The Highway

Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic

Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic - Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:07 PM

The "fig tree" in Matt.24:32 is claimed dogmatically to be Israel. That idea is found nowhere in the entire Holy Bible or Apocrypha. Yet, it is a teaching found with the Gnostics. I quote from the Apocalypse of Peter, found in the Gnostic Society Library online:

"And ye, take ye the likeness thereof (learn a parable) from the fig-tree: so soon as the shoot thereof is come forth and the twigs grown, the end of the world shall come.

And I, Peter, answered and said unto him: Interpret unto me concerning the fig-tree, whereby we shall perceive it; for throughout all its days doth the fig-tree send forth shoots, and every year it bringeth forth its fruit for its master. What then meaneth the parable of the fig-tree? We know it not.

And the Master (Lord) answered and said unto me: Understandest thou not that the fig-tree is the house of Israel?"
Posted By: li0scc0

Re: Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic - Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:24 PM

Except...most Dispensationalists do NOT refer to the fig tree as Israel. Case in point, the Dispensational scholar Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic - Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:24 AM

Years ago, I bought a commentary by William MacDonald called Believer's Bible Commentary. I rarely use it anymore, because I have a few commentaries that are much better. The basic reason I rarely use it is because MacDonald is a Dispensationalist. Looking up Matt. 24:32, he does indeed believe it is referring to Israel.
However, without further information I would be very hesitant to associate them with Gnostics. I will say however that Matthew Henry's Commentary's Commentary seems to be supporting Israel as well.

Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic - Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:11 PM

Tom, your remark about Matthew Henry surprised me, so I went to the online commentary site and I'll share something I'd not really thought about or seen in the past. On that site is the abbreviated, concise Matthew Henry Commentary, as well as the full unabridged Matthew Commentary. It appears to me that whoever did the Concise version, inserted their own ideas other than how Henry explained it in the unabridged version. Here are the two links:

The shorter Concise version:

The unabridged version:

The shorter Concise version reads as if from someone with a totally different view of this section of prophecy, than that of Matthew Henry himself. This alerts me to in the future be careful of Concise editions. smile
© 2020 The Highway