Are you just failing to be humorous again, Steve, or are you genuinely trying to be insulting? I haven't set myself up to do or to be anything. I have simply presented the facts of the case as I see them. If you disagree with the facts you are free to refute them, but I must urge you to leave off the personal reflections because they are insulting, and it is starting to look like your modus operandi.Here you are, Matthew, one solitary man trying to turn over the general consensus of interpretation among the Reformed Amillenarians (some of whom I have listed in this post) as though you alone carry the banner of truth and all the rest of us are astray and amuddle in our hermeneutic method. I will say you are valorous, at the least.
Matthew, you talk a good talk, but it is valid only within the sphere of your own system’s internal logic, i.e., the idealist, which is closed to historical influence (I once termed it ahistorical, and you countered, no it is all-historical), and to others who are not within that same sphere. I remain unconvinced that your view is coherent in light of Scripture. You evidently feel the same of us.
As every inaugurated eschatologist accepts, the last days commenced with the coming of Christ.That Jesus is developing the prophecy of Daniel’s latter-day deceiver is apparent from the saturation of other Dan. 7–12 allusions elsewhere in Matt. 24
together with its Synoptic parallels. For example Matt. 24:15, 21 quote the famous “abomination of desolation” and “great tribulation” passages from Daniel.
Is my view solitary? No. Am I trying to set myself up as the sole bearer of truth? No. I am simply reflecting on the insights of others and seeking to provide those insights for the help of others as they seek to understand the Scriptures in their own light.Jesus represented and embodied the saints of Israel as the Son of Man, and his death on the cross was a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy of the great end-time trial in which the eschatological fiend would oppress the faithful Israelites and kill many of them (a prophecy implicitly including the individual Son of Man). In fact, the Messiah himself is likely to be included among those who would die in this latter-day persecution, since “the abomination of desolation,” directly linked in Dan. 9:26–27 with the Messiah’s death, takes place elsewhere in Daniel during the time of the final tribulation, when the evil opponent persecutes and kills the saints (Dan. 11:30–35; 12:10–11; cf. 7:25).
Your words were, "as though you alone carry the banner of truth." That is false and defamatory. It insinuates I am setting myself up to be something over and above others. If you could stick to the points in discussion and refrain from personal reflection it would be much appreciated.I do not think I gave a false or defamatory picture.
Once the text is explained in the terms Beale has suggested it satisfies all the criteria for "fulfilment." As we read in Matthew 11:3, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Once the fulfilment is found there is no need to look elsewhere. Only when the fulfilment is not found does it become necessary to keep looking.I am glad you appreciate Beale, and have some of his materials. I would agree with the quotes of his you posted. What was at issue is your saying that his (and many others’) idea of “multiple fulfilments in terms of inauguration, continuation, and consummation is quite unnecessary and burdens the text with multiple meanings it simply cannot bear.” That was the issue, and not that you appreciate his work otherwise.
Swordplay requires two. You are the only one engaging in it. I don't care for the rhetorical cleverness, especially in a point of disagreement. As far as I can see, a propensity to address the person rather than the argument shows a lack of confidence in one's position.swordplay among friends, though
With reference to multiple fulfilments of prophecy the author makes the following pertinent observations (p. 495):CHAPTER XXVII.
NO DOUBLE SENSE IN PROPHECY.
The hermeneutical principles which we have now set forth necessarily exclude the doctrine that the prophecies of Scripture contain an occult or double sense. It has been alleged by some that as these oracles are heavenly and divine we should expect to find in them manifold meanings. They must needs differ from other books. Hence has arisen not only the doctrine of a double sense, but of a threefold and fourfold sense, and the rabbis went so far as to insist that there are "mountains of sense in every word of Scripture." We may readily admit that the Scriptures are capable of manifold practical applications; otherwise they would not be so useful for doctrine, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. iii, 16). But the moment we admit the principle that portions of Scripture contain an occult or double sense we introduce an element of uncertainty in the sacred volume, and unsettle all scientific interpretation. "If the Scripture has more than one meaning," says Dr. Owen, "it has no meaning at all." "I hold," says Ryle, "that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it.... To say that words do mean a thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture."
Interpretation and application must be kept distinct for the sake of clarity. If every application were made the interpretation of the text it would be impossible to ascertain the meaning of the text and to discern if the application is valid.The precious words of promise to God's people find more or less fulfilment in every individual experience. But these facts do not sustain the theory of a double sense. The sense in every case is direct and simple; the applications and illustrations are many. Such facts give no authority for us to go into apocalyptic prophecies with the expectation of finding two or more meanings in each specific statement, and then to declare: This verse refers to an event long past, this to something yet future; this had a partial fulfilment in the ruin of Babylon, or Edom, but it awaits a grander fulfilment in the future. The judgment of Babylon, or Nineveh, or Jerusalem, may, indeed, be a type of every other similar judgment, and is a warning to all nations and ages; but this is very different from saying that the language in which that judgment was predicted was fulfilled only partially when Babylon, or Nineveh, or Jerusalem fell, and is yet awaiting its complete fulfilment.
We have already seen that the Bible has its riddles, enigmas, and dark sayings, but whenever they are given the context clearly advises us of the fact. To assume, in the absence of any hint, that we have an enigma, and in the face of explicit statements to the contrary, that any specific prophecy has a double sense, a primary and a secondary meaning, a near and a remote fulfilment, must necessarily introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion into biblical interpretation.
Gathering up what has been advanced against the double sense, we hold, 1. That it so ravels and complicates the meaning of the prophecies, to which it is applied, as to throw the greatest doubt and obscurity over the interpretation of their several parts. 2. Or supposing this to be avoided, it at least requires them to be of so general and comprehensive a nature, as in great measure to prevent their affording any decisive proof of divine foresight and interposition. 3. And finally, that in point of fact, when applied to particular examples, the theory must be practically abandoned, as the terms employed in all the more important predictions are too definite and precise to admit of more than one proper fulfilment.
Now that we are clear that there are not multiple fulfilments of prophecy, and what appears as multiple fulfilments are nothing more than the typical element being progressively revealed in the manifestation of the Antitype, we can resume where we left off. Antiochus Epiphanes is no part of redemptive history. Hence he has no part in the progressive manifestation of the Antitype. To say that our Lord used him in a "typical" sense is to canonise an apocryphal book.It is good to make this distinction for the sake of precision, and not run afoul the WCF 1:9 – “the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one)” – when talking of “multiple fulfillments” of prophecy, which, technically, are multiple manifestations of types with an antitype, although there may be a mingling of type and prophecy.
Earlier in the thread when speaking of things such as Antiochus Epiphanes, “abomination of desolation” (AOD), and multiple fulfillment of prophecy, which elicited the objection that Scripture has only one and true sense, I think may be resolved by the type / prophecy distinction Fairbairn elaborates on.
You 2 at it again, rather than swords shall I bring the dueling pistols & shall we say ten paces gentlemen ?Swordplay requires two. You are the only one engaging in it. I don't care for the rhetorical cleverness, especially in a point of disagreement. As far as I can see, a propensity to address the person rather than the argument shows a lack of confidence in one's position.swordplay among friends, though
Hello Steve,Hello Robert,
Some take eschatological matters quite seriously, as do Rev Winzer and I. Some things are worth seriously contending for, and I know you are of the same mind in other areas. Whatever pertains to godly sorting error from truth is no laughing matter, especially end times we are in and go through. Perhaps you are of a suasion where it is a matter of no great concern?
Calvin does not contradict himself. He allows for different abominations. In the Commentary on Matthew 24 he identifies the abomination spoken by Daniel as the one which was connected with the abolition of the service of the law. Given Steve's insistence on synchronising variations into a "consensus view," it is far more likely that he is misusing Calvin than that Calvin has contradicted himself.So Matthew, it were better to discern that Calvin errs somewhere, than to imply that I misquote and misuse him!
The later Protestant tradition brought confusion first with historicism and then with futurism. To attempt to bring the various ideas into a cohesive view there has been a tendency to allow for multiple fulfilments. But anyone who pays attention to the important themes of redemptive history and their fulfilment in Christ will see that multiple fulfilments are not possible because, in the words of Hebrews 9:26, "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."xxxvi.: The scheme proposed for interpreting these Visions may be classed generally under this threefold division, viz., the Praeterist, the Anti-Papal, and the Futurist Views. The first view is that usually adopted, with some slight modifications, by the Primitive Church and the Earlier Reformers.
xxxix.: Calvin, then, was, on the whole, a Praeterite.