Curtis

This is my site. I'm basically a Christian, Husband, Father, Neighbor and in that order. I'm a thinker, how well I do at it is for others to decide. I drive a truck delivering gas for a living and spend most of my time listening to downloaded audio on my favorite subjects. It is mostly these that spark my articles here.

Apr 022011
 

voice_god

 

“God told me so.”  “It was shown to me in a dream.”  “I feel lead to…”  “He told me audibly, I could hear Him.”  “I just feel in my spirit…”  “God is trying to tell me something.”

How many times have you heard or read things like those above?  How are Christians supposed to take things like that?

Are those quotes biblical?  Lets look at it a little.  What are people really saying when they say such things?

 

I’ve heard things like this all my life and from some surprising sources too.  I’ll tell you right now, I have never heard the “voice of God”.  Not in a vision.  Not in a dream.  Not audibly.  Not in any way most who say it, mean it.  Yes, when I read or think on His words, I hear in my head what I imagine the voice would sound like.  But I never feel like it is anything other than my mind.  When I look back on things in my life I sometimes think God had to be involved, but I was never aware of it at the time.

I’m going to examine some truths that virtually every conservative Christian holds to then look at the implications those truths have on this phenomenon.


First lets look at a very widely accepted standard,  “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”.  All emphasis below is added by me.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.
We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.


Next from the Southern Baptist Convention’s “Baptist Faith and Message”.

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.


Now the “Westminster Confession of Faith”

Chapter I:  Of the Holy Scriptures

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.



Moving on with these things in mind I have an example.

“The Lord told me that the doctrine of ‘fishfilly’ is a correct doctrine.”  This person would have me believe that ‘fishfilly’ is correct.  Not a problem, I have now heard their opinion.  But you see, this statement usually comes at the end of some discussion about ‘fishfilly’ where the presenter hasn’t made a very good case.  It’s like a trump card.  I am now expected to believe what they couldn’t show from the Word because they got “a word” from God.  This un-provable experience is now expected to be a spiritual authority over what I understand from God’s Holy Word.

How can anyone PROVE that didn’t happen?  Actually it’s pretty simple.  You don’t prove it didn’t happen.  You prove it is irrelevant and even if true God wouldn’t want you to use it for evidence or as authoritative.  I’m not doubting the Lord can speak to anyone at anytime.  However this would be personal revelation.  Each individual who gets such revelation is still bound by scripture to give their evidence from scripture.  Why?  Because no one can exegete (properly interpret and demonstrate) that another persons experiences are true or from God.  What God “says” to you He did not say to me.  I am not to trust in man according to scripture.  Further they themselves are to test such experiences against scripture.  If they have done so they can make a case from scripture.  Am I to believe that a Christian would have me take their word over (or without) scripture?  Would God have me do so?  Would God have you wasting my time dealing with your experience as evidence and not have you find your evidence in the Word and present that?  I don’t think so.

I read a great response to the ‘God told me’ spiritual trump card the other day.  I’ll apply it to the example above.  “Well, the Lord told me just yesterday while I was praying that you would present this ‘fishfilly’ doctrine to me.  He told me it was from the devil and I should rebuke you.  Further He told me that the evidence that mine was a true ‘word from God’ and yours was not, would be that when I told you that you had a demon you would not believe me.”  See, now how is anyone going to prove either of those statements right or wrong?  It’s easy.  Just apply the simple and true doctrines above and go to The Word.  God is not wasting my time with the personal revelations of men.  I can safely and rightly rebuke or ignore them.  Even if the propositions are true in the claims of the personal ‘revelations’ from God, I am not to believe them until demonstrated from scripture.

God may inspire you with a personal revelation.  God will never tell you to share it as evidence.  He gave us his infallible and inerrant Word for evidence.  Scripture Alone is our standard.  That standard is given in scripture.


Now, how about “God is trying to tell me…”.

This one is pretty simple to me.  Just one look at the first and third words says it all.  ‘God’ and ‘try’ just don’t go together.

  1. God knows everything, including how much effort it takes to make you hear.
  2. God is all powerful.  Powerful enough to make you hear.
  3. God knows which words to use that would make you understand.
  4. God knows which of your limitations He would have to overcome to make you hear and understand.
  5. GOD DOESN’T TRY!  GOD DOES…”whatever He pleases.” Psalm 115:3

If God wants to tell you something you will get it loud and clear.  If he didn’t want you to quite get it he could whisper or obscure his message I suppose.  But, in that case is he really ‘trying’ or wanting you to get it?  Now it is possible that he could be nudging you to scripture so you will find it on your own.  Then, if you find it in there, in context and interpreted correctly, you could truly say ‘God told me’ but it would be ‘in The Word’ that He told you.  This is the same way He tells everyone who hears, by His Word.  The “still small voice” was a voice that could be understood none the less.

Further which prophet or Apostle in the bible is ever said to have missed what God was telling him because God didn’t ‘try’ hard enough, speak loud enough, make himself clear enough.  There is no record of God ‘trying.’  That some didn’t understand what they saw or were given to say is true, but the visions, dreams and words were always clear to them for repeating, telling and writing.


Finally, I have on rare occasion heard this one after someone found out that they were wrong, “but I know God was speaking to me.”  This often comes after a failed prediction.  Does it matter if it’s a prediction or another form of a claim?  God spoke to His people through prophets and inspired Apostles.  They offered predictions and other truths.  If He still speaks to His people today (other than in scripture) it would be through prophets and inspired Apostles.  Every word they utter by God’s inspiration would be scripture.  We all know what the test of a prophet is.  100% every single time, else they are a false prophet.  Apostles are never wrong when speaking for God either.  To believe that God is telling you something that cannot be found in scripture is to believe that God is giving you new revelation and thus you must be a prophet or Apostle.  That’s very dangerous ground to be walking on.

In conclusion:  No, God does not intend to waste my time with any one’s “God told me”, unless it is an opportunity to help someone understand why it is wrong for them to share it (if indeed he told them at all.)  Nothing happens on accident, so I also conclude He would want me to point that out to my brother or sister.  Well, I have.

Jan 112011
 
Update Jan 9, 2022.  Wow!  I’ve changed a lot!

treadBelow are some pertinent quotes from Glenn Beck’s open letter, posted January 10, 2011 at glennbeck.com in the wake of the murders and attempted assassination  in Arizona on January 8, 2011.  I merely numbered the bullet points and added emphasis:  comments in ( ) and italics.

Update 1-15:  The same letter has been reprinted with a new date of 1-13-11.  I found this when my site reported a broken link.  The 1-10 letter was gone and replaced with I think the same letter dated 1-13.  Or, I magically commented on a letter before it was written.


Do you believe that Americans, from any walk of life, can convince themselves they are freedom fighters and carry out acts of violence?  My answer is yes. If you agree then you must take a clear stand.

…come together and state that violence is off limits for all sides in a Republic.

I challenge all Americans, … to agree with all of the following.

1.  I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.
2.  I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.
3.  I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and (may I add “or”) rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be. (what does “in their own image mean anyway?)
4.  I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system. (What does Glenn think “our system” is?)
5.  I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system – regardless of their underlying ideology – whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.
6.  I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.
7.  I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic. (if we are no longer a constitutional republic am I still constrained from violence, by this pledge?)

I will stand with anyone willing to sign that pledge.


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary (…), a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them(…)

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence, emphasis mine.


When comparing Glenn’s pledge with the founding document of our country how do they reconcile?

Necessity

Before it was finished, the declaration to King George said it was necessary to declare independence.  Is that necessary today?  I think not.  Not yet anyway.  Will it ever be?  Were the signers itching for war?  NO!  Did they believe they would get one.  Probably.  Did they decide to suffer oppression and tyranny for sake of nonviolence? Apparently not!

Declaring causes which may impel us

This is what Glenn would have us do; and we should, we have, and we are.  What if our pleas, grievances, and demands aren’t heard?  What are the acceptable ways to plea and demand?  Are all violent methods always immoral, in every case?  This brings us to the crux of the issue.

Duty to throw off Government

If a declared cause impels us and our grievances aren’t rightly settled, how do we “throw off such Government” if we pledge nonviolence?  Do we really think those who oppose our freedom will always listen to reason?  I am not willing to denounce violence against an oppressive government.  So the answer is, no Glenn, I will not sign or make such a pledge.  Seems pretty simple to me on the pledge issue.

Glenn says he will “stand” with anyone willing to sign that pledge.  How can you stand when you pledged to lay down in the ultimate sense of both terms.  As I said in a Facebook comment about this:  “I am victim!  Hear me complain.  Or…don’t.  I mean, if you want to listen to me complain, you can…..pretty please.  Okay, what ever you want.  Sorry I spoke up….don’t hurt me…please.”


On the Other Hand!

I used to be pretty radical about things.  I’ll not say (in particular) what things or how radical.  Then I had a discussion with a fellow radical that got me to thinking.  Don’t get me wrong I still hold to the same issues that made us both radical but we parted ways about acceptable solutions.  He was ready for “the war”, almost itching for it.  I understand the urge to make things better now for “ourselves and our posterity.”  Especially the posterity part as I think my generation will probably not see the end of most of our freedoms.  That is, I think I’ll be free enough for me through my life.  Annoyed, oppressed some?  Probably, but free enough for me.  That discussion turned to voting.

He didn’t vote!  He thought it was an exercise in futility.  “We don’t really have a vote that counts,” and all that stuff.  You’ve heard it.  After considering this for a while I decided not to argue the usefulness of voting.  I actually made a political defense and a plea.  If he were to vote he would vote the same way I would.  Voting is free (today for us.)  Voting doesn’t require that much time if you’re already aware of the political climate (which he was.)  He didn’t find voting immoral.  I explained that even though he wasn’t willing to vote with me, he still expected me to pick up arms and kill and/or die with him.  “Please vote”, I asked.  It didn’t seem like I was asking much from one who was asking the ultimate from me and others.

This later got me to thinking about how many like minded people there were out there who would rather bleed or spill blood than just vote.  Would I want to stand beside them in battle, knowing that their preference was for a rifle over a ballot?  Don’t even consider that voting has any effect.  I would still perform a frivolous exercise if requested by one who would kill or die for me.  That is not asking to much!

Now on to those who share my moral and political convictions, commonly referred to as Conservative Evangelical Christians.  Below are some statistics about them.  Would I want to kill or die beside either of them based on the same principle of not bothering to vote?  I may (if necessary), but I’ll have to hold my nose while doing it and morale will certainly not be high!
The following excerpts (edited for brevity) are from Wall Builders, Congress, the Culture, and Christian Voting.  Please read it all and don’t forget that “evangelicals” are frequently counted separate than other Christians in the data.

  • Christian votingThere are three types of Christian voters in polling
    1. Christian voters – largest group; this is the group that simply self-identifies as (i.e., calls themselves) Christians
    2. Born-again voters – a Christian voter who says he has had a life-changing experience with Jesus Christ; a smaller group than that of Christian voters
    3. Evangelical voters – a born-again voter who also believes the Bible is important and who attends church, prays, and reads the Bible at least once a week; this is the group of Christians that take their faith most seriously
    1. Christian voting patterns
      1. 1992-1996: a 17% decrease in Christians who voted
      2. 1996-2000: an additional 23% decrease in Christians who voted
      3. 1992-2000: a 40% total decrease in Christians who voted
        1. There are 60 million evangelicals in America
        2. 15 million (only 1/4) of evangelicals voted in 2000
        3. Some 24 million (40%) evangelicals are not even registered to vote
    2. 2002 efforts
      1. In the 2002 election, following the dramatic drop in 1992-2000, national evangelical leaders widely urged Christians to register, vote, and vote their values
      2. The national efforts resulted in 2% increase in Christian voter turnout
    3. 2004 efforts
      1. National evangelical leaders continued to widely urge voter registration, voter turnout, and Christians voting their values
      2. Those efforts resulted in a 93% increase in Christian voter turnout (28.9 million evangelicals voted, up 93% from the 15 million that voted in 2000; of course, 28.9 million of the 60 million still means that under half of evangelicals are voting, but this still is a dramatic increase over 2000)
    4. 2006 voting efforts
      1. There was a 30% decrease in Christian voter turnout, falling from 28.9 million evangelicals down to 20.5 million
      2. The result was clearly visible in the philosophy of those elected to Congress
    5. Clearly, there is a direct correlation between Christian voter turnout and the percentage of elected leaders who embrace and reflect basic Biblical values (my added note:  you will see the correlation if you read the whole article)
Dec 252010
 

Mark 13:28  KJV  ”Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:”

This is an almost exact, word for word parallel with Mathew 24:32 in the KJV.

The last parallel is:  Luke 21:29-30 KJV  “And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.”

Any commentary on any of these three should tell us the same things on the issues presented.  Lets see what some highly respected premillennial, dispensational theologians have had to say about it.  That’s all this is.  Just did some quote mining, but in context.


“[Hal] Lindsey taught that within a generation (a generation equals forty years) of Israel’s becoming a nation again, the Lord would return (Late Great Planet, p. 43). This was based upon his interpretation that the fig tree in Matthew 24:32 is a symbol for the reconstitution of Israel as a nation. Thus, the generation (Mtt. 24:34) that saw Israel become a nation would also see the Second Coming. Since Israel became a nation in 1948, many believe that Lindsey implied Christ’s return would occur by 1988. . . . none of Lindsey’s mentors agreed with his view.”  Thomas Ice

“Such an interpretation, coupled with tendencies to ‘date-set’ have led to numerous problems. The issue mainly concerns interpretation (hermeneutics, the rules by which we interpret Scripture.) Although a fig tree is associated with teaching concerning Israel in numerous contexts (e.g., Hos. 9:10; Mtt. 21:19; Mark 11:13; Luke 13:6), the focus of these passages is on using the fig tree as an illustration rather than an identifier for Israel. And so it is here. This can be seen by evaluating the meaning of the fig tree in terms of the immediate context. (As an aside, the immediate context is perhaps the most important element in determining authorial intent.) When we look at the larger passage, we see that Jesus is using the fig tree as an analogy, not for Israel, but for the principle that its leaves are a sign that summer is near. Similarly, “when you see all these things, know that it is near” (Mtt. 24:33). When they see what things? The various signs and events that Jesus has just described in the preceding verses. Thus, the fig tree is an analogy which teaches how those at that time will know that the Second Coming is near. To couple it specifically to indicating the rebirth of Israel goes beyond what can be supported by the context.”  Tony Garland, Th.M., Th.D.

Source for above quotes.


“A very popular interpretation of this passage considers the fig tree as a type, or illustration, of Israel. According to this view, the fact that Israel in the twentieth century is back in the land constitutes a budding of the fig tree, and may be taken as conclusive proof that the Lord’s return is near.”

“Actually, while the fig tree could be an apt illustration of Israel, it is not so used in the Bible. In Jeremiah 24:1-8, good and bad figs illustrate Israel in the captivity, and there is also mention of figs in 29:17. The reference to the fig tree in Judges 9:10-11 is obviously not Israel. Neither the reference in Matthew 21:18-20 nor that in Mark 11:12-14 with its interpretation in 11:20-26, gives any indication that it is referring to Israel, any more than the mountain referred to in the passage. Accordingly, while this interpretation is held by many, there is no clear scriptural warrant.

A better interpretation is that Christ was using a natural illustration. Because the fig tree brings forth new leaves late in the spring, the budding of the leaves is evidence that summer is near. In a similar way, when those living in the great tribulation see the signs predicted, they will know that the second coming of Christ is near. The signs in this passage, accordingly, are not the revival of Israel, but the great tribulation itself. Lenski, accordingly, is correct when he states that “all these things” mentioned in Matthew 24:33 refer to the preceding context.That Israel’s presence in the holy land is a dramatic evidence that the age is approaching its end may be supported by other passages, but this is not the point here.”

Commentary on Mathew, “Thy Kingdom Come”, by John F Walvoord; ISBN 825439698


“The first of these parables, the lesson of the fig tree illustration, is a widely noted passage. For example, my good friend Hal Lindsey teaches that the fig tree represents Israel,…”

“I agree with so much of what Hal teaches in the area of Bible prophecy, but on this particular passage I have to disagree with him, even though I used to hold this view myself in the early  70s. I held the view then because the most influential book upon me at the time concerning Bible prophecy was Hal’s Late Great Planet Earth. (I still believe that Late Great is an excellent book to introduce people to Bible prophecy and recommend it.) I tend to agree that the fig tree is some times used as a symbol for national Israel (see Judges 9:10–11; Jer. 8:13; Hosea 9:10; Hab. 3:17; Hag. 2:19; Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:13, 20–21; Luke 13:6–7). However, whether or not the “fig tree” is a symbol for Israel is not what a proper understanding of this passage turns upon. I think that is a non-issue when it comes to interpreting this passage. I also agree with Hal that the establishment of Israel as a nation in 1948 is prophetically significant and indicates that we are likely near the beginning of the tribulation, but I don’t think that the parable of the fig tree is support for such a view.  The basic problem with Hal’s view is that he takes the parable of Jesus and turns this illustration into a prophecy. Christ is simply illustrating that when one sees a fig tree (In Luke’s version of the same treaties Christ says in 21:29, “Behold the fig tree and all the trees.”) begin to put on leaves (in the spring), then you know that the next season is approaching (summer). Christ then concludes, “even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” Thus, in the context, our Lord does not put an emphasis upon Israel as a symbol. He is saying that when you see the events of the seven-year tribulation take place then you know that His second advent is near.  Hal and other who hold that view have taken Christ’s illustration, which was meant to demonstrate a point about verses 4 through 31, and created a prophecy out of thin air, which does not even exist. The prophecy that Hal has created is that Christ’s coming will occur 40 years after the founding of the modern state of Israel. Christ’s illustration was not intended to be a prophecy about anything; it is an illustration about the preceding context. It should be clear by now that such a view is wrong, especially since we are over 15 years beyond his 40-year prediction. Therefore, it does not matter how long a generation is, since the events of 4 through 31 will take place within a seven-year period. That generation that sees the events of the seven-year tribulation will not pass away (in other words, it will not take hundreds of years or a long time) until Christ’s second coming (see 24:33). This first parable drives home the point through illustration what Christ said in 24:29–30: “But immediately after the tribulation of those days . . . they will see the Son of Man coming.”

An Interpretation of Mathew 24-25 Part XXX,  by Thomas Ice


“Much confusion has resulted from many well-meaning people trying to identify the ‘generation [that] will not pass away until all these take place’ (Matthew 24:34). Some start this generation at verse 31 and believe that it’s talking about the generation beginning at the time Israel became a nation in 1948. The passage of time, of course, has disproved that idea. It’s better to interpret this verse in its context: that is, the generation that sees the events of the Tribulation will also see the coming of Christ and the other events leading to the end of the age. This avoids harmful speculations about the future, for no man knows the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36)”

“Charting the End Times”,  Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, page 37

Note:  this would be a change for LaHaye as just a couple of years before he implied the opposite in his book with Jerry Jenkins “Are We Living in the Last Days” on pages 56 and 57.  But maybe he didn’t write either of these statements as they could have been written by his partners.  I’ve heard that excuse from LaHaye’s camp before, however he signed his name to the books.


”Some have said that the budding of the fig tree speaks of the re-establishment of Israel as a nation (1948), seeing it as a precursor of Christ’s return. Several things work strongly against that interpretation:

•Nowhere does Matthew 24–25 speak of Israel’s return to Palestine. In fact we do not find Israel’s return anywhere in Matthew’s gospel.  Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, in its flow of future historical events, has moved beyond Israel’s return portraying the Jews already in the land.

•Furthermore, Luke says in his parallel account “look at the fig tree, and all the trees” (21:29). Not just one tree is in view, but many. Thus Christ refers to trees in general and what they do in the spring, not to a particular fig tree that pictures Israel.

•In Matthew 24, the budding fig tree, rather than picturing Israel, depicts eleven signs that Jesus reveals in 24:4–24. Nine begin to occur in the first half of the Tribulation and two more appear in the second half.

Thus what we see unfolding is that as new leaves each spring signal the return of summer, so the signs Christ reveals will signal His return.”

The Parable of the Fig Tree Matthew 24:32-36”, by George E. Meisinger dean of Chafer Theological Seminary


“Many people believe the fig tree in Matthew 24:32 is Israel. They say the bursting forth of leaves represents the beginning of Israel’s statehood in 1948. However, there’s no way the disciples would have perceived His teaching that way. Remember that Jesus was teaching the parable to make things clear to them. For the new growth on the tree to refer to what happened in 1948 would be too obscure.

It’s not logically consistent to conclude that the life pulsing through the fig tree refers to the statehood of Israel.”  John MacArthur

From the audio series, “Signs of Christ’s Return; The Imminence of Christ’s Return”  audio tape # GC 2372, available at 1-800-55-GRACE


“It is doubtless true that the fig tree represents in other Scriptures the nation Israel,… but there is no occasion for this meaning to be sought in the present use of that symbol.”  ie. in Mat 24:32

Systematic Theology Vols 5&6” by Louis Sperry Chafer, Kregel Publications & Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976, pg. 127


“Luke expanded the imagery, quoting “Look at the fig tree and all the trees” (Luke 21:29).  Thus Christ was not calling attention to just the fig tree itself (as though the fig tree represented the nation of Israel, as has been quite commonly inferred).  Rather, Christ was calling attention to a truth that was pictured by something that characterizes all trees.”

“It is an Improper interpretation of this parable to insist that the fig tree represents the nation of Israel and that the budding of the fig tree represents the reinstitution of the national life of that people in 1948.”

The parables of Jesus: lessons in life from the Master Teacher”, by J. Dwight Pentecost, Kregel Publications, 1982, pp. 140&141


Well, it seems like some pretty big heads don’t think this fig tree parable is talking about Israel in 1948 or some would say at any time.  Remember these are ALL premillennial, dispensational theologians.  Many are founders, presidents, or deans of prestigious seminaries.  There are many more from these men and others in the same camp.

Many times while gathering these quotes I noticed the authors would say that the bible indeed predicted 1948 but none say where, and all say not in this passage.  Smells like an unfounded presupposition to me.