How to Read the New Testament

Townhall ^ | 5/21/2007 | Mike S. Adams

[bruinbirdman]

Everyone I know seems to be reading the Bible these days in search of answers. That is usually a good thing but not always. In fact, too many of the Biblical discussions I get into with friends and family members relate to the “End Times” and whether they are upon us. That is a shame because reading the Bible can enrich one’s daily life provided one is not obsessed with using it as a device to decipher the future.

Because of one relatively simple error in dating one book of the New Testament, author Tim LaHaye has misled tens of millions of people into thinking that a great time of tribulation is near. He has Christians everywhere looking for signs of an emerging anti-Christ and, ultimately, in a cowardly fashion, looking forward to a time when Christ will rapture his church away from earthly troubles.

If Christians would simply study the New Testament themselves – instead of relying upon 21st Century “prophets” writing fictional books for 21st Century profits – they would arrive at a few very simple conclusions:

1. The Revelation to John was written around 65 AD, not 95 AD.

2. The anti-Christ was Nero, not some world figure yet to emerge in the 21st Century.

3. The tribulation occurred in the First Century around the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

4. The “rapture” never happened and it never will.

5. The words of Jesus in Matthew 24 plainly reveal that most of the discourse in The Revelation to John is based on events in the First Century.

Once an individual realizes he is stuck here on earth and will not be raptured away from all of his troubles, he can begin to read the Bible the way it was intended to be read. I have a word of advice for those who have never really thought about reading the Bible as an end in itself rather than as a means to some goal such as predicting the future. My advice is actually borrowed from a friend who received a moving card from his wife just a few months ago.

After receiving the cherished card from his wife, my friend would sneak into their bedroom late at night (she always fell asleep while he was finishing his last TV show). After giving her a kiss while she was sleeping, he would take the card off his dresser and go into the spare room to read it by the light of a small lamp.

There were certain lines he would read three and four times over: “It is a privilege to know you, to share myself with you,” “I never knew such a person could exist until I met you,” and “You lift my spirits to places where my troubles seem so much farther away.”

Be the first to read Townhall.com. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

It was wonderful to hear that a dear friend had found his “soul mate” and all of the joy that comes from lifelong companionship. But, at the same time, I could not listen to his story without thinking of all the other friends I know who have suffered through a painful divorce or, in some cases, never even met someone with whom they share a special bond of love. And some are growing older and lonelier by the day.

But, recently, I received a new insight into what seems to be an unfair distribution of soul mates among God’s children. It came as I was listening to a pastor named “Mike” whose last name I do not even know. His message was broadcast from Port City Church in Wilmington to a theater rented out to handle the overflow of his growing congregation.

He urged each member of his church to read the First Letter of John during the coming week. He also urged them to read it as if it were written just for them by someone who is madly in love with them.

I was so intrigued by this take on the proper approach to reading the New Testament epistle that I immediately bought a copy of the English Standard Version – a version I’ve been meaning to read for quite some time. Later that night I opened it and started reading by the light of a small lamp:

“…Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling… I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake … Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure… We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him…”

After reading those lines, it occurred to me that I had only been skimming through this great epistle on my last several runs through the New Testament. My zeal to get to The Revelation to John has been such that I have hardly noticed those great words in the years following the attacks of 911.

We all need to learn to read the Word as if it were written for us personally by someone who could not love us more. When we cannot get enough of it in the here and now, the future seems so much less important. And a little uncertainty is hardly the end of the world.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I said: Amos's prophecy is in the first person singular of YHWH. Therefore it is improper to insist that the "return" be the "return" of the second person of the Godhead,

YOU sadi:
Says who???

Well, I sorta thought it was because the tetragrammaton YHVH was the name of the speaker in Acts 12 in the Hebrew. However, now I see that Acts 15 shifts from Jesus to whoever the speaker was in Amos without a slip, and I (with the rest of the church) missed it. I really am in awe of the exegetical job done here, though.

Anyway the words: "after this I will return and" are James' words, not Amos's.

That is interesting, since James attributes them to Amos. I can see I sure missed a lot in MY exegesis classes.

And why does it (the first coming of Christ) need to be mentioned at all???

Well, I thought that is what you said it was teaching. The first coming brought about the inclusion of the Gentiles and the second coming showed them they didn't need circumcision because the tabernacle of David would be restored and the Jews would rule over the Gentiles. Although I still don't see the relevance at all of this, I was just saying that since this says that 1800 years of teaching is WRONG, I would sorta expect to see some textual justification for it.

More hogwash. Is that what you learned in Bible College

Nah, I got all muh larnin from the Brother Billy Bob's Travlin Revival Evangelistical Show. I applied to Bible school but they wouldn't let me in. Said I had to have an IQ way up there in the double digits to get in.

I can really see from this conversation that I would have to be REALLY smart to exegete like some folks do, though. I really can't even follow the train of thought. I wonder if there were any cretins as stupid as I am in that Jerusalem council? I bet they were REALLY stumped! Must have been the sheer moral authority of James that made em sit down and say "well, whatever he said MUST just be right! after all he IS the Lord's brother!"

--- call them up and ask for your money back.

I did. Brother Bill Bob said they paid a parking fine with it, an it only left them with 23 cents left, and the postage is more than that.

The church that had and read and believed their Bibles did not miss it.

You are probably right. It is just a shame that Calvin and Luthre and those guys didn't read and believe their Bibles, so that no trace of that belief now remains.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Anyway the words: "after this I will return and" are James' words, not Amos's. That is interesting, since James attributes them to Amos.?

Maybe I misread you. At times, the NT authors do a "mash up" of prophets when they quote. Kinda like a hip hop mix of songs. Are you saying that James includes himself in with the OT prophets here (he doesn't mention Amos by name) in a "mash up". It would help me understand what you are saying.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, seems like those are pretty direct and clear quotes.

I wonder who would benefit by disabusing Christians of the fact that Rome is the "beast of Revelation?" Who would benefit by the rise of Dispensationalism which appears to let Rome off the hook?

[Uncle Chip]

Are you saying that James includes himself in with the OT prophets here (he doesn't mention Amos by name) in a "mash up".

Why --- just because he quotes him. People quote the prophets all the time --- but that doesn't make them prophets.

However, Luke and the Holy Spirit obviously felt that James' words were important enough to be included in the Book of Acts even where they differ in places from those of Amos.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Because as we see in Acts 15:17 as well as Amos there are two groups of people mentioned: "the residue of men" and "the Gentiles who are called by his name". If they had already become ONE, then why are they still TWO.

Actually, we have four as Amos mentions the remnant of Edom, and the heathen. You reference further the residue of men and the Gentiles. MAN this is confusing! Imagine me in my naievete just thinking there were two peoples, Jews and Gentiles, and that EDOM was a pictorial way of describing ALL the heathen, even though other passages (Jeremiah 49) do the same thing. I guess you can tell that I think this hyperliteralism extremely silly.

Simple pictures are best. Amos portrays the judgment of God on Israel, and the returning of God to Israel, raising up the house of David and causing them to rule over the heathen, who are "posessed" by Israel. James comes along and in refutation of the demand that Gentiles become Jews in CUSTOM, says, "The scriptures foretold that God would raise up the fallen house of David and the Gentiles would submit to that house. This is in accordance with what is happening now" thus agreeing with Peter (whom he referenced) and Paul and Barnabas. The "conquering" of the Gentiles is complete under the good King of David's royal line WHO RULES NOW ("he must rule UNTIL he has put all enemies under his feet"). Therefore, there is no need for further incorporation. See? Simple. Straightforward. Internally consistent.

Contrast that with two different groups of people (I didn't even bother to ask who the "residue of men" vs "Gentiles" are and how they compared with the two groups in Amos), absolutely WEIRDO reasoning from James, introducing the concept of a future millenium as reasons why they aren't to be circumcised, mixing the 1st person of Jesus and a first coming not even mentioned with the voice of the Lord in Amos, and just running lines here, there and back to somewhere........, for WHAT? All to avoid the deadly idea that is staring you in the face...., the New Testament interprets figuratively the OT propehcies.

This line of thinking is what moved me FROM dispensationalism. I did a read through of the NT and looked at how IT told me the OT prophecies were to be interpreted. I then went and read Walvoord, Ryrie, Scofield, and others on these verses. Then I read some reformed guys (mostly Calvin and Hendricksen). I found the same scenario over and over and over that we are finding right here. I felt like the reformed guys were looking at the plain obvious meaning of scriptures, while the dispensationalist were playing a game of hermeneutical "twister" to save their theological system. They were pretty pissy about it, too, but to be fair, some of them had been attacked pretty stridently.

All this is just to say that there are TONS of sections of scripture like this in the NT, where the NT "allegorizes" prophecies and demands the right to do so. Can you avoid admitting it? Sure. Others have. But it gets really convoluted sometimes.

[Uncle Chip]

Actually, we have four as Amos mentions the remnant of Edom, and the heathen. You reference further the residue of men and the Gentiles.

Actually the "remnant of Edom" is the "residue of men" [The word "Edom" is probably a miscopying of the word "adam" meaning "man"] and "heathen, Gentiles, nations" is how the Hebrew "goy" is translated. So still just two groups.

[Uncle Chip]

Wasn’t Domitian’s nickname “Nero” -—

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Wasn't Domitian's nickname "Nero"

lol. That would be convenient. But I've found no evidence of that in any church writings and certainly not in Scripture. A German dispensationalist, Ethelbert Stauffer, referred to Domitian as "The Beast," but a variety of Roman emporers could have fit that description.

Uncle Chip, who benefits by believing Rome and her minions are not the beast of revelation?

It's a long weekend. I'm going to read Gentry's book online free...

THE BEAST OF REVELATION

[HarleyD]

Wasn’t Domitian’s nickname “Nero” -—

I can find no reference to Domitian's nickname. I would highly question his nickname as Nero since 1) Domitian preceded Nero and I would suspect wanted to forge his own legacy, and 2) Nero forced his wife to commit suicide. I doubt that #2 reason would endear Nero to him (but then again...).

That not withstanding, the reference posted above does far more than give a reference to a particular emperor. The Muratorian Canon states "…for the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the order of his predecessor John, he wrote to only seven churches by name, in the following order". As the text states, Paul followed John's order. This is rather difficult to refute if it is indeed true. Couple that with the Syrian text and Jerome's explanation, it makes a rather compelling argument that Revelation was written before 70AD. Given the fact that all we have is one little reference from Ignaeteus, the Syrian, Muratorian, and Jerome carries a bit more weight.

[Lee N. Field]

All this is just to say that there are TONS of sections of scripture like this in the NT, where the NT "allegorizes" prophecies and demands the right to do so. Can you avoid admitting it? Sure. Others have. But it gets really convoluted sometimes.

Excellent post.

[sigh]. I guess this means I'll need to read this thread from the beginning (been distracted by state house level hoplophobic shenanigans of late).

[Lee N. Field]

Jack Kemp fired LaHaye from his presidential campaign back in 1987 when LaHaye’s anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic remarks along with his ties to Sun “the world’s new Messiah” and “the Lord of the Second Advent” Myung Moon were all exposed.

[sarcasm] No. Can't be true. Everybody knows only amillenialists are antisemitic! [/sarcasm]

Seriously, that's interesting. Got a site for that?

[PetroniusMaximus]

“I grieve for the dispensationalists, who are trying to struggle through life with a Lord who their theology has reduced, in this present age, to a mere guru.”

Tom, please explain this statement.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“The problem is, men’s hearts are a sinkful of depravity and evil...”

Yes, that was exactly my point when I said, “ especially when the theology is in the hands of someone who really just want’s to be lazy anyway. Get the point?”. Theology isn’t usually the root problem when there’s a failure in praxis. Usually the root is a moral issue. I am also personally familliar with this.

“Also, it is a great mercy of God that he - in the words of Spurgeon - “uses crooked sticks to draw straight lines.””

Nice quote! That’s going in the book.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“At His coming and confirmed by His resurrection.”

Whoa, whoa, whao... Dr. E!

Hold up there!!!

What do you mean “At His coming...”????

How could Jesus have destroyed Nero, “at his coming (parousia) if he hasn’t come yet????

???

[Lee N. Field]

Here’s all you have to know about this man...(Charles E. Hill)

Reformed Theological Seminary

Your point is?

[Lee N. Field]

Actually, they are rewriting the bible as we speak, little by little, with each modern version it changes more and more.

[sarcasm] it's them blasted Alexandrian heretics! [/sarcasm]

[Uncle Chip]

Here it is --- at Historicist.com from the 1844 work of E B Elliot:

"Next Elliott reviews the early works which placed the writing of Revelation during Nero's reign or earlier. He finds these works to be of questionable value.

"Nor can it be wondered at: seeing that as to any contrary statement on the point in question, there appears to have been none whatsoever until the time of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century: ...whose chief work, On Heresies, is decried ... as 'full of blots and errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author:' ...For he speaks of St. John having prophesied when in the isle of Patmos, in the days of the Emperor Claudius: --a time when... it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of the Christian body whatsoever..." (vol. I, p. 37)

" ...another testimony to the early date of the Apocalypse. The subscription to a Syriac version of the book, written about the beginning of the sixth century, is thus worded; 'The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.' But of what value is this opinion, then first broached, as it would appear?" ( vol. I, p. 38-39)

"Elliott adds this footnote which explains that Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero.

"May not the mistake have arisen from Domitian having sometimes the title of Nero given him; and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero?" He includes in this footnote further proofs given in Latin of this title applying to Domitian. (vol. I pg. 39, footnote 1)"

[DreamsofPolycarp]

This is really not important, but just so you can see how I approach the text: A couple of reasons why I believe that the NT has the "incorrect" text, so that EDOM in the Old Testament is correct, and James has the "incorrect" (quotes deliberate) version.
1) Even though the vowel points did not come till about 900 AD, when Hebrew was becoming a dead language and the Masoretes began vowel pointing, they still knew how the words were pointed. they used the three point and not the aspirated or non aspirated "ah"
2)Note the vav? אֱדֹום֙ It survived over 1600 years. Both the presence of the vav and the vowel points are significant to me.
3) The septuagint is less clear having lacunae at this juncture. all we have is πάντα τ???? (panta, meaning "all",) with the first letter of an indefinite article tau. If the word were actually "men" the article would not have been "to" or "ton" but "ho" and the omicron would have been the letter surviving.
4) The vulgate is ut possideant reliquias Idumeae, Clearly "EDOM"

With that in mind, I believe that probably either 1) James had a text where the vav was missing , thus reading אדם
OR 2) (my preference, since I am just too "married" to inerrancy of the scriptures and tend to "cheat" in that direction whenever I get a problem like that James was working with a kind of "LIVING BIBLE" paraphrase he was doing on the fly, and giving the text its true meaning in kind of a sermonic manner, rather than simply quoting it.

You are right of course about הַגֹּויִ֔ם plural "im" translated "heathen"
I hope you know I was just yanking your chain a bit. I didn't really think there were 4 different kinds of folks here. As a matter of fact, I don't see how you distinguish between הַגֹּויִ֔ם and אֱדֹום֙ I have always viewed The edomites as "standing in" as a symbol for all heathen. They certainly do in other spots.

DANG! It has been 30 years since I did any Haybru with Brother Billy Bob's Traveling Salvation Show Review. I am surprised I can still read the stuff! It is not exactly in high demand for commodity traders, loan brokers, insurance brokers and money managers (my hats, depending on what day you get me).

cheers,
DoP

[Lee N. Field]

While I have some degree of sympathy with his frustration with the dispensational camp, I don’t buy that kind of extreme preterist position on Revelation. You don’t have to be a preterist to see the folly of the dispensational timeline.

I am interested in hearing your idea of the folly you describe?

The gaps and pauses, fits and starts in the dispensational chronology, that just aren't there in the text, maybe?

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Here’s all you have to know about this man...(Charles E. Hill) Reformed Theological Seminary

.....Your point is?

AMPU and I have already spoken on this. AMPU is a good guy and that is not a sneer. I thought it was, too, and jumped on him about it. He is a dispensationalist, but he is a sweet guy and not an ass about it at all.

He was just saying that you could tell which way the guy would come down on the issue by the statement of faith on the web page at RTS. I thought he was being a wise guy and dismissive myself at first.