Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | humbledbyhisgrace | 177825 | ||
Hey Mark, over all it's the way he laid it all out. In particular the section where he covered "visitation" and discussed the way it was used in the Old Testament and the reference to the way it was used through out the book of Luke. Also the points he makes regarding "the terms of peace". Might just be me but I've been drawn to these scriptures for over a year know and it was interesting over all to read the sermon. I think what keeps drawing me back to these scriptures is the reaction of our Lord. Steve |
||||||
2 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | mark d seyler | 177833 | ||
Hi Steve, I was able to look over Piper's sermon. Some things troubled me about it. He said, "Therefore, when Jesus says to Jerusalem, "You did not know the time of your visitation," he means, "You did not know that my coming to you is the coming of God for your redemption, your salvation." Doesn't that change Jesus' words from "the time of My visitation" to "the purpose of My visitation"? Since he has ably pointed out that the term "visitation" in this context carries the purpose (for salvation) within it - I agree - why he is deflecting attention from the "time" of Jesus' visitation? He goes on to refer to the general "time of His coming", although I understand Jesus was referring to a particular day prophesied by Daniel, the very day He came on a colt. Perhaps this has something to do with Piper's preterist beliefs? I don't know. Piper later said: "Therefore, when Jesus says, "O that today you knew the terms of peace," he uses the word "know" in a different sense, very common in the Bible. For example in Matthew 7:22f. Jesus says, On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name . . . and do many mighty works in your name?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers." Now Jesus knows all the facts there are to know about every man. What he means here is: "I never approved of you; I never acknowledged your rightness; I never accepted your work." That's the sense in which "know" is used in Luke 19:42 and 44. "O that you knew the terms of peace" means, "O that you approved these terms, that you acknowledged their rightness and accepted them into your life as what governs your conduct." Doesn't the Bible use the word "know", when in the context of relationships, to refer to intimacy? So when Jesus is saying "I never knew you", He is saying "I never actually had a relationship with you"? All the uses of "knowing" regarding relationships seem to be like that. Are you aware of any that would clearly show the word "know" used for "approve"? I can't think of any. But that aside, this usage of "know", or "knew" is not of people, but of things. Where in the Bible do we have an example of "know" or "knew" being used to refer to "approving" or "accepting" of things? Again, I can't think of any. But Jesus seems to clarify, if there was to be any confusion, by saying "but they are hid from your eyes," as if to say, "you did not know them", "were not aware of them." Here is the LITV translation of this passage: Luk 19:41 And as He drew near, seeing the city, He wept over it, Luk 19:42 saying, If you had known, even you, even at least in this day of yours, the things for your peace! But now they were hidden from your eyes. I am somewhat surprised of his treatment of this passage because of the emphasis he puts on the Jews' "acceptance" or "approval" of the "terms of peace". Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that interpretation, it doesn't seem to be in line with Piper's generally Calvinist teaching. Although he does address that later as being subordinate to God's supposed desire to destroy some men, as he writes: "Viewing reality in one set of relationships, God is not willing that any perish, he does not delight in the death of the wicked. He is grieved at sin and destruction. But viewing reality in another set of relationships and from a larger, all-encompassing perspective, he deems it right and praiseworthy sometimes to hide the terms of peace and to shut man up to his own sin and bring him into judgment." I think this exemplifies my fundamental disagreement with this line of thought. Piper, as do many others, expresses this as "parallel relationships", as if on the one hand, God desires none to perish, but on the other hand, God considers it good that some do. I see only one relationship between God and man, and for the man who rejects God's offer, the time will come when they cannot go back. Well, perhaps that is what he actually means and I am simply misunderstanding him. But I sure appreciated how he closed his message with one of my all-time favorite passages: 2 Corinthians 5:19–21 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. Amen to that!!!! So, these were some of my thoughts on Piper's sermon on this passage. But back to your post! :-) I am on the same page with you in that the most meaningful part of the passage to me is, as you say, the reaction of our Lord. This really shows the heart of God towards man, as the Lord cries for those who would not receive Him, and who would be destroyed because of that. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | humbledbyhisgrace | 177869 | ||
Greetings Brother Mark! Thanks for the reply. You have posted quite a bit here for me to consider. That's good! My intent is to learn and I have yet to discuss the Word of God with anyone that I have not learned from it. I'm struggling a bit with seeing the same thing you are regarding this portion. The other I'll try and address latter. You said " Doesn't that change Jesus' words from "the time of My visitation" to "the purpose of My visitation"? Since he has ably pointed out that the term "visitation" in this context carries the purpose (for salvation) within it - I agree - why he is deflecting attention from the "time" of Jesus' visitation?" You ask the question why he is deflecting attention from the "time" of Jesus visitation. Help me understand why you think he is. I personally can't speak to Brother Piper's preterist beliefs so in regards to the attributed influence I couldn't say. However, you made the point so I must ask is it safe for me to assume that your beliefs are different then his in this area and if so then it can be expected that your interpretation of either the scriptures in question and/or Brother Piper's teaching are influenced by this as well? I have no position on this myself because at this point I'm not learned enough in eschatology or the teachings of Preterism. However, I'm interested in knowing more about the "time" issue. You said this troubled you and he deflected attention from the "time" of Jesus visitation. What do you think his intent was and how do you think it affects his explanation of the passage? Before I close I want to answer your question regarding changing the words of Jesus. My intent with my questions to you is not to avoid answering the question. It's truly to understand and grasp what you are saying. At this point, I don't agree his intent was to change the words of the Lord and/or deflect attention from the time of the visitation. Also, my intent is not to be a defender of brother Piper. I'm sure he would be more pleased if I didn't as I'm hardly qualified to do so ;-) Just trying to consider your teachings on this! I think you Brother for your time and consideration for helping me in this study! God Bless, Steve |
||||||
4 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | mark d seyler | 177881 | ||
Hi Steve, I did not mean for you to defend Piper's statements. I apologize if that was how I came across. I will try to be more careful! :-) I am asking rhetorically why he does these things. I don't really expect an answer, since who can speak for another? But anytime someone says "Jesus said . . . , but really He meant . . . ", this is a red flag for me. So as he says, in effect, "Jesus said time, but He meant purpose", I question this. He seems to be just ignoring that part of Jesus' statement - I assumed that he was doing this having chosen between alternatives of how to interpret this passage, hence my comment of "deflecting", as he redirects one's understanding of "time" as though it did not actually mean "time" (such as a particular moment in history), but rather referred to "purpose", but I suppose this could equally be done with a complete lack of intent, although I would not think of this man in that way, as to interpret a passage without giving consideration to the words used. I hope I am making sense! I follow a very very literal approach to Scripture. I am loath to ever say, "it says this, but it means that." If it says this, it means this, and I will change my beliefs so that I am accordance with the exact and plain teaching of Scripture. Many people, and I am not saying that Piper does this, but many people will become established in a belief or belief system, and will then interpret some Scriptures less literally in order to make them conform to their established belief system. Of course, there are other possible reasons as well for not interpreting a Scripture literally, as in some instances, the Bible defines some things symbolically. In those cases, we must cite the Biblical authority. Also there are times when we see a clear-cut pattern of word usage, which we can use to understand what the writer meant. This is what Piper has presented, yet I do not see the foundation he claims. I simply do not agree with his arguments. This is why I am interested in the word studies. He has cited word usage as his foundation, as "know" is used to mean "approve, accepted", yet I fail to see the word actually used as he cited. So I wonder that perhaps he has a different foundation. I have noticed this same tendency of non-literal interpretation of time-related Scriptures among preterists, so I wondered aloud if that may be related. I do not know to what degree Piper is preterist, nor how it may or may not affect his methods of Scriptural interpretation. As for myself, I have revised my eschatology continuously as I have continued to study such things. I am somewhat embarrassed about things I wrote 5 years ago, fortunately, not many people read them! :-) But to answer your question, I am considered Futurist, and am expecting future fulfillment of things that (to my understanding) Piper considers already fulfilled. But I want to stress that my knowledge of Piper's beliefs regarding prophetic fulfillment is extremely limited, so I do not wish to speculate further on this. But allow me to ask you, do you think Jesus was making a statement of the Jews not realizing that their Messiah was to come at a certain time, that the time had come, and they did not recognize it? Or do you think, as Piper teaches, that Jesus was saying the Jews failed to recognized the purpose of Jesus' coming? Which do you think embodies the meaning of the statement, "because you did not recognize the time of your visitation"? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
5 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | humbledbyhisgrace | 177943 | ||
Greetings Mark! "I hope I am making sense!" Yes my brother you are. I see the point(s) your making. As far as my belief / understanding of "because you did not recognize the time of your visitation." Yes I think our Lord is speaking of a particular time and that they did not recognize it. "I did not mean for you to defend Piper's statements. I apologize if that was how I came across. I will try to be more careful! :-)" Not at all. Just made the statement to help point out my only desire was to understand you on the points you raised as I didn't agree that his intent was to deflect. You have offered much to consider and I do appreciate that. I'm still digging! God Bless, Steve |
||||||