I had posted the following in another thread which eventually got buried and with no response. I thought I would bring it out into the open (special thread) because I believe its significance is of great importance, especially when the dispensational view of the millennial kingdom is at stake. This view states that actual
animals like wolves and lambs will dwell together in total harmony in a yet future time.
I vehemently disagree although I once held to that view myself for more than 20 years. Please see the slightly edited interchange that has occurred and some of his (Bible2) defending points defending the view of ACTUAL animals. I had already shown that animals has clearly represented Gentiles in the Acts 10 vision with the summary in Acts 10:28. There are several places in the Bible where this animal symbolism is clear...Acts 10:28 - And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call ANY MAN common or unclean.
I believe the Apostle Paul (as well as Isaiah) is using animals in the same symbolic nature and I also believe that the STRICT TIMING from Isaiah 11 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt this premise.
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #86):
The kicker is that we all know that Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" refers back to the description given in Isaiah 11:1-9, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE ANIMALS AND HOW THEY WOULD BEHAVE TOGETHER.
Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12, just as he also quotes other OT verses in Romans 15:9-12, only to support the general principle that God had always intended to save Gentiles (Romans 15:9a) as well as Jews (Romans 15:8), and so the salvation of Gentiles that was going in Paul's day (e.g. Romans 11:13-24) (and is still going on today) was God's will.
In Romans 15:12, Paul purposely leaves out the "In that day" part of Isaiah 11:10, just as he purposely in no way refers to the animals in Isaiah 11:6-9, because he's in no way referring to the specific time frame of Isaiah 11:6-16. For the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the still-unfulfilled physical-body resurrection of the church (Romans 8:19-25).
The interesting thing about Bible2's "general Principle" theory is that it comes with Isaiah's time stamp
of "in that day.
" This is when your general principle (if you want to call it that) begins its fulfillment. I call it a prophecy because it has a time stamp
. Real general principle Scriptures are similar to "Love thy neighbor." These don't have time stamps and therefore they are not prophecies. The book of Proverbs is full of these kinds of general principles.
Your presumed reality of actual, physical animals is governing your thinking. Allow the text to speak for itself.Isaiah 11:1 - And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isaiah 11:10 - And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
A most important point missed by Bible2 is that the whole idea of "in that day
" is dependent upon the time frame of the root or stem of Jesse coming to fruition
(Isaiah 11:1). Bible2 has assumed that this period refers to his millennial kingdom AFTER
the parousia event. This is his main error
. He must presume this because of his presupposition that the animals are actual animals and not symbolic of anything. It is also why he must assign a "general principle" to a future prophecy. "General principles" are true all the time, not just some time in the future.Isaiah emphatically states that "in that day" is when this root of Jesse shall be and stand for an ensign. TO THIS ROOT WHICH IS ESTABLISHED AT THIS TIME IS WHEN THE GENTILES SEEK - NOT BEFORE.
Bible2 must assign his "general principle" theory to this prophecy in order to dismiss the CLEAR timing (when the root of Jesse is established) given to this prophecy.
Were there Gentiles seeking this root of Jesse any time PRIOR
to the establishment of Christ's earthly ministry? Emphatically, NO!! And why? Because the root of Jesse had not
yet been established! So much for the general principle, right?
Were there Gentiles seeking this root of Jesse any time AFTER
the establishment of Christ's earthly ministry? Emphatically, YES!! And why? Because the root of Jesse had been established!
And once again, I cannot stress enough the importance of the "in that day
" (root of Jesse being established) as the time in which these Gentiles would or even could seek. They cannot seek UNLESS
the root of Jesse (Jesus Christ) had been established. We see the Gentiles seeking Christ in the first century after the establishment of His earthly ministry!
Therefore, the root of Jesse had been established. It is Christ's earthly ministry when this is established - NOT AFTER HIS PAROUSIA IN A YET FUTURE TIME FRAME...
As for Paul leaving out the "in that day" from Romans 15:12...well, that is very weak indeed. When expressing OT fulfillments, the prophet's reference to the future time is often left out because the time for that fulfillment had arrived. It makes no difference whether it is included or not included. It is a moot point. We know Paul was referring to Isaiah 11:10 and we know that the Gentiles HAD BEEN seeking the root of Jesse...
And we know that they could not even begin to seek UNTIL the root of Jesse had been established.Folks, it doesn't get any clearer than this.
I have no doubt that Bible2 is NOT going to reconsider his millennial understanding of his actual, physical animals because the very foundation for his paradigm insists upon the animals going bad at the fall - despite the fact that there are no Scriptures that mentions this. It is presumed because of a misunderstanding of metaphorical and symbolic texts similar to these in Isaiah...
And concerning Romans 8, if Bible2 wants to assign consciousness to inanimate objects, I guess I can't stop him. I see it as being totally ludicrous. Anybody ever witnessed to a rock these days? Isn't redemption (the cure for sin) through the message of the Gospel? Could it be that Bible2 teaches another Gospel for the inanimate rocks and trees?Acts 13:22-23 - And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: