Some say Bible-Prophecy concerning Israel has been postponed until the future; others see it as figurative of Christ and the Church - but I say much of it has already been fulfilled literally in Israel.
The following is an edit of a chat I had with an online friend who sees it as figurative.
Me:
I can demonstrate my understanding about this by looking at Malachi chapter three as a case study.
Verse 1
The messenger who would prepare His way, was John the Baptist. Then the Lord suddenly came to his temple. So verse one was all fulfilled literally in Israel. Agreed?
Friend:
There are two messengers.
Me:
Yes, John and Jesus were both messengers of the Covenant.
Friend:
Sort of yes, but Christ is referred to as the messenger of the covenant. But yes, it happened in Israel at a given time, agreed.
Me:
Okay. Now verse two. The prophet proceeds to warn that Messiah's coming would not be all fun and games for everyone who called himself a Jew. He would come to cleanse. He would require repentance. Repentance was a theme of both John's and Jesus' ministries. They both warned that despite being ethnically Jewish a person could still miss out.
Friend:
Yes.
Me:
Okay, now verses three and four. And I'll demonstrate that it doesn't need to be taken as a figure.
Friend:
It has historically been taken to refer to true worshippers, who worship in Spirit and truth.
Me:
But that's not necessary. And if we take it that way, we're doing ourselves away with a proof text that Jesus was the Messiah.
Friend:
So He will literally purify the Levites, in time, when He came? Some were converted, yes. "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord". Only after His crucifixion could that be possible.
Me:
John and Jesus both taught repentance. They both upheld Moses' Law. They both even dealt with the real heart of the Law.
All Israel came to hear John. They were all baptised of him, except some leaders. A great light shone.
Then Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John.
We tend to underestimate the scale of their impact. We overlook the New Testament Scriptures which describe the scale of it.
It was for that moment a nationwide revival such as they'd never seen probably since the return from captivity.
Many Levites were purified. Many of the people were enabled to offer an offering "as in the days of old" - that is, in accordance with Moses' Law but with the same integrity that had only been seen on such a nationwide scale a long time previous.
It wasn't literally every individual, but it was huge.
The fact that this happened is proof that Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy.
After the cross, the nation couldn't offer an offering "as in former years" - because after the cross offerings were no longer valid like they were before the cross in former years.
Friend:
I will think on it.
Me:
It's a powerful way to understand prophecy. It ought to convince Jews, because there's NO WAY this prophecy could ever be fulfilled after AD70.
Friend:
I've always taken the sons of Levi "spiritually" as many others.
Me:
If we treat Malachi 3 in your way, we lose the entire passage as a proof text for Jesus.
Friend:
Unfortunately nothing will convince a Jew, apart from revelation - and proving facts from Scripture is not the same as the Holy Spirit revealing them.
Me:
That doesn't mean we ourselves can present our case in a sloppy way.
Friend:
No. But I hate the way modern evangelicals assume that getting agreement on facts is the same as conviction. Conviction is done by the Spirit - we present facts, and pray that the Spirit will open the eyes of the blind to see. The facts in themselves have no power. Know the Bible - know the facts, but don't expect to intellectually persuade someone into the Kingdom as if rational understanding were the key. The blind will remain blind until the Holy Spirit reveals. I'm very charismatic in that way.
Me:
Right, it's the Spirit. But that's another issue. And it isn't a licence for imposing a figurative or more haphazard take on a prophecy than was intended. So summarising the point:
According to Malachi's prophecy, Messiah's coming:
1. Had to be preceded by a Messenger who would prepare the nation morally (verse 1);
2. Had to involve Messiah literally coming to His Temple (verse 1);
3. Would require repentance - all ethnic Jews would not just automatically enter in to the Messiah's program (verse 2);
4. Would result in the Levites (of course, provably Levite by genealogy) and result in the people offering offerings (offerings under Moses' Law) more purely and properly than the nation had done in a long time (verses 3 & 4).
All of that forever became impossible after AD70 - because the Temple was destroyed and the Levitical genealogies were forever lost.
So if the prophecy wasn't fulfilled before AD70, then the Jews' own Scriptures failed!
We know historically there was a literal fulfilment of all those things, surrounding the time and person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Therefore we can assert that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah.
But by instead making the prophecy a figure, or by relegating it to the future, we lose the most important point of the prophecy.
The following is an edit of a chat I had with an online friend who sees it as figurative.
Me:
I can demonstrate my understanding about this by looking at Malachi chapter three as a case study.
Verse 1
The messenger who would prepare His way, was John the Baptist. Then the Lord suddenly came to his temple. So verse one was all fulfilled literally in Israel. Agreed?
Friend:
There are two messengers.
Me:
Yes, John and Jesus were both messengers of the Covenant.
Friend:
Sort of yes, but Christ is referred to as the messenger of the covenant. But yes, it happened in Israel at a given time, agreed.
Me:
Okay. Now verse two. The prophet proceeds to warn that Messiah's coming would not be all fun and games for everyone who called himself a Jew. He would come to cleanse. He would require repentance. Repentance was a theme of both John's and Jesus' ministries. They both warned that despite being ethnically Jewish a person could still miss out.
Friend:
Yes.
Me:
Okay, now verses three and four. And I'll demonstrate that it doesn't need to be taken as a figure.
Friend:
It has historically been taken to refer to true worshippers, who worship in Spirit and truth.
Me:
But that's not necessary. And if we take it that way, we're doing ourselves away with a proof text that Jesus was the Messiah.
Friend:
So He will literally purify the Levites, in time, when He came? Some were converted, yes. "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord". Only after His crucifixion could that be possible.
Me:
John and Jesus both taught repentance. They both upheld Moses' Law. They both even dealt with the real heart of the Law.
All Israel came to hear John. They were all baptised of him, except some leaders. A great light shone.
Then Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John.
We tend to underestimate the scale of their impact. We overlook the New Testament Scriptures which describe the scale of it.
It was for that moment a nationwide revival such as they'd never seen probably since the return from captivity.
Many Levites were purified. Many of the people were enabled to offer an offering "as in the days of old" - that is, in accordance with Moses' Law but with the same integrity that had only been seen on such a nationwide scale a long time previous.
It wasn't literally every individual, but it was huge.
The fact that this happened is proof that Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy.
After the cross, the nation couldn't offer an offering "as in former years" - because after the cross offerings were no longer valid like they were before the cross in former years.
Friend:
I will think on it.
Me:
It's a powerful way to understand prophecy. It ought to convince Jews, because there's NO WAY this prophecy could ever be fulfilled after AD70.
Friend:
I've always taken the sons of Levi "spiritually" as many others.
Me:
If we treat Malachi 3 in your way, we lose the entire passage as a proof text for Jesus.
Friend:
Unfortunately nothing will convince a Jew, apart from revelation - and proving facts from Scripture is not the same as the Holy Spirit revealing them.
Me:
That doesn't mean we ourselves can present our case in a sloppy way.
Friend:
No. But I hate the way modern evangelicals assume that getting agreement on facts is the same as conviction. Conviction is done by the Spirit - we present facts, and pray that the Spirit will open the eyes of the blind to see. The facts in themselves have no power. Know the Bible - know the facts, but don't expect to intellectually persuade someone into the Kingdom as if rational understanding were the key. The blind will remain blind until the Holy Spirit reveals. I'm very charismatic in that way.
Me:
Right, it's the Spirit. But that's another issue. And it isn't a licence for imposing a figurative or more haphazard take on a prophecy than was intended. So summarising the point:
According to Malachi's prophecy, Messiah's coming:
1. Had to be preceded by a Messenger who would prepare the nation morally (verse 1);
2. Had to involve Messiah literally coming to His Temple (verse 1);
3. Would require repentance - all ethnic Jews would not just automatically enter in to the Messiah's program (verse 2);
4. Would result in the Levites (of course, provably Levite by genealogy) and result in the people offering offerings (offerings under Moses' Law) more purely and properly than the nation had done in a long time (verses 3 & 4).
All of that forever became impossible after AD70 - because the Temple was destroyed and the Levitical genealogies were forever lost.
So if the prophecy wasn't fulfilled before AD70, then the Jews' own Scriptures failed!
We know historically there was a literal fulfilment of all those things, surrounding the time and person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Therefore we can assert that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah.
But by instead making the prophecy a figure, or by relegating it to the future, we lose the most important point of the prophecy.
No comments:
Post a Comment