OK, I will just come out and say it, “Literal” interpretation is not as easy as Dispensationalists think it is. Coming out of a Dispensational mindset, it is a struggle to keep myself from being too “wooden” in my interpretations.

2 Peter 1:20-21

“knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

1 Timothy 1:3-7:
“3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.”

I think that part of the problem is that the people of the church (mainly men who would qualify as elders according to 1 Timothy and Titus) who know sound doctrine do not do their part to defend and teach it to the congregation as we are urged to do. Nor do we do a great job of teaching people how to test what they hear to be sure that it is true according to scripture.

The second part of what you said is true also, but it is lacking one point. Scripture says that a student is not above his teacher, but if he learns anything he is to share it with his teacher. Even where we have equipped our people with knowledge of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, we often take the admonition to submit ourselves to the overseers of our souls and our honoring them too far. In some cases it is not a good thing for a child to remain silent, if you get my meaning. It is a difficult thing to rebuke an elder or a pastor or even attempt to correct their understanding of Scripture. We have to follow the guidelines, but this accountability thing cuts both ways. The man in the pew has every right to challenge authority when it is in error. Often, however, there is a sense of social propriety the keeps us silent.

Quetion. When Scripture says, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.” How was it allowable interpretation? Or is this one of those being carried along by the HS things, in which the interpretation is provided outside of Scripture. Or, when the interpretation is given, “This was to fulfill that which was written….a virgin shall concieve….” when there is nothing in Scripture that would give warrant to such an interpretation. Both are, by the precedence doesn’t seem to be there. Maybe someone could give me help here.

Regarding Hosea11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

In those times it was understood that if you quoted one part of a verse that you were quoting the whole verse. Matthew was writing to Jews, not only that but from his writing one can deduce that it was to literate Jews. Professor Craig Keener writes
“Matthew builds almost every paragraph from the geneology to the Sermon on the Mount around at least one text in the Old Testament, explaining some event of Jesus’ life from Scripture.In context Hosea 11:1 refers plainly to the Israelites leaving Egypt in the exodus; Matthew applies this text to Jesus because Jesus epitomizes Israel’s history.’

Remember there are several parallels between Israel and Jesus.
for more study on this I would point you to the book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume Four by Michael L. Brown.

Magnus

I am still curious, I know that post resurrection, the geneologies are used as an apologetic. But, the writers of the NT were inspired for their interpretation, in a way we are not. Still, when interpreting, we need the HS, and we could look at many parts of the OT to draw parallels between Israel and Christ. Where there is precedent and comparisons we can can draw conclusions, but in the case of the virgin birth, there is nothing that I know of that is comparable to it by way of messianic prophecy, is there? When it comes to eschatology, where we are dealing with all sorts of literature, how does one know what prior types go with which particular symbols?

This category of interpretation (endtimes) is different I admit, than the interpretation of Scripture concerning say, soteriology. Lately, I have spoken to some who believe that we will never arrive at the correct united interpretation of non-apocalyptic Scriptures. Doesn’t that leave us vulnerable to the accusation of personal interpretation and tradtions and beg the question non inspiration?

Just questions, not conclusions.

tt

I realize that many people think that the word translated as “virgin” above should be translated as “woman” or “young woman”, however I don’t really think that matters so much. Not that Jesus was born from a virgin, that definitely matters, but about the prophecy using the word “young woman”. My immediate question to this prophecy would be “Which young woman?” Could it possibly be the one that gave birth as a virgin?

Besides…”the Lord himself will give you a sign”…some young woman giving birth, wow big sign, happens everyday…but a virgin giving birth, now that is a SIGN!

Is it possible that the nature of the birth of Christ is what led people to understand that Isaiah 7:14 was referring to a virgin?

What do you guys think?

just a thought.

magnus

Thanks for the discussion guys. Good insights, all.

tt

One passage I mentioned in my post was Malachi 4:5. Now, pertaining to the question on Hos 11:1 (and others), I believe this one is along the same lines. That is, what kind of ‘hermeneutic’ would lead to an interpretation of Mal 4:5 which sees anything other than OT Elijah returning?

So many who look down on Amillennialism as ’spiritualizing’ the text or not being ‘literal’ fail to convince me of how their hermeneutic does anything different when coming to Mal 4:5.

Thus, two things, one I’ve already mentioned:
1) Scripture interprets scripture: we go to other scriptures on the same subject when considering the potential symbolism of a certain text.

2) The OT prophets used terms/symbols which the people were familiar with in order to communicate future events (if Mal 4:5 would have said ‘I send John the Baptist’, OT people would have had no clue what was meant’.

And so for all of those who say that I don’t take scripture literally and yet still hold to non-millennialism, well, I beg to differ, if nothing else but on the basis that they haven’t proved themselves consistent either. Take Mal 4:5 literally, explain it, and then we’ll talk.

Here’s a thought, just a thought, it may be silly…we don’t interpret scripture, because when we try the only method we have is by applying our subjective experiences to it. Instead of trying to interpret scripture from our experiences, shouldn’t we try to interpret our experiences from scripture…or are the two activities one and the same?

Kind of the ruler and the string of unknown length illustration. You don’t try to measure the ruler with the string, it just doesn’t work that way.

sorry about the bad vocab…

Quetion. When Scripture says, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.” How was it allowable interpretation? Or is this one of those being carried along by the HS things, in which the interpretation is provided outside of Scripture. Or, when the interpretation is given, “This was to fulfill that which was written….a virgin shall concieve….” when there is nothing in Scripture that would give warrant to such an interpretation. Both are, by the precedence doesn’t seem to be there. Maybe someone could give me help here.

I’ll take this as my springboard and address some of the questions asked along the way (to save quoting).

For starters, let’s be clear here: WE use the grammatical-historical method (GHM).
THEY often did not. That’s why we get different interpretations than THEY did using our methods.

But, considered within it’s own time, the methods they used were considered valid - and they were not at all “innovative.”

See here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html#exegesis

and

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html#messy

WE use the GHM because it doesn’t prejudge the results. But the GHM is, by definition, conscious of the above realities. It takes them into account. We work from the text as it comes to us. It was written for us, not too us, as well, so some things require research.

Also, what’s important to us is that the original audience understood prophecies like the Messiah coming from Bethlehem to be proper. That’s not a uniquely Christian interpretation, for, in Matthew’s gospel, the Magi are told this not by Christians but by JEWS. So, we’re working from their understanding. It’s later Talumdic Judaism that was bent on countering Christianity that some of these ideas disappear. They purposefully did that, but why should the Rabbinic Judaism from AFTER the time of Christ and the Apostles provide the interpretive grid for the OT (as is common today in Jewish-Christian apologetics?).

It’s also important to note, along these lines, that the GHM is sensitive to intextuality. For example, strictly speaking, it’s NOT at all possible to get the resurrection out of text like Exodus 3:6.

However, that’s a shallow view of the GHM that asserts it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to do so. That is a terribly naïve view of how the citation functions. For a citation may be used to trigger a set of associations. Indeed, the reference to the patriarchs in Exod 3:6 would be unintelligible apart from a knowledge of the patriarchs in the Book of Genesis. It was never intended to be understood in splendid isolation, for it would be incomprehensible in splendid isolation.

For the speaker to identify himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would, to a Jewish listener, immediately associate the speaker with the God of the Abrahamic covenant.

In addition, the Book of Genesis is full of loose ends. Promises are made to Abraham, and yet they are not all fulfilled within his lifetime. So we’re waiting for the coin to drop.

All of this is quite consistent with the GHM. For the GHM is very sensitive to intertextuality, to the narrative cycle and thematic developments. As one scholar explains:

“This description of Yahweh as the God of the patriarchs is very familiar from all over the OT…by identifying himself with these famous men, whose earthly life was finished centuries before he spoke to Moses, God implies that the relationship still holds good…the argument is based…on the nature of God’s relationship with his human followers: the covenant by which he binds himself to them is too strong to be terminated by their death. To be associated with the living God is to be taken beyond the temporary life on earth into a relationship which lasts as long as God lasts,” R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 2007), 840.

ii) At a more general level, D. A. Carson has also discussed some of the ways in which NT writers are quite alert to the original context:

When Paul as a Christian and an apostle reads the same texts, he insists on preserving the significance of the historical sequence. Thus in Galatians 3, Abraham was justified by faith before the giving of the law, and the promise to him and to his seed similarly came before the giving of the law. That means that the law given by Moses has been relativized; one must now think afresh exactly why it was given, “added” to the promise. Again, in Romans 4 Paul analyzes the relation between faith and circumcision on the basis of which came first: it is the historical sequence that is determinative for his argument.

Nor is this approach exclusively Pauline. In Hebrews, for instance, the validity of Auctor’s argument in chap 7 turns on historical sequence. If Psalm 110, written after the establishment of the Levitical priesthood at Sinai, promises a priesthood that is not tied to the tribe of Levi but to the tribe of Judah, and is thus bringing together royal and priestly prerogatives in one person, then the Levitical priesthood has been declared obsolete in principle. Moreover, if this new king-priest is modelled on ancient Melchizedek, himself a priest-king, there is also an anticipation of this arrangement as far back as Genesis 14. In other words, where one pays attention to links that depend on historical sequencing, one has laid the groundwork for careful typology. The argument in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 similarly depends on reading the Old Testament texts in their historical sequence: the fact that Psalm 95, written after the people have entered the Promised Land, is still calling the covenant people to enter into God’s rest, demonstrates that entry into the land was not itself a final delivery of the promise to give them rest. Moreover, the reference to “God’s rest” triggers reflection on how God rested as far back as Genesis 1-2—and thus another typological line is set up, filled in with a variety of pieces along the historical trajectory.

See here

Eschatology is a bit large to tackle, so I’ll use another familiar text, the creation narrative. What is the “literal” intepretation? While I agree with Kurt Wise that it’s not allegorical, strictly speaking it’s not “literal.” Rather, the text is historical, but it contains typological elements. Rather than reading it in isolation, one has to read it as part of the whole Pentateuch to understand it. I’d add that liberals like James Barr don’t exegete the text much differently than a conservatives like Kurt Wise. The issue isn’t the content, that is, the result. The issue is the authority they give to the text.

What we have in Genesis is a seven day creation. I’m inclined to agree that these are seven literal days. However, the key to interpreting the text is not to read it in a vacuum. Genesis is very much a “catching up” book for the original audience, the wilderness generation.

They are poised to enter the land of Canaan, the land of promise. The point of the book is to tell them they have a divine right to that land, a right going all the way back to creation.

The key to understanding the narrative is, in part, in reading it in parallel with the narrative of the ark’s construction and the building of the Tabernacle. This often gets lost, if it is ever addressed at all, by many who say they are interpreting the text “literally.” The scope we have to consider is actually wider than Genesis 1 - 3 alone. As Steve Hays writes:

L

et’s start with the flood and move back. In the flood account we have a triple-decker ark with a window and a roof (6:16; 8:6,13). The animals occupy different decks. During the deluge the ark has water above (rain) and below (floodwaters).

Now, let’s compare this to the world. In the creation account, the world has windows (7:11) and a roof (1:6-8; 14-16). It has water above and below (1:2,7). The world has three decks: sky, earth, water (cf. Exod 20:4). Animals occupy different “decks.”

So when we ask what God was doing in Gen 1, I think we need to distinguish between direct and indirect action, and between literal and literary levels. When does the action denote a direct creative deed, and when does it depict the work of a carpenter? In the latter case, the account is picturing God as a cosmic carpenter—a godlike Noah. So when does the action apply directly to the creature, and when does it apply directly to the architectural metaphor, and indirectly—via the metaphor—to the creature? The answer would depend on the implicit presence or absence of architectural imagery.

Even a literary metaphor has a literal referent. But we must ask when the creative act is direct or indirect: does it fasten onto the literal referent or the figurative feature that represents the literal referent? Which level is in view?

Suppose we ask why there was light one day one, indeed, why there was a day one with a diurnal cycle before the sunlight on day four? The literary answer would be that a carpenter cannot install skylights until he has put a roof on the house. But there was sunlight before there were skylights.

If we ask what stands behind the metaphor, perhaps the imagery has reference to the divine dispersion of the rain clouds (e.g., Job 38:8-9), which would further link it to the flood account (Gen 1:14,20; 8:6-12; 9:12-17).

In addition, there are pervasive parallels between the creation of the world and the construction of the tabernacle. Cf. G. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (IVP 2004).

Let us now compare the Fall with the record of Balaam (Num 21-24). The name of the Tempter is a pun: the word for “snake” (Heb.=nahas) in Gen 3:1 is from the same root word used by Balaam to put a hex (Heb.=nahas) on Israel (Num 23:23; 24:1). The angel who opposes Balaam is named “Satan” (22:22). The same sword-drawn angel (22:23) recalls the cherubim who guard the Garden (Gen 3:24). The brazen snake (Num 21:9), as well as the “fiery serpents” (21:6,8) or “seraph-serpents” (another double entendre), recalls the Temper (Gen 3:1) and the fiery cherubim (3:24). The talking donkey recalls the talking snake (3:1ff.). And an imprecatory theme is common to both accounts.

o the modern western reader, the whole business of the talking snake may be the most unbelievable element of an unbelievable story. And this is because, as children of the scientific age, we think of a snake as a natural animal, nothing more and nothing less. And so, when we read about a snake in Gen 3, and what is attributed to this particular snake, we think of the snake as a natural animal, which intrudes an instant incongruity into the account. And that is because we’re judging the account by our own frame of reference.

But, of course, it was never meant to be understood in such terms. And one problem with reading the account this way is that it fails to explain how Bible writers could go so quickly from a serpentine figure to a satanic figure.

What we need to keep in mind is that, in the ancient world, and in many parts of the world in our own day, a snake is more than a natural animal. A snake is supernatural emblem and occult object. It is an object of idolatry. It is used in witchcraft and divination.

This raises the question of whether the Serpent in the garden is a real snake. The grammatical construction of Gen 3:1 could either be partitive or comparative. If the latter, he’s classified with the beasts of the field; if the former, he’s in a class apart. If the comparative sense were intended, we’d expect him to be classified with the creepy crawlers (e.g., reptiles) rather than the beasts of the field (cf. 1:24).

The curse is sometimes taken to entail a literal metamorphosis (Gen 3:14), and that cannot be discounted (e.g., Exod 7:8-12). However, this may only be a figure of speech (e.g. Ps 44:25; 72:9; Isa 25:12; Mic 7:17). And, indeed, 3:15 clearly trades on the figurative imagery.

Since Satan is a consummate shape-shifter and master of illusion (2 Cor 11:14), the ambiguity may be deliberate.

Why such similarities? To draw attention to the historical correspondence between the apostasy of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and the apostasy of Israel in the wilderness. Israel recapitulates the Fall.

The Garden is depicted as a Tabernacle. God makes a covenant with Adam, the high priest, with Eve his assistant. They tend the Garden as the priesthood under Aaron cared for the Tabernacle. God meets with them as He met with Israel in the Tabernacle. The wilderness surrounds the Garden as the wilderness surrounds the Tabernacle. The two trees prefigure the Ark of the Covenant, with the Law beneath (knowledge of good and evil) and the mercy seat above (tree of life). The Tabernacle and Temple both reflect the Garden, particularly the Temple, which is decorated inside to represent it.

We understand the Fall to be literal, because Scripture, particularly Jesus and Paul say that is the case. For example, Paul draws an analogy between Jesus and Adam in Romans 5. Those represented by Adam fall in him and are imputed with his sin and guilt. Those represented by Jesus are justified by faith and imputed with His righteousness. If the latter is literal, so is the former.

To answer the earlier question about Isaiah 7, look here.

We do infer from our experiences what certain texts mean. That is why the Scripture forbides private interpretation. The writers of the OT and NT were indeed inspired in a way that we are not, yet we have the same HS, and by Him we are carried along in a similar fashion such that the Word admonishes us, that if we speak we are to speak as oracles of God, knowing that every idle word, that is every word that does not work, we will be held accountable for. We can see in the milieu around us, there are numerous interpretations which contradict one another. In the case of contradictions only one interpretation can be correct if anyone is correct at all. When an interpretation is put for, it must be put into the smelter of the Word of God, tested, and what comes out pure, is where we stand. The problems are always ours and not the Word of God. The smelting process is not necessarily easy or a short term process and from the evidence of history, there is much work still to be done before we all reach the unity of the faith, to the measure of maturity which is the true knowledge of the Son, the express image of all that man can know of God.

Nathan,

Mal 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

I include both here. Because verse six cannot be excluded from the mission of Elijah, if we are to understand who the Elijah is in verse five. Jesus said that if “you can accept it, this is the Elijah to come.” So we must examine just what John was doing to determine what was meant. The following prophecy preceeds Malachi:

Deut 30:1-10
“And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. And the Lord your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you. And you shall again obey the voice of the Lord and keep all his commandments that I command you today. The Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” And is followed by a call to repentence: The Choice of Life or Death.

So who is Elijah? Moses, Joshua, John, Jesus? Is the prophet a unique, descrete individual, or a type. Jesus says: “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” And it goes on, ” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.” It seems unequivocable then that “The Elijah,” is John. Scripture even tells us that he came preaching in wilderness after the likeness and in the power of Elijah, though no miracle is recorded that JTB is credited with, and he did not restore all things. The Jews would have been looking for these signs. Even the disciples asked Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom at this time, which leads us to wonder if they might have thought Jesus to be a kind of Elijah.

The testimony of Scripture is that JTB was preparing the way for the one who comes. And, that would fulfill Malachi in part. The catch is in the next clause, “the awesome day of the Lord.” How are we to understand this? Since, it is Christ that John is announcing, but it is the eschaton that Malachi says the advent of Elijah would herald. Verse six divides between what is a quintessential “all” type phrase and the last phrase. It is clearly referring back to the last phrase of verse five. There is an utter destruction that is coming in the awesome day (all will be destroyed), yet some will be spared so that the destruction does not destroy the fulfillment of promise to the children of the fathers. In the case of JTB, he turns the hearts of the children to their fathers pointing to Jesus, in Malachi, Elijah turns the hearts of the children back (repentance) pointing to the final judgment. With the advent of JTB, there is a partial destruction of Jerusalem, a type of Israel, but it is not the “utter” destruction, a Jewish catch phrase for God destroying of his enemies to the utmost at the consumation of the Ages.

Other repentance Scriptures to consider are these: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3, 8; 5:32; 24:47; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; Hebrews 6:1.

It appears that Matthew 28:16-20 a continuence of this theme in Scripture. Does it continue the type of Elijah passages of calling, sending, proclaimation of the Gospel and warnings of the pendinging Judgement of the OT? The writers of the Epistles and Christ Himself, all set forth this ministry to the nations.

Now, can we use the advent of JTB as a marker for determination of the doctrine of the millenium? For a long time I held to a pre-millennial postition until I began to notice certain things about the millennial passages in books like Zechariah that just did not keep consistency with the doctrines of Christ’s finish work, nor with the essential ideas of the issuing in of the new heavens and earth. There is a whole area of discriptive Scripture of the Second Advent of Christ and all that goes with it that just does not fit with a pre-millenial view, and I might say a ‘Dispensationalist,” millennialism, especially.

Having said that, the typical view of JTB as the Elijah, I think to be in error, if he is thought of as the last Elijah. The great commission is an Elijah commission. Similarly, Christ himself fulfilled the Elijah type. What I am saying is that an Elijah cannot be used as a marker for the beginning of the eschaton, or the millenium, whatever that means. Deuteronomy contains the sames proclaimation. Moses and Joshua fulfill Elijah’s ministry type, yet it did not establish a millenium’s beginning. And, though the kingdom reign issued after the time of the judges, it was before the time of the judgement and the sequencing is wrong. JTB was indeed sent before the Lord, and indeed, partial destruction of the Jews commenced shortly thereafter with a remnent preserved. But, the sending of the disciples from the mountain to fulfill the Elijah ministry is not one that has ended with the final marker being the “awesome day of the Lord.” At least not yet. Until that day, Elijah is to come, and has already come and will continue to be expressed in the commission.

This settles no disputes as to the millenium. And, I have yet to hear or read an irrevocable position on it, though without a doubt there is one. It does call out attention to the great difficulties that can be encountered in interpretation. The call to proclaim repentence unto Eternal Life makes us all Elijahs if we are doing so in the power of Elijah (that is by the Spirit), and if we are prclaiming the curse along with that Gospel. But, we are not the particular Elijah that Christ was speaking of.

We do have the testimony of Jesus that JTB was “the Elijah.” So, our hermenuetic is clear. The Jews would not have had that perspective, though. To proclaim Elijah had come, would carry with it the rest of Malachi- impending judgement. They might then have asked, “If JTB is Elijah, where’s the vengence of God on our enemies?” They did not expect judgement to fall on them, after all, their occupation by foreigners and previous punishments all fulfilled the chastening passages so that they might easily expect that the next thing was judgement upon the enemies of the children of God. If they were interpreting the current events and applying Scripture to them, it would make sense that they doubted that JTB was Elijah, since he was lacking the essential Elijah marker, calling down judgement from heaven. Although, in a way, the advent of Christ is just that. But, they did not see his crucifixion as judgement having come.

As to Hosea 11:1, we cannot assume that the Jews knew before the writing of the NT that “my Son,” referred to the Messiah, nor that it of necessity was referring to Jesus. First, the Hosea passage is imbedded in judgement passages. Instead of this being the Holy One Israel, it is the unfaithful, sin-filled Israel that is being singled out. Isaiah 44 with reference to all of Isaiah could be rendered this way, but not Hosea 11.1 without making the necessary inferrence of the dual natures of Jacob, something Jews like Nicodemus were ignorant of. Second, though some may have known, and spoken of Jesus’ journey to Egypt, we do not know that. And beside, the Jews seem blind to his full history, thinking merely that he came out of Nazareth, not Egypt, and indicate that from that origen nothing good comes forth. They also seem oblivious to his birth in Bethlehem.

I would be interested in seeing confirming Scripture that would make this Hosea passage Messianic. Even given the fact that Hosea is a Messianic text, this passage most clearly points away from Him, at least in context. I still think, that in this case and with the virginal passage, what we have is direct revelation to writers of the NT, and not interpretation.

Flashing forward to the book of Revelation and speaking about Elijah types again, the two witnesses fulfill his type, and to a greater extent, for they are said to call down curses on their enemies. I do not think this confirms the advocates of the reincarnations of Moses and Elijah in these two witnesses. My favored position is that they represent the Jewish and Gentile branches of the church universal on Earth prior to the “awesome day of the Lord,” carrying out the final and fullest expression of the Elijah type, preparing the way of the Lord.

Forgive my verbose attempt here, Nathan. It was a circuitous exercise. I hope I haven’t confused things.

These last couple of posts have been well thought out and presented. It is good work; may God bless it. I mean that literally.