Hermeneutics vs. "Herd-meneutics"

[Phoneman777]

I've been studying the three main interpretations of Bible prophecy for a while - Jesuit Preterism, Jesuit Futurism, and Protestant Historicism - and as a Historicist in the succession of the Protestant Reformers, it never fails to amaze me how often the objections offered by those who reject Historicism do not so much explain why the claims of Historicism are wrong as they do insist why their interpretation is right. The Bible and history are the standard used to determine whether a spiritual proposition is to be taken up or let alone - personal affinity for cherished ideas is neither a standard or substitute.

For instance, Paul reminded the Thessalonian saints that he had told them the identity of the restrainer which prevented the rise of the Man of Sin, but refused to mention it by name in his letter to them. Why?

• If it was an agent of holiness, then why all the secrecy and mystery?
• Why would the most intrepid preacher of the Gospel the world has ever known - Paul - suddenly develop history's worst case of "cat-got-tongue"?
• Why deny such encouragement to the persecuted, fledgling early church by failing to plainly state that the power keeping such horrible darkness in check was the power of God?

The Early Church Fathers knew why. Everyone of them who had something to say about the restrainer said "with remarkable unanimity" that Paul told the early church the restrainer was the Roman Empire. The fathers lived in a time closely removed from Paul and therefore knew exactly what the early church had been teaching on the subject. None of them make even the slightest suggestion the restrainer is some agent of holiness. Therefore, it makes perfect sense why Paul would not risk Christian lives by writing out that the Empire is soon to be "taken out of the way".

However, the "herd mentality" of Christian eschatology today demands that Futurists stubbornly insist the restrainer is some agent of holiness - because accepting that the Man of Sin arose right after the fall of Pagan Rome means that the Man of Sin arose a long time ago (Papal Rome) which revelation totally destroys the Futurist end time timetable. But accepting this means breaking free from herd mentality and thinking outside the box. That seems to much to ask nowadays. Only dismissive waves of the hand and high sounding "His ways are not our ways" platitudes are the only answers we hear in response to the bold challenges of Historicism to popular eschatological error.

 

[Copperhead]

Well, the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is laid out in the first two verses. V1 being our gathering to the Lord. And V2, the Thessalonians had thought they missed something unique and were in the Day of the Lord, due to a forged letter as if from Paul that had upset them.

Paul then develops his rebuttal to that assumption by them.

First is in V3, where He comes right out and says that the Day will not come until the Departure happens and then the Man of Sin is revealed. Yes, virtually every English translation prior to the KJV used "departure". The 1599 Geneva Bible I have does. Even the Latin Vulgate uses dicessio which has a physical departure in view. Many well known Greek scholars such at Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Andy Woods, etc all concur that apostasia in the passage simple means departure. Without a description of what is being departed from, like the faith, then it is not proper to assert that a departing from the faith or "falling away" is what the text says.

The other use of the word is in Acts 21:21, where it specifically states what is being departed from.... the Sinai / Mosaic Covenant. To extend that same assertion onto the text of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and say that it is a "falling away" or an assumption of departing from the faith is in view is very dubious and exhibits translational bias.

V5, Paul reminds them that he taught them these things prior. And in V6-8, he amplifies that teaching of the departure further. Giving support to the idea that a departure, or taking out of the way must occur before the man of sin can be revealed. The "He" of that, most expositors recognize as the Holy Spirit, since it is He that indwells the body of the redeemed. And I believe Paul, being a classically trained Hebrew scholar, had in mind the story of the servant going and getting Isaac's bride in Genesis 24 when he was writing this passage. The servant's name is never mentioned in that chapter and from the time that the servant delivers the bride to Isaac, he is never mentioned again. The servant goes and procures a bride. He protects and delivers that bride. And after handing off the bride to Isaac, is not mentioned again. It mirrors exactly the Holy Spirit and the body of the redeemed.... the bride of Messiah.

I would have to disagree with the "cat-got-tongue" assertion you make. It actually reads very clear and meaningful in classic Pauline style. The passage of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 is text book style. It is why many of Paul's writings are studied for their literary style in college level writing classes. Not so much for their theology, but for Paul's style of delivery. It is a very high level writing style. I think it is why Peter made mention that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand.

 

[prism]

it never fails to amaze me how often the reasons offered by those who reject Historicism do not so much explain why the claims of Historicism are wrong as they do explain why their interpretation is right.

I find often the same is true when the shoe is on the other foot. Proponents of Historicism have a difficult time disproving the theories of other camps.
It's the nature of prophecy, and that's why it should be an area of some leniency.

 

[Phoneman777]

I find often the same is true when the shoe is on the other foot. Proponents of Historicism have a difficult time disproving the theories of other camps.
It's the nature of prophecy, and that's why it should be an area of some leniency.

Historicism absolutely exposed and destroyed Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism in the mid-16th century, and that's why those two theories totally disappeared from view for over 300 years...it's not coincidence that about the time Preterism and Futurism began to infiltrate Protestantism 150 years ago, it was about the time that the papacy had ceased their nefarious practices like rounding up the saints next to a cliff and tossing their children over the side one by one while demanding the parents give up their protest. The longer a volcano lies dormant, the threat of it is eventually forgotten.

Satan figured out the only way to destroy Historicism is to put a happy face on the papacy, so that those who once eyed her every move with utmost suspicion now stand in awe and admiration of everything she does. Well play, prince of darkness, well played.

 

[Copperhead]

The longer a volcano lies dormant, the threat of it is eventually forgotten.

Very well said! Great analogy.

 

[Copperhead]

I find often the same is true when the shoe is on the other foot. Proponents of Historicism have a difficult time disproving the theories of other camps.
It's the nature of prophecy, and that's why it should be an area of some leniency.

The best way to approach these things is not from the position of trying to disprove the opposition, but bolstering one's own position. Studying these things out to reduce any reasonable doubt for the position they hold. I find that if folks just focus on attacking the opposition, they risk inflating their own ego and pride starts to enter in. And pride is the source of all sin.

 

[Phoneman777]

Well, the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is laid out in the first two verses. V1 being our gathering to the Lord. And V2, the Thessalonians had thought they missed something unique and were in the Day of the Lord, due to a forged letter as if from Paul that had upset them.

Paul then develops his rebuttal to that assumption by them.

First is in V3, where He comes right out and says that the Day will not come until the Departure happens and then the Man of Sin is revealed. Yes, virtually every English translation prior to the KJV used "departure". The 1599 Geneva Bible I have does. Even the Latin Vulgate uses dicessio which has a physical departure in view. Many well known Greek scholars such at Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Andy Woods, etc all concur that apostasia in the passage simple means departure. Without a description of what is being departed from, like the faith, then it is not proper to assert that a departing from the faith or "falling away" is what the text says.

The other use of the word is in Acts 21:21, where it specifically states what is being departed from.... the Sinai / Mosaic Covenant. To extend that same assertion onto the text of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and say that it is a "falling away" or an assumption of departing from the faith is in view is very dubious and exhibits translational bias.

V5, Paul reminds them that he taught them these things prior. And in V6-8, he amplifies that teaching of the departure further. Giving support to the idea that a departure, or taking out of the way must occur before the man of sin can be revealed. The "He" of that, most expositors recognize as the Holy Spirit, since it is He that indwells the body of the redeemed. And I believe Paul, being a classically trained Hebrew scholar, had in mind the story of the servant going and getting Isaac's bride in Genesis 24 when he was writing this passage. The servant's name is never mentioned in that chapter and from the time that the servant delivers the bride to Isaac, he is never mentioned again. The servant goes and procures a bride. He protects and delivers that bride. And after handing off the bride to Isaac, is not mentioned again. It mirrors exactly the Holy Spirit and the body of the redeemed.... the bride of Messiah.

I would have to disagree with the "cat-got-tongue" assertion you make. It actually reads very clear and meaningful in classic Pauline style. The passage of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 is text book style. It is why many of Paul's writings are studied for their literary style in college level writing classes. Not so much for their theology, but for Paul's style of delivery. It is a very high level writing style. I think it is why Peter made mention that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand.

Thank you for proving the point of my OP.

Not a single word of your response challenges these specifics of it:

• what the ECFs wrote about the identity of the restrainer (that Paul told the church it is Pagan Rome).
• what the ECFs didn't write about the identity of the restrainer (it is an agent of holiness).
• why Paul was so uncharacteristically mysterious and secretive about what is supposed by Futurists to be an "agent of holiness" restrainer. Your challenge to the facts that Paul never ever failed to proclaim the power and might of his God before kings or commoners - even opting to skip a much needed ER visit and continue preaching Christ to the very people who'd just tried to stone him to death - which you say was somehow his "Pauline style" is dismissive and pretentious and fails to deal directly with the argument presented.

 

[Phoneman777]

The best way to approach these things is not from the position of trying to disprove the opposition, but bolstering one's own position. Studying these things out to reduce any reasonable doubt for the position they hold. I find that if folks just focus on attacking the opposition, they risk inflating their own ego and pride starts to enter in. And pride is the source of all sin.

Is that how attorneys win court cases?

 

[Dave L]

One not need argue Historicism to disprove any futuristic theory. Simply prove the Church is Israel. And the broken off unbelievers are not Jews or Israel by biblical standards. And that Jesus taught his kingdom is spiritual not physical. Thereby ruling out any physical millennial kingdom. All of this is easily proven to any willing to study.

 

[Copperhead]

One not need argue Historicism to disprove any futuristic theory. Simply prove the Church is Israel. And the broken off unbelievers are not Jews or Israel by biblical standards. And that Jesus taught his kingdom is spiritual not physical. Thereby ruling out any physical millennial kingdom. All of this is easily proven to any willing to study.

Yeah, that would be a way to do it.

But then it would make YHWH untrustworthy regarding His promises. And that would mean simply that if He can't be trusted to uphold His promises, then what is there to assume that He can be trustworthy regarding one's eternity?

I don't believe YHWH is capricious like Allah. The one thing He seems to hold even higher than His name is His Word.

But if one wants to think they are Israel and it is only spiritual, by all means, I will not stand in their way. According to the writer of Hebrews, I have a better covenant I choose to be a part of. Not really interested in being part of the Mosaic/Sinai covenant. But anyone who wants is more than free to join with it. Have a grand 'ol time.

And it is the Mosaic / Sinai covenant that has been replaced by the New Covenant per Jeremiah 31:31-32.

The Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the Noah Covenant are still very much in effect. And none of them are spiritual in nature. 100% physical in nature. And none of them abrogated or replaced by the New Covenant. If YHWH can't be trusted to honor His Word regarding these, then the guarantee of salvation is worth little more than the paper it is written on in the Bible.

 

[tzcho2]

I've been studying the three main interpretations of Bible prophecy for a while - Jesuit Preterism, Jesuit Futurism, and Protestant Historicism - and as a Historicist in the succession of the Protestant Reformers, it never fails to amaze me how often the reasons offered by those who reject Historicism do not so much explain why the claims of Historicism are wrong as they do explain why their interpretation is right. The Bible and history are the standard used to determine whether a spiritual proposition is to be taken up or let alone - personal affinity for cherished ideas is neither a standard or substitute.

For instance, Paul reminded the Thessalonian saints that he had told them the identity of the restrainer which prevented the rise of the Man of Sin, but refused to mention it by name in his letter to them. Why?

• If it was an agent of holiness, then why all the secrecy and mystery?
• Why would the most intrepid preacher of the Gospel the world has ever known - Paul - suddenly develop history's worst case of "cat-got-tongue"?
• Why deny such encouragement to the persecuted, fledgling early church by failing to plainly state that the power keeping such horrible darkness in check was the power of God?

The Early Church Fathers knew why. Everyone of them who had something to say about the restrainer said "with remarkable unanimity" that Paul told the early church the restrainer was the Roman Empire. The fathers lived in a time closely removed from Paul and therefore knew exactly what the early church had been teaching on the subject. None of them make even the slightest suggestion the restrainer is some agent of holiness. Therefore, it makes perfect sense why Paul would not risk Christian lives by writing out that the Empire is soon to be "taken out of the way".

However, the "herd mentality" of Christian eschatology today demands that Futurists stubbornly insist the restrainer is some agent of holiness - because accepting that the Man of Sin arose right after the fall of Pagan Rome means that the Man of Sin arose a long time ago (Papal Rome) which revelation totally destroys the Futurist end time timetable. But accepting this means breaking free from herd mentality and thinking outside the box. That seems to much to ask nowadays. Only dismissive waves of the hand and high sounding "His ways are not our ways" platitudes are the only answers we hear in response to the bold challenges of Historicism to popular eschatological error.

I disagree with you. The restrainer is not the Roman Empire.

 

[CoreIssue]

One not need argue Historicism to disprove any futuristic theory. Simply prove the Church is Israel. And the broken off unbelievers are not Jews or Israel by biblical standards. And that Jesus taught his kingdom is spiritual not physical. Thereby ruling out any physical millennial kingdom. All of this is easily proven to any willing to study.

Do you think repeating that nonsense often enough will make it true?

 

[Dave L]

Do you think repeating that nonsense often enough will make it true?

The problem is yours. You say the kingdom will be physical when Jesus says it is already here and spiritual. You say today's Jews and Israel are biblical Israel. Paul says they are not. But in fact broken off from Israel because of their hatred and rejection of Christ. One scrap of scripture to support your Jesuit deception would suffice, but you have zero.

 

[Dave L]

Yeah, that would be a way to do it.

But then it would make YHWH untrustworthy regarding His promises. And that would mean simply that if He can't be trusted to uphold His promises, then what is there to assume that He can be trustworthy regarding one's eternity?

I don't believe YHWH is capricious like Allah. The one thing He seems to hold even higher than His name is His Word.

But if one wants to think they are Israel and it is only spiritual, by all means, I will not stand in their way. According to the writer of Hebrews, I have a better covenant I choose to be a part of. Not really interested in being part of the Mosaic/Sinai covenant. But anyone who wants is more than free to join with it. Have a grand 'ol time.

And it is the Mosaic / Sinai covenant that has been replaced by the New Covenant per Jeremiah 31:31-32.

The Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the Noah Covenant are still very much in effect. And none of them are spiritual in nature. 100% physical in nature. And none of them abrogated or replaced by the New Covenant. If YHWH can't be trusted to honor His Word regarding these, then the guarantee of salvation is worth little more than the paper it is written on in the Bible.

It shows that you do not understand the scriptures concerning the Jews, Israel, the kingdom and the Church. This alone takes out your entire end time hypothesis.

 

[CoreIssue]

The problem is yours. You say the kingdom will be physical when Jesus says it is already here and spiritual. You say today's Jews and Israel are biblical Israel. Paul says they are not. But in fact broken off from Israel because of their hatred and rejection of Christ. One scrap of scripture to support your Jesuit deception would suffice, but you have zero.

The non literalist speaks again.

 

[tzcho2]

The problem is yours. You say the kingdom will be physical when Jesus says it is already here and spiritual. You say today's Jews and Israel are biblical Israel. Paul says they are not. But in fact broken off from Israel because of their hatred and rejection of Christ. One scrap of scripture to support your Jesuit deception would suffice, but you have zero.

It's not a "jesuit" deception. The Jews and Israel is Biblical Israel. God does not change, they are His chosen people set aside for Him, True believing Christians are also grafted on to that Olive tree, so to speak , but we are His bride. The Lord watches over Israel & will save them, the Bible says they will look upon Him whom they pierced and weep, they will recognize Jesus as their Messiah in the end. Jesus is returning and HIS Millenial Kingdom WILL be physical.

 

[Dave L]

It's not a "jesuit" deception. The Jews and Israel is Biblical Israel. God does not change, they are His chosen people set aside for Him, True believing Christians are also grafted on to that Olive tree. The Lord watches over Israel & will save them, the Bible says they will look upon Him whom they pierced and weep, they will recognize Jesus as their Messiah in the end. Jesus is returning and HIS Millenial Kingdom WILL be physical.

Paul says they were broken off. If they are Israel, to whom are they grafted back into upon believing?

 

[CoreIssue]

It's not a "jesuit" deception. The Jews and Israel is Biblical Israel. God does not change, they are His chosen people set aside for Him, True believing Christians are also grafted on to that Olive tree, so to speak , but we are His bride. The Lord watches over Israel & will save them, the Bible says they will look upon Him whom they pierced and weep, they will recognize Jesus as their Messiah in the end. Jesus is returning and HIS Millenial Kingdom WILL be physical.

Dave also accuses the Jesuits of inventing the rapture when it existed long before they did.

 

[Dave L]

Dave also accuses the Jesuits of inventing the rapture when it existed long before they did.

The rapture on the last day after the resurrection is the only rapture mentions in scripture. Any other is false prophecy without direct scripture support.

 

[CoreIssue]

The rapture on the last day after the resurrection is the only rapture mentions in scripture. Any other is false prophecy without direct scripture support.

The resurrection and the rapture happened together.

There are two resurrection. The first for the Saints the second for the damned. 1000 years apart.

Read Revelation. States two 1000 years apart.

But of course you don't read literally you can believe whatever you want.