Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute  Quote:
Originally Posted by puritan lad Many Postmills, including myself, apply this passage to the Jewish nation prior to it's destruction.
In fact, the entire chapter seems to have been written to encourage Timothy to remain steadfast in spite of persecution. Events of 2008 and beyond were hardly Timothy's concern. | That is an outstanding hermeneutical approach to cutting out just about every passage in Scripture as having any relevance/applicatory value to the church today. Not to mention the assumption that is being made that Paul was only intending to address Timothy's immediate circumstances, and not give an apostolic description of that which the church would run up against throughout its duration preceding the second advent of Christ.
It is also a classic case (along with Aaron's following post) of having to provide an unnatural reading of a passage(s) to conform to one's eschatalogical presupposition. |
Rev. Myer,
With all due respect, Sir, I do not agree that interpreting a passage in its original context ever reduces the relevance of that passage to anyone.
In fact, it may be scarcely contradicted that this approach may be characterized as the Reformed or Calvinistic method of interpreting the Scriptures, and results in the maximum relevance of Scripture (see Calvin's commentaries for historical examples, as well as the notes in the Geneva Bible). Knowing what God said to Timothy in Ephesus, why He said it, and the original intention helps us to know how these things are to be applied in all areas of our lives.
Also, Sir, you said the following:
"It is also a classic case (along with Aaron's following post) of having to provide an unnatural reading of a passage(s) to conform to one's eschatalogical presupposition."
While it is entirely possible that I am engaged in the task of eisegesis, may I ask you to provide alternate interpretations for the passages alluded to? It may also be safely stated that the view stated in the Westminster Larger Catechism is (in my estimation) not eisegesis, and yet represents a distinctly optimistic eschatology, and therefore, I am a little more confident that my reading of the texts I mentioned is not too far amiss, despite my own peculiarities and/or misreadings.
Rev. Winzer, I do not think that AD 70 is a matter of speculation. As far as I can tell, it is clearly alluded to in the law, the prophets, the gospels, the epistles, and in the Apocalypse. It seems rather a great deal of speculation would be involved to deny the threatened destruction of the temple, and the fact that all of the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah would come on the generation that crucified the Righteous One, Whom, having crucified, they filled up the iniquity of their fathers. Speculation would be involved in trying to make 70 AD of little import in the writings of the Apostles.
Godspeed,