HomeEschatologyExegesis vs Eisegesis of Interpretation of Bible Prophecy Log in

Comments

Exegesis vs Eisegesis of Interpretation of Bible Prophecy — 4 Comments

  1. Hi James, Thanks for this article. I found your inclusion of Jesus statement to the high priest as a coming fulfillment of His “coming in the clouds” of chapter 24 a valuable insight. I really had never put the two statements together before. Interesting. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was surely a great divide between the wheat and the tares. Thanks again. Richard Hirst

    • I’m glad you found that of value, Richard. It sure makes a lot of sense to me because it explains perfectly the meaning of Matthew 26:64  Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

      Jesus was talking to the high priest who rejected Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah!

      65  Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

      The high priest was still around 40 years later and saw with his own eyes the fulfillment of Jesus’s prophecy!

      If I remember correctly, I got that from Chuck Baldwin.

  2. Hi again James, I would be delighted to “see” how you integrate Revelation 1:7 into your view that all of Matthew 24 found it’s fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem. (i.e. no second application to the Church as “spiritual Israel” – not physical Jews- at the end of time. Revelation 1:7 states plainly that “every eye shall see him, even those who pierced Him.” Do you believe the visions of John at the Isle of Patmos happened before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d.? Most Reform scholars place the visions of John around 90 a.d., after the Herodian temple’s destruction in 70 a.d. and most of the “action” from the temple is coming out of “heaven” where Jesus ministers as our high priest. (The point of Rev. 1,2,3 ) Like you, I see no reason hermeneutically to switch to an earthly temple in Revelation 11. But if all of Revelation is about the ministry of Jesus from the “heavenly temple,” John’s statement about those who “pierced” Jesus seeing Him when he comes “on the clouds, may mean that at a minimum what ever happened in 70 a.d. in regards to the Priests and soldiers who pierced the hands, feet, and side of Jesus, it will be repeated at the “END” when Jesus returns on the clouds ??? Yours in Christ, Richard

    • Richard, you bring out some good questions I never considered before. My former pastor taught that John wrote the book of Revelation around 95AD BUT Revelation 1:7 doesn’t make any sense at that late date! That pastor rejected Israel and pre-tribulation rapture, but unfortunately, he still held some elements of dispensationalism and futurism. That verse sure sounds like it’s talking about a future event, and not in our future but in the near future of John because it clearly says, “and they also which pierced him” meaning those who nailed Jesus to the cross. I found an article that gives good reasons why Revelation must have been written before 70AD.
      https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/was-revelation-written-before-or-after-the-destruction-of-the-temple-in-ad-70/

      BUT, that article ALSO says that the whore of Babylon is NOT the Roman Catholic church! I sure don’t agree with that. The article is based on preterist theology, and if so, it could be a trip off to get people not to look at the popes of Roman as the biblical man of sin of II Thessalonians chapter 2.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

James Japan