New Testament references to Old Testament 
prophecies and not have their eyes opened, and their 
faith in a "literalist" hermeneutic shaken (though some
won't admit it, yet can't explain it).

Some examples:

Zech. 13:7 is quoted in Matthew 26:29, "I will strike the
Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered."
No one in Zechariah's time could possibly have 
understood that the ultimate meaning was the running
away in fear of the disciples at Jesus' crucifixion.

Psalm 118:22,23 is quoted in Matthew 21:42, "The stone
which the builders rejected Has become the chief
cornerstone.  This was the LORD's doing, And it is 
marvelous in our eyes."  Who could have known what 
the precise meaning was in David's day, yet Jesus
makes it obvious.

Some modern-day "literalists", had they lived in Isaiah's day,
when reading the passage about John the Baptist referred
to in Luke 3:4-6, would have concocted some theory about
valleys being filled with something (blood? water? who
knows?), and mountains and hills being brought low 
(maybe by some earthquake, or God's fist slamming them
down? who knows?).  The point is it was figurative 
language, but there was no way for the people of Isaiah's 
time to know that until the prophecy was fulfilled in John.

Dean Alford would say, "there is an end to all significance in 
language and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony 
to anything."  But he would be wrong.

Even in short-term prophecy, "literalism" can get you in 
trouble.  When Jesus said, in John 2:19, "Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up," it wasn't until after He
rose from the dead that even the disciples knew what He 
meant, let alone the Jews.

One of my favorites is from Jeremiah, referenced by Matthew
when Herod slaughtered the infants in his attempt to kill
the Messiah.  "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation,
weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her 
children, Refusing to be comforted, because they were 
no more."  Literal?

There are MANY more examples.  I just grabbed a few
from the Gospels, but they are in the epistles, too.

It's an easy study to do if you have a New King James, 
since the OT references are in italics.  An honest 
interpreter, after that study, should at least admit a little 
difficulty in interepreting the prophecies of Matthew 24 
and Revelation, don't you think?

Blessings,
Terry


--- Doug Skiles <skiles@...> wrote:

> I just wanted to add this small but extremely important
> comment which makes the premil position to be supported by
> text.  If in the discussion to establish the A mil position as
> the genuine eschatology, one's hermeneutic allows for a doing
> away with the plain, literal sense, then "there is an end to
> all significance in language and Scripture is wiped out as a
> definite testimony to anything".-- Dean Henry Alford
> There has to be a baseline for any measurement which restrains
> individual speculation as a tool of interpretation.  Why would
> anyone consent to distort words from their plain sense and
> chronological place in the prophecy on account of considering
> a possible difficulty or "risk" of abuse which the doctrine of
> the millennium may bring with it.  --Dean Henry Alford. 
> Sincerely, Doug.
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
> 
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
> 
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
> 
> 
> 
> 


        Visit "Grace For Life"
  An Oasis of Rest for the People of God
  http://www.graceforlife.com
   
  
 






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com