The parent of all heresy

[Zemke]

No argument from me.

So we just get back to the apostles teaching, right.

Learning how they understood the law and prophets so we too know how to read the Word.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit, is it not?

Thanks OneLight for the note.

As to getting back to the apostles teaching, that depends. The twelve were yet offering the restoration of Israel's Davidic Kingdom. With the exception of Peter's opening the doors to the kingdom of heaven to the household of Corneilus, (Matt. 16:19) the twelve's ministry was to the Jews only (Gal. 2:2-9).

As their ministry being to the Jews only, they wrote no epistles to the Gentiles. That was Paul's ministry as shown in Galatians above. Paul said 3 times that his gospel was a mystery in past ages before being revealed to and preached by him to the Gentiles.

The apostle distinctly states that the gospel he preached was given to him by special revelation and unknown before by anyone (Eph. 3:2 3), including the other apostles, who were yet preaching the gospel (offering) of the kingdom started by John the Baptist, the Lord, than the twelve. In v. 4, he identifies that gospel as “my knowledge.” For that reason he named it three times as “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:8), and in Rom. 16:25 he identifies “his gospel,” as “a mystery kept secret since the world began.” Paul was sent by revelation (Gal. 2:2) to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the apostles before him. This whole dispensation of grace commonly known as the church was a mystery, completely hidden in past ages and generations (Rom. 16:25 26; Eph. 3:5,9; Col. 1:26).

I am not saying the twelve taught nothing usable by the present church, only when reading their epistles we must apply what belongs to us and what belongs to Israel and the earthly kingdom they were offering.

In His grace

pilgrim1

Understanding the audience to better understand the message is important but separating application takes the word out of peoples hands and puts it in to the hands of the intellects. The Gnostics.

I am saying everything they taught is usable. The mistakes the church has made is directly connected to getting away from and then not going all the way back to the apostle doctrine.

Reading the prophets has its' difficulties but the epistles are fairly strait forward.

I'll just watch where your going with this, Sorry if I interupted a flow. Didn't mean to.

[gdemoss]

Heresy is found in the list of the works of the flesh in Galatians. It has been around since the Garden of Eden when Eve was deceived into eating the fruit, thinking that she was going to actually receive knowledge that would make her like God. Instead she received a new ability that made her Gods enemy and sins servant. Since then heresy has been found in many forms. It was running rampant when the Lord came. The Sadducee's claimed there was no resurrection of the dead, nor angel or spirit.

To figure out what is heresy and what is not one can simply apply the 'flesh test'. Since all heresy caters to the flesh and is rooted in the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, it usually has a tale tell sign of allowing one to live or partake in the works of the flesh without fear of condemnation.

Having read the errors in your original post, I don't believe that if I offered you the truth about them that you would be interested in agreeing with me as some of the things you mentioned such as the kingdom of God that began with John being different from the gospel of grace that Paul taught are very clearly shown in scripture as being one in the same.

May the Lord God Almighty mold and shape you in truth as a vessel unto honor.

Gary

[OneLight]

No argument from me.

So we just get back to the apostles teaching, right.

Learning how they understood the law and prophets so we too know how to read the Word.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit, is it not?

Of coarse it is, but we are talking about the eye pieces people use to understand the word, gnostic interpretations. Using the apostles doctrine is my comment. Not a man made theology.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Bold Believer]

No argument from me.

So we just get back to the apostles teaching, right.

Learning how they understood the law and prophets so we too know how to read the Word.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit, is it not?

Of coarse it is, but we are talking about the eye pieces people use to understand the word, gnostic interpretations. Using the apostles doctrine is my comment. Not a man made theology.

Gnosticism basicly said that Jesus was a spirit and didn't come in the flesh. Hence, John's statements about antichrist. (There is more to Gnosticism, but the most offensive teaching was that Christ was only a spirit and didn't come in the flesh.)

[Zemke]

No argument from me.

So we just get back to the apostles teaching, right.

Learning how they understood the law and prophets so we too know how to read the Word.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit, is it not?

Of coarse it is, but we are talking about the eye pieces people use to understand the word, gnostic interpretations. Using the apostles doctrine is my comment. Not a man made theology.

Thanks for the clarification.

Your welcome.

[Larry 2]

Is this post a prerequisite class to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism 101?

As John Wayne would have said: welcome Pilgrim.

[pilgrim49]

Why are there upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America coming from the same textbook; the bible? With permission form the administration I in coming days would like to point out in proper order some basic theological reasons for all the confusion and suggest some correctional answers. I will begin with what I see as the basic problem from which all heresy in the ancient church began and is still very much with us today.

In ordinary Christian conversation about understanding different passages of Scripture one often hears the term “spiritual interpretation,” without realizing that it is not happenstance or a natural progression of thought, but is a derivative of more nefarious things that most are not acquainted with. . .The terms "allegorical," "parabolical," or the more common expression in layman's terms, "spiritual," have their roots in ancient history and are by their very geneses a stumbling block

A most informative and good post, Pilgrim. That's a lot of material for one post.

I would like to point out that "spiritual interpretation" is not to be lumped with "allegorical" or "parabolic" interpretation, because they are not the same.

And I also want to point out that I will not be engaging the views of the rcc here, but of the Scriptures.

So that we all have the same understanding of the terms we are using here, I would like to point out that the author of Scripture often spiritualized the OT texts. For example:

1) 1Co 10:1-4 - where Paul says that Israel was baptized in the cloud, the manna was spiritual food, the water from the rock was spiritual drink, and the rock itself was Christ.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ex 14:22, 16:4, 17:6.

2) Ac 15:13-18 - where James says the promise to rebuild David's tent (Am 9:11-12) is fulfilled in God taking to himself a people from the Gentiles.

James is spiritualizing the OT text of Am 9:11-12.

3) Gal 3:16, 29 - where Paul says only those in Christ are Abraham's seed who inherit the promises, that the natural descendants of Abraham are not his seed who inherit the promises.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ge 12:7, 13:1, 24:7.

4) Gal 4:27 - where Paul says that the promise to Israel (Is 54:1) is a promise to the NT Church.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Is 54:1.

5) Heb 8:6-13, 10:15-18 - where the author says the promise to Israel of a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) is fulfilled in the Gentile church.

The author of Heb is spiritualizing the OT text of Jer 31:31-34.

6) Dt 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25-26 - where Moses says the circumcision of Ge 17:10-14 must be of the heart.

Moses is spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14.

7) Ro 2:26-29 - where Paul says only those circumcised in heart are true Jews, that those circumcised only outwardly are not true Jews.

Paul is likewise spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14.

8) Heb 3:7--4:11 - where the author says the promised rest in Canaan (Dt 12:10, 25:19) is completed in the rest, through faith, in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The author of Heb is spiritualizing the OT texts of Dt 12:10, 25:19; Nu 14:30; Ps 95:7-11.

9) R 9:25-26 - where Paul says that Israel is not the people of God (Hoos 1:9), and that the promise to make them his people again (Hos 2:23) is fulfilled in the Gentiles.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Hos 2:23.

10) 1Pe 2:10 - where Peter also says that the promise spoken to Israel (Hos 2:23) applies to the Gentiles.

Peter is also spiritualizing Hos 2:23.

11) 1Co 9:8-14; 1Tim 5:1718 - where Pau says the command not to muzzle the ox when it is treading out the grain (Dt 25:4) is a command that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the Gospel.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Dt 25:4.

So my point is that

• spiritualizing of Biblical texts did not originate in ancient history, nor with Clement (Php 4:3) or Origen,
  
• spiritualizing of Biblical texts originated with the author of Scripture,
  
• therefore, spiritualizing of Biblical texts must not be dismissed as foolishness or a stumbling block in interpreting the Word of God.

P.S. In addition to spiritualizing, there is also some allegorizing by the author of Scripture:

1) 1Co 5:7-8 - where Paul allegorizes the Passover Festival of Ex 12:12-20.

2) Gal 4:21-31 - where Paul allegorizes the birth of Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Isaac in Ge 16:3-4, 21:1-3.

3) Heb 11:9 - where the author allegorizes the provision of the substitute ram as the resurrection of Isaac in Ge 22:13.

Eleanor73 says:

“A most informative and good post, Pilgrim. That's a lot of material for one post.”

Thanks Eleanor for your comments. To make my case at times it takes a lot of material and I asked administration views to use whatever number of words to do so. I will take your remarks one at a time since for the benefit of the reader and yourself they deserve answering.

“I would like to point out that "spiritual interpretation" is not to be lumped with "allegorical" or "parabolic" interpretation, because they are not the same.”

They are when used to deny a statement of fact is said to have a meaning other than what the writer said, and say you have to give it a spiritual interpretation which is no more or less than a denial of what the writer said in preference for their imagination.

If I understand Spiritual interpretation as you see it, you are saying that one has Devine guidance by the Holy Spirit to understand what the Scriptures actually mean. I notice your spelling of spiritual you used a small s. If that is intentional, than you are speaking of ones own spirit giving you understanding of Scripture rather than Devine guidance which gets back to my original premise. Everyone likes to think they have Devine guidance and no doubt some do, but if their conclusions differ with the Scriptures, then their spirits imagination that is doing the guiding and that is a fair description of the so-called spiritual or allegorical interpretation.

When I use the term “spiritual,” or allegorical, I am saying of the person using that method that they claim to understand by the Holy Spirit that a passage has a higher or more Devine meaning other than what the writer actually said.

Most of the Amillennialists use what is called allegorical interpretation and deny what is literally said in preference for something out of their imagination and say what the writer said was not what he meant but only those who have spiritual understanding can understand those mysteries Divinely hidden from the common layman.

J. K. Grider, gives a description of an allegory:

...it means, literally, to speak in a way that is other than what is meant. J. K. Grider, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of The Bible, Zondervan Pub., 1976, Vol. 1, p. 104.

Almost always when a discussion of the meaning of Scriptures arises we hear the remark: “but that’s your interpretation.” That is practically a statement that no Scriptures can be taken at face value. As if no Scriptures can be read and understood as normal statements of historical fact or words of instruction and guidance.

Of Moses’ writing the account of creation. Philo a contemporary of Christ allegorically said:

…since it was necessary to mould beforehand the dispositions of those who were to use his Laws he (Moses) invent(ed) fables himself or adopt(ed) those which had been invented by others (clarification added). The Works of Philo, Hendrickson Pub., 1993, chap. I. p. 3.

The allegorists often point to Gal. 4:21 31 as proof of the legitimate use of allegorical teaching. When Paul uses the literal historical record of Sarah and Hagar to show a secondary allegorical meaning to teach things concerning law and grace, he uses a legitimate means of teaching used by everyone.

However, a secondary allegorical meaning beyond the literal statement of fact is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is taking a normal statement for instructions or of historical fact, and saying that isn’t what the writer intended. It should be understood with any amount of reason that if whatever the writer said isn’t what he meant, then the only other thing left is the imagination of the ones who deny what the Scriptures say.

The pagan approach to teaching was not an explanation of the God breathed Scriptures, but a substitution of man’s fantasies, which for the most part were not even rational, much less an explanation of anything. To this day the Catholic Church still uses the allegorical method of teaching the Scriptures. That is completely understandable; that is the foundation on which it exists. They are a standing example of where pagan philosophy leads when the Word of God is abandoned for delusions of the imagination that most call “spiritual or allegorical interpretation”.

“And I also want to point out that I will not be coming from any views in the church prior to the Protestant Reformation.”

But as I have pointed out the spiritual or allegorical teachings of the early church prior to the reformation is still held by the Church of Rome whose teachings were founded on the early church theologian’s method of teaching normally spoken of a “allegorical”. The World English Dictionary describes a allegory:

a poem, play, picture, etc, in which the apparent meaning of the characters and events is used to symbolize a deeper moral or spiritual meaning

“So that we all have the same understanding of the terms we are using here, I would like to point out that the author of Scripture often spiritualized the OT texts. For example:

1) 1Co 10:1-4 - where Paul says that Israel was baptized in the cloud, the manna was spiritual food, the water from the rock was spiritual drink, and the rock itself was Christ.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ex 14:22, 16:4, 17:6.”

Whether using the word spiritual or allegorical we constantly find they still have the same meaning.

To interpret Scripture, if the statement made is of a symbolic nature, such as Rev. 14:1, “Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Sion,” we know the Lamb speaks of Christ. When a statement of fact is made of a historical event, or a literal statement of an event that is to happen in the future, many often deny that the original statement meant what it said; that is, that the event actually happened, therefore, it must be given a “spiritual interpretation.” What they perceive as truth according to their method is not an interpretation, but a substitution of their worldly wisdom (1 Cor. 1:3:18-20) in place of what is recorded in Scripture.

That was precisely the problem Paul addressed to the Corinthians when he denied the very thing the spiritualizers claim. He said of his epistles (2 Cor. 1:13):

You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters; you can understand them (Moffatt. Translation).

...our dealings with you, have been absolutely aboveboard and sincere before God. They have not been marked by any worldly wisdom, but by the grace of God. Our letters to you have no double meaning-they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them (Phillips translation).

And we mean by our letters nothing else than what you read in them and understand us to mean (Knox translation).

What should be understood is, a plain statement of fact using ordinary words needs no interpretation, but should be accepted as what the writer intended and applied to the ones spoken to in the context of the subject being discussed. Interpretation is applied to figurative statements such as parables, and that is where commonsense and nonsense is divided.

When a statement of intentions, or historical fact is made, no one can be honest in their handling of Scripture and say that is not what the writer intended. To do otherwise is the equivalent of saying God actually falsified Scripture.

That is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said:

They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383.

If that is the way we are to approach the written Word, then who is to lead us, since we have already rejected what God has said as being what He intended. We are at loss as to which Scriptures to believe or whether any are believable. With that approach, the whole of Scripture is called into question as to whether it is a valid record or not.

It never ceases to be an amazement how men with such brilliant minds as some have demonstrated can follow and advocate such utter foolishness. Because of the literacy of people other than scholars, today such bold accusations are not as common as when Origen made the statement. Yet the same identical methods more or less are constantly used by most who insist that much of the Scriptures is not to be taken literally, but must be given a “spiritual interpretation.” As a prime example of that, many say the whole book of the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” is only a parabolic picture of light overcoming darkness, or, good overcoming evil, and none of it is to be taken literally.

If God does mean other than what He says, then where can be found a means of understanding what His intentions are? If indeed He intended some higher or deeper meaning, surely He would have given us a key to unlock those supposed deeper truths, but for that we would look in vain.

Since we as individuals are accountable for our own decisions before God, why would He hide the truth from some and reveal it to a select few? Though we do not hear that so boldly stated today as in the early centuries of the church, nevertheless, that seems to be the thinking of all too many of their present offspring who refer to themselves as scholars.

In the case of the Pharisees of the Lord’s day, because they had already rejected and refused to believe much of what the prophets had literally written about the coming of the son of David, there was a judgment of blindness imposed on them (Matt. 13:9 11; Mk. 4:11 12; Jo. 12:39 40).

Once persuaded that there is a question as to the basic intent or validity of a normal and literal statement of Scripture, restraints are removed, desires are free to run rampant, and the only limitation is the imagination.

Their problem is that they have cast their lot with the false seers of old, “They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:16). The proof of their deceiving themselves and others is evidenced by the fact of the constant confusion everywhere in biblical theology where their methods are used, and in particular in the scriptural teaching of the Messianic Kingdom of David and the whole field of biblical eschatology.

John D. Pentecost has well stated the case.

It would seem that the purpose of the allegorical method is not to interpret Scripture, but to pervert the true meaning of Scripture, albeit under the guise of seeking a deeper or more spiritual meaning...a second great danger in the allegorical method: the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter. The interpretation may then be twisted by the interpreter’s doctrinal positions, the authority of the church to which the interpreter adheres, his social or educational background, of a host of other factors. John D. Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan Pub., 1994, p. 5.

“2) Ac 15:13-18 - where James says the promise to rebuild David's tent (Am 9:11-12) is fulfilled in God taking to himself a people from the Gentiles.

James is spiritualizing the OT text of Am 9:11-12.”

You have just made my case. May I say with kindness, you have with a spiritual interpretation completely twisted the words of James to say just the opposite of what was actually said.

I don’t know where you got that notion or Scripture that the rebuilding of David’s kingdom is fulfilled in the present taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name. After being brought up to date by Peter and Paul it is explicitly without contradiction stated by James:

Simon (Peter) has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. “And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:

‘After this I will return and rebuild the tabernacle (household or kingdom) of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, 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.’ “Known to God from eternity are all His works (Acts 15:14-1).

In Acts 15:16 James says after the taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name, He will begin the rebuilding of David’s kingdom which is synonymous with the tribulation period. Paul in Rom. 11:25 says the same thing; when the fullness of the Gentiles (the church) has come in all Israel will be saved. The tribulation or rebuilding of David’s kingdom is the same when the Lord said in Matt. 24:14 that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached to the entire world and then the end of the age (tribulation) would come. That is the same as Matt. 22:8-10 which is the third offer of the kingdom that will result in the establishment of the kingdom of Israel.

“3) Gal 3:16, 29 - where Paul says only those in Christ are Abraham's seed who inherit the promises, that the natural descendants of Abraham are not his seed who inherit the promises.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ge 12:7, 13:1, 24:7.”

Paul did not say that Israel was not the seed of Abraham. There was a problem in the churches when the legalistic Jews demanded that Paul’s Gentile converts be circumcised and keep the commandments to be saved. There was a council of all the apostles to settle the matter and Peter in Acts 15:10-11 said to the Jews concerning the Gentiles that they and the Jews would be saved just like Paul’s Gentile converts:

"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

The complete mission of Paul was to preach salvation in Christ to the Gentile world in this dispensation of grace. The problem with the Galatians church was, some of the Jews were saying they as Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law to be saved. Abraham was used as an example of the fact that it was through like faith of Abraham, that we are saved from wrath; “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3; 5:22) and their salvation had nothing to do with keeping the Law. Salvation through the righteousness of faith from the penalty of sin was what they inherited, not the covenants, not the promises, not the land, and certainly not Israel’s kingdom.

“4) Gal 4:27 - where Paul says that the promise to Israel (Is 54:1) is a promise to the NT Church.

Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Is 54:1.”

May I say that Paul is giving a allegorical secondary meaning to what he quoted from Isa. which you say is not the same as spiritual interpretation.

“5) Heb 8:6-13, 10:15-18 - where the author says the promise to Israel of a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) is fulfilled in the Gentile church.

The author of Heb is spiritualizing the OT text of Jer 31:31-34.”

I think you have misunderstood who Paul was writing to. It was “The Epistle to the Hebrews”.

“6) Dt 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25-26 - where Moses says the circumcision of Ge 17:10-14 must be of the heart.

Moses is spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14.”

May I kindly say: Spiritualizing and allegorizing? And may I point out that Jews can also have a circumcision of the heart.

“7) Ro 2:26-29 - where Paul says only those circumcised in heart are true Jews, that those circumcised only outwardly are not true Jews.

Paul is likewise spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14.”

Here Paul is simply saying that if the Jews who had the Law but didn’t keep it and the Gentiles kept it’s righteousness requirements, would they not be counted and accepted as God’s people? Paul speaks of Israel’s redemption in chapter ll:25-28 when they will receive their Messiah.

In Rom. 10:5 Paul speaking of an elect remnant of the Jews; himself being one. And in conclusion to the matter says that the saved Jews at present are only a remnant, but the time is coming when all Israel will be saved after the present dispensation of grace.

“For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable” (Rom. 11:25-29).

“9) R 9:25-26 - where Paul says that Israel is not the people of God (Hoos 1:9), and that the promise to make them his people again (Hos 2:23) is fulfilled in the Gentiles.

Paul is spiritualizing the text of Hos2:23.”

Honest to goodness Elenor73, as in your quote in #2 you have completely spiritualized and twisted things around to make the Scriptures to say just the opposite of what is actually said. You quote Paul who quoted Hos. 1:9 where it is said that Israel for a time would not be God’s people:

“For you [are] not My people, And I will not be your [God].”

But in vv. 9-11 God says:

"Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, 'You [are] not My people,' [There] it shall be said to them, '[You are] sons of the living God.' Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel Shall be gathered together, And appoint for themselves one head; And they shall come up out of the land, For great [will be] the day of Jezreel!

Where can you find in the church children of Judah and the children of Israel? It should be simple to see above that the same passage speaking of Israel presently as “not my people”, will again be called “Sons of the living God.”

Then in 2:23 God says of same Israel above:

Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on [her who had] not obtained mercy; Then I will say to [those who were] not My people, 'You [are] My people!' And they shall say, '[You are] my God!' "

Again, you are using the above as speaking of the church but it applies to Israel in the latter day when God redeems them. Consider the following Scriptures and recognize that a time is coming when the Jews will return and yes, “seek the LORD their God and David their king.” If the church is the kingdom of David their king, please show the readers where David the king is found in the church?

“For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or [sacred] pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days” (Hos. 3:4-5).

“10) 1Pe 2:10 - where Peter also says that the promise spoken to Israel (Hos 2:23) applies to the Gentiles.

Peter is also spiritualizing Hos 2:23.”

In 1Pet. 2:8 he says of the unbelieving Jews:

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Then speaking to the believing Jews to whom his epistle was written he says of Israel who had crucified their king but as Paul in Rom. 11:5 says: a remnant had been saved and quotes from Ex. 19:6: where it is said:

But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once [were] not a people but [are] now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy” (2Pet. 2:910).

“So my point is that

• spiritualizing of Biblical texts did not originate in ancient history, or with Clement (Php 4:3) or Origen,

• spiritualizing of Biblical texts originated with the author of Scripture,

• therefore, spiritualizing of Biblical texts must not be dismissed as a stumbling block in interpreting the Word of God.”

Spiritualizing or allegorizing as used in all theological circles most certainly originated in ancient history with the Greeks and passed into Judaism and then was passed into the early Jewish church and then into the Gentile church.

When the Lord instructed His disciples to pray: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” He was only repeating what Isa. 62:6 had already said. “You who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent, and give Him no rest till He establishes and till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth.”

Has Rome become the New Jerusalem?

Will the Lord not hear the prayers of His people? Will He not yet redeem Israel? Would He instruct His disciples to pray for a kingdom already established, or one that He knew would never come? Just as the prophet spoke, even most of Israel today no longer looks for their Messiah:

But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken Me, and my Lord has forgotten me.” “Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you. See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; your walls are continually before Me (Isa. 49:14 16).

Behold, I will bring it (Jerusalem) health and healing; I will heal them and reveal to them the abundance of peace and truth. ‘And I will cause the captives of Judah and the captives of Israel to return, and will rebuild those places as at the first. ‘I will cleanse them from all their iniquity by which they have sinned against Me, and I will pardon all their iniquities by which they have sinned and by which they have transgressed against Me. ‘Then it shall be to me a name of joy, a name of praise, and an honor before all nations of the earth, who shall hear all the good that I do to them; they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and all the prosperity that I provide for it’ (Jer. 33:6 9, clarification added).

Thus says the Lord: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, ‘then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. ‘As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.” ‘Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, “have you not considered what these people (The Amillennialists) have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the Lord has chosen, He has also cast them off’? Thus they have despised My people, as if they should no more be a nation before them. “Thus says the Lord: ‘If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, ‘then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them (Jer. 33:20 26). (my own description as Amillennialists added).

Thanks again Deborah for your sincere answer to my post. Please do not be offended by any of my remarks.

Grace to you

Pilgrim49

[gdemoss]

Speaking to the believing Jews to whom Peter's epistle was written

How do you come to the conclusion that Peter wrote to Jews?

In chapter 2 of 1 Peter we find this description of those he was writing to:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Clearly the Jews were a people and the people of God already. They had obtained mercy but now these, whom Peter is addressing, are just now obtaining mercy.

Grace and Peace unto you always!

Gary

[pilgrim49]

Speaking to the believing Jews to whom Peter's epistle was written

How do you come to the conclusion that Peter wrote to Jews?

In chapter 2 of 1 Peter we find this description of those he was writing to:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Clearly the Jews were a people and the people of God already. They had obtained mercy but now these, whom Peter is addressing, are just now obtaining mercy.

Grace and Peace unto you always!

Gary

gdemoss asks:

"How do you come to the conclusion that Peter wrote to Jews?"

In AD 50 Paul was sent by Devine revelation to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the twelve before him which plainly shows that they were not aware of the contents of Paul’s gospel.

“And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain…" (Gal. 2:2).

But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed [to be something] added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, … (Gal. 2:6-9).

Here we plainly see that Paul’s gospel was different than that of Peter and the others. Paul’s gospel was for the Gentiles, which matches Paul’s plain statement three times that his gospel was a mystery until given to him by the Lord and taught by him and the gospel for the circumcised… “…as [the gospel] for the circumcised [was] to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), …

Here is your answer Gdemoss as to who Peter and the other apostles ministered to. But to add to the above, in my original post I showed where Peter 1Pet. 2 reminded his readers that they were a chosen generation, royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people. That was quoted from Ex. 19:5-6 as who Peter was writing to were the people of Israel. The same people are identified in Rev. 5:9-10. The say as Rome claims, that Peter started the present church is a fabrication. To say the Lord appointed Peter in Matt. 16:18 as the head of the Gentile church is anything but true. but that is another subject that I will cover later.

Peter opens his first epistle with “to the pilgrims of the dispersion…”

In chap. 2:12 he says of the same people:

Dearly beloved, I beseech [you] as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

The apostles who ministered to the Jew’s recognized Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles which had been a mystery as legitimate and the matter was settled. Here is the apostles own confirmation that their ministry was to the Jews and Paul’s was to the Gentiles. Paul’s gospel was salvation only, but the twelve was preaching the gospel (offering of the Davidic kingdom) of the kingdom to Israel which also contained salvation through the same Savior.

and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we [should go] to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:6-9).

Therefore, to say Peter’s message to Israel on the Day of Pentecost was to the present church is nonsense. The Roman and protestant Amillennial Christians have promoted and deceived the church for two millennia.

In chapter 2 of 1 Peter we find this description of those he was writing to:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Clearly the Jews were a people and the people of God already. They had obtained mercy but now these, whom Peter is addressing, are just now obtaining mercy.

As to who Peter preached to in the opening chapters of Acts, he said in Acts 2:36:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Here it is plain who he was preaching to; the house of Israel. To settle the matter as to what began with Peters preaching is a simple matter. Rome and the Amillennial Protestants say the kingdom of heaven. The Dispensationalists say the present church. The are both wrong!

Peter said in Acts 3:19-21 that if Israel would repent, God would send Jesus back from heaven for the times of refreshing and restoration of all things that Adam and Israel both lost.

Israel’s kingdom was not re-established and the present church did not begin. The proof is, The Lord did not return. So whatever was offered was never realized.

The say as some do that the Lord returned when the Holy Spirit came, or in AD 70 is not even worth answering.

You say:

Clearly the Jews were a people and the people of God already. They had obtained mercy but now these, whom Peter is addressing, are just now obtaining mercy.

Peter was addressing the saved remnant only and the nation as a whole had already been rejected by God.

Anyhow Gdemoss, thanks for your question and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction.

In His grace

pilgrim

[gdemoss]

Pilgrim, thank you for responding in such a detailed way that I could clearly understand your position. I do not share your understanding and see your view as false just as you do mine. I am quite sure that much of our doctrinal beliefs would be in conflict with each other. It is God the Father who is the potter. I keep praying that he will make me a vessel unto honor who has no heresy in doctrine but it be his choice how he chooses to mold me. May he present us all with the truth in his great love wherewith he loved us and not let one of us continue on blind to it.

Gary