The fact that abraham gets to have heaven too doesn't negate that he gets earth. It says this no where in the text. That is you reading into the text.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Interpretation....part two
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
The fact that abraham gets to have heaven too doesn't negate that he gets earth. It says this no where in the text. That is you reading into the text.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you'll find I can. It starts when JTB is put in prison and the Lord Jesus starts His public ministry (Matthew 4:17; 11:12). It was well under way by Matthew 12:28.
I think it is pretty evident that Luke 21:20-33 is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, but also to some greater event, particularly in vs. 25-28. Luke 21:31 must therefore not be referring to the start of the Kingdom, but of a manifestation of it. Matthew 24 makes the distinction between the situation in the world leading up to our Lord's Return, the events of AD 70 and the actual Return rather more clearly than Luke does. It is best to study them together.
First of all, which verse are you referencing? I can't find a verse that states "I will sit on My throne." Are you think of something like Matthew 19:28? Here the Lord Jesus has not yet ascended to the Father so it is natural for Him to speak in the future tense. But the risen, ascended Christ is seated on the same throne as the Father (Revelation 3:21; 5:6; 22:3).
The Lord Jesus is certainly going to reign in Jerusalem, but it will not be the Jerusalem that now is, but the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven to the new earth.
You have not shown exegetically how you can interpret all the references to the coming of Lord as having been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and still maintain a (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. I will interpret your refusal to do this as proof that you cannot. Rev. 6.12-17 means what it says and says what it means. Jesus said, "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." -Mt. 24.7. You claim that this was fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem. Were these literal earthquakes or figurative ones? These earthquakes were intended to be understood literally, just as the famines and pestilences. Rev. 16.8 seems to be speaking of a literal earthquake. You seem to want an either/or answer, but I cannot give it to you. It is more likely both/and. At any rate, these things must take place leading up to the coming of the Lord and the end of the age. It is interesting that these people recognize "the great day of his wrath," whereas the Jews did not. Jesus used similar language about the destruction of Jerusalem in Lk. 23.30, but both are presented in scripture as the judgment of God so we should not be surprised.
Last edited:
How can the kingdom be near if it's already started? Nice rhetoric.
Nice red herring.
No? Is this the kind of response I am going to be dealing with constantly from you? Are you a waste of my time? I won't be repeating myself and I won't be copy pasting the verse I referenced. I'll be persuading people who are open minded and secure enough to actually take the time to read, and those are the people I will put some time into. I won't be wasting my time repeating myself to insecure close minded people who can't read any opposing arguments for fear that their position is weak. No doubt it is weak! Why else would you need to use red herrings and ignore my scripture I posted and my argument made?
No. Revelation 3:21 says two things. 1) the father's throne is distinct from Jesus' throne and 2) Jesus will sit on His throne. A plethora of adherents to the amillennial and postmillennial persuasion tell us that the father's throne and kingdom is distinct from the messianic davidic kingdom preached by the apostles as "at hand." If the messianic davidic kingdom was preached as "at hand", it cannot be the same kingdom as the father's universal sovereign kingdom, which existed far before the apostles in the first century. Jesus' throne is the throne that was given to him through david (Luke 1:30ff).
So you openly brazenly believe that God breaks His covenants. Cool. To each his own weird belief then. I'll believe that God keeps His covenants. Don't get mad at me for trying to correct you on this grave error or anything though.
Hey can you show us one passage that explicitly, without any presuppostion, tells us that God broke His covenant with david? Show us from scripture when the earthly davidic throne turned into a heavenly throne?
"It would be difficult to begin, as one so inclined must do, with David’s own understanding or interpretation of Jehovah’s covenant with him and then, in tracing subsequent relations between Jehovah and David’s line, to find a point where the literal, earthly throne promised to David became a spiritual throne in heaven. David was not promised a heavenly, spiritual throne, and the one who contends that David’s throne is now a heavenly rule is by so much obliged to name the time and circumstances when and where so great a change has been introduced" (Lewis Chafer, Systematic Theology, Eschatology, ch. xvii).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Ian, I would like a rebuttal to the following, because this is one strong reason why I believe the abrahamic covenant to be unconditional. Martin, I would like you to read this too: it is poor scholarship to ignore the opponent's argument. Not to mention poor Christianity: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs 18:13, kjv).
"...the ratification of the covenant as described in Genesis 15:5-21 is most significant. In response to Abraham's appeal for a ratification, Jehovah instructs Abraham in the preparation of the carcasses which, when half was put over against half, formed a passageway between, through which the covenanting parties passed; but Abraham is depressed into a very deep sleep while Jehovah, in the appearance of a burning lamp, passes through alone. The reason for this is that Abraham covenanted nothing; it is the ratification only of Jehovah's sovereign oath (Gen. 26:3).
Recent extensive arguments have been advanced in an attempt to prove that since the human element appears in a covenant, there is no such thing as an unconditional covenant. The ineffectiveness of these arguments lies in the failure of the writer to distinguish between that form of conduct which belongs to one already secure in all that the covenant provides, and, on the other hand, the direct conditioning of Jehovah's faithfulness upon human rectitude. The Abrahamic Covenant is sealed by the rite of circumcision, which seal can be no more than the individual's personal recognition of what Jehovah has promised. Failure thus to recognize Jehovah's covenant imposed a penalty on the individual, but did not alter Jehovah's covenant reaching out to the nation and to all families of the earth. The charge which Jehovah makes against the offender is not that he hath broken our covenant, but, rather, 'he hath broken my covenant' (Gen. 17:14). It has also been asserted that the Abrahamic Covenant was made conditional upon Abraham's faithfulness. Only two passages might thus be misconstrued. Genesis 17:9-14 does not present a condition restricting Jehovah's 'I will' to Abraham's conduct. It rather instructs Abraham in the manner of life which becomes one for whom Jehovah undertakes so much. In like manner, Genesis 26:5 is not addressed to Abraham, but is rather Jehovah's declaration to Isaac extending to him the sovereign, unconditional covenant made to his father Abraham. Isaac is admonished to live a faithful life under the covenant 'because' of the example of his father. In this connection, the exact reading of Genesis 18:19 is significant. In this context Jehovah says: 'For I have known him [as a factor in my gracious purpose], to the end [or result] that he [Abraham] may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham [in personal blessing] that which he hath spoken of him' (A.R.V.). In the contemplation of these important issues, two outstanding, qualifying facts should be observed: (1) No human element appears in any feature of the Abrahamic Covenant as it is announced by Jehovah, and (2) that both Abraham's position in Jehovah's covenant to him and Abraham's imputed righteousness (Gen. 15:6) are secured to him apart from meritorious works. Romans 4:1-22 declares that Abraham's blessings both concerning imputed righteousness and his position as 'heir of the world' (vs. 13) were wholly secured before he was circumcised (vs. 10). Thus, also, it is asserted that, in contrast to the 'works principle' which the Mosaic system introduces, Jehovah gave Abraham the inheritance contained in the Abrahamic Covenant by 'promise,' namely, what He alone did promise by an oath to do (Gal. 3:13-18). All of this bears vitally on the present offers of salvation by grace which are not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), but by promise (Gal. 3:22; cf. Rom. 4:23-25; Gal. 3:9). Thus the Apostle Paul declares that to intrude the element of human works into the Abrahamic Covenant, or as a ground of that righteousness which was imputed to Abraham, is to intrude works into the present plan of salvation by grace. To do this is no small error indeed, for it makes the promise of 'none effect' when God has made it 'sure' (Rom. 4:13-16). In the light of all these revelations, what subtle Arminianism infests the doctrine of those who claim that Jehovah made His covenant with Abraham on the ground of the fact that Abraham was one who 'obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws' (Gen. 26:5). The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, else, by such logic as only the Apostle could use, a passage like Ephesians 2:7-10 becomes null and void" (Lewis Chafer, Dispensationalism, ch. iv, iii, a).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"...the ratification of the covenant as described in Genesis 15:5-21 is most significant. In response to Abraham's appeal for a ratification, Jehovah instructs Abraham in the preparation of the carcasses which, when half was put over against half, formed a passageway between, through which the covenanting parties passed; but Abraham is depressed into a very deep sleep while Jehovah, in the appearance of a burning lamp, passes through alone. The reason for this is that Abraham covenanted nothing; it is the ratification only of Jehovah's sovereign oath (Gen. 26:3).
Recent extensive arguments have been advanced in an attempt to prove that since the human element appears in a covenant, there is no such thing as an unconditional covenant. The ineffectiveness of these arguments lies in the failure of the writer to distinguish between that form of conduct which belongs to one already secure in all that the covenant provides, and, on the other hand, the direct conditioning of Jehovah's faithfulness upon human rectitude. The Abrahamic Covenant is sealed by the rite of circumcision, which seal can be no more than the individual's personal recognition of what Jehovah has promised. Failure thus to recognize Jehovah's covenant imposed a penalty on the individual, but did not alter Jehovah's covenant reaching out to the nation and to all families of the earth. The charge which Jehovah makes against the offender is not that he hath broken our covenant, but, rather, 'he hath broken my covenant' (Gen. 17:14). It has also been asserted that the Abrahamic Covenant was made conditional upon Abraham's faithfulness. Only two passages might thus be misconstrued. Genesis 17:9-14 does not present a condition restricting Jehovah's 'I will' to Abraham's conduct. It rather instructs Abraham in the manner of life which becomes one for whom Jehovah undertakes so much. In like manner, Genesis 26:5 is not addressed to Abraham, but is rather Jehovah's declaration to Isaac extending to him the sovereign, unconditional covenant made to his father Abraham. Isaac is admonished to live a faithful life under the covenant 'because' of the example of his father. In this connection, the exact reading of Genesis 18:19 is significant. In this context Jehovah says: 'For I have known him [as a factor in my gracious purpose], to the end [or result] that he [Abraham] may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham [in personal blessing] that which he hath spoken of him' (A.R.V.). In the contemplation of these important issues, two outstanding, qualifying facts should be observed: (1) No human element appears in any feature of the Abrahamic Covenant as it is announced by Jehovah, and (2) that both Abraham's position in Jehovah's covenant to him and Abraham's imputed righteousness (Gen. 15:6) are secured to him apart from meritorious works. Romans 4:1-22 declares that Abraham's blessings both concerning imputed righteousness and his position as 'heir of the world' (vs. 13) were wholly secured before he was circumcised (vs. 10). Thus, also, it is asserted that, in contrast to the 'works principle' which the Mosaic system introduces, Jehovah gave Abraham the inheritance contained in the Abrahamic Covenant by 'promise,' namely, what He alone did promise by an oath to do (Gal. 3:13-18). All of this bears vitally on the present offers of salvation by grace which are not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), but by promise (Gal. 3:22; cf. Rom. 4:23-25; Gal. 3:9). Thus the Apostle Paul declares that to intrude the element of human works into the Abrahamic Covenant, or as a ground of that righteousness which was imputed to Abraham, is to intrude works into the present plan of salvation by grace. To do this is no small error indeed, for it makes the promise of 'none effect' when God has made it 'sure' (Rom. 4:13-16). In the light of all these revelations, what subtle Arminianism infests the doctrine of those who claim that Jehovah made His covenant with Abraham on the ground of the fact that Abraham was one who 'obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws' (Gen. 26:5). The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, else, by such logic as only the Apostle could use, a passage like Ephesians 2:7-10 becomes null and void" (Lewis Chafer, Dispensationalism, ch. iv, iii, a).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
PrmtvBptst1832,
I did not ask you if it means what it says. Of course it does.
I believe you cannot answer it so you are dancing around....Is this the 6th time I have to spell it out for you?
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake;
1]You said;
I have not even tried to go there yet because I cannot get a straight answer from you or any other premill person.
I did not ask you if it means what it says. Of course it does.
I believe you cannot answer it so you are dancing around....Is this the 6th time I have to spell it out for you?
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake;
1]You said;
The verses are plainly written....You cannot answer it, as no premill can. You can try and explain away the language but you cannot fit it into your literal box.I'll answer only if you tell me what a presupposition is first.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A presupposition is you thinking everything has a literal interpretation....like here;
This is speaking of gentile inclusion in the NT temple, and yet look at what the Apostles describe this influx of gentiles as;
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Where did the Apostles rebuild the tabernacle of David? Where is this ...literally?
john Gill;
Meyers commentary
Last edited:
Do you actually think that premillennialists don't have an interpretation for said passage? Your rhetoric gets more stupid every time I read you. You should read proverbs 18:13, and quit making straw men out of and demonizing premillennial beliefs: it only shows your insecurity and grasping-at-straws tactic. You clearly haven't read anything whatsoever of our position so quit trying to teach what premillennialism is. If you have read what our beliefs are, quit misrepresenting our beliefs and instead, install logic and critical thinking void of fallacies, like straw men arguments, into your head.
Wrong again. Do you really need me to answer my question for you? How intelligent does that make you look?
As for your Amos 9:11 quote, that is off topic. Lookup what the "red herring" fallacy is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like I said ...you cannot answer...attacking me does not answer the rev 6 passage for you. You call me names because you cannot begin to answer it.
You are another rude cyber Rambo who cannot begin to defend the position except to try and insult people.
Put up....or shut up. I think you are void of understanding.
You can keep your debate fallacy excuses....answer what you were asked.
Like I said, I'll answer when you give me a definition for what a presupposition is. You think I'm void of understanding? What was that about attacking and calling names?
As to your contention that I'm calling you Names and attacking you, Here's what I said: 1) your rhetoric gets more stupid every time I read you. That's dealing with your rhetoric and not you. And quite frankly, your rhetoric does get more stupid every time I read it. Why not change your silly tactics? You really think that removing logical fallacies is a stupid idea eh? Need I even say anymore to you after such an ignorant and ignominious comment? [emoji23]
2) I asked you how intelligent you look after you couldn't explain to me what a presupposition is and needed me to tell you what it is. I never claimed you weren't intelligent, but you reacting to the comment as if I claimed you weren't intelligent is telling though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you know that our resurrection is based off of the abrahamic covenant? Not to mention our eternal life? The seed was to have possession of Canaan forever, thus implying eternal life. Hebrews 11:17-19 tells us that the seed, whom abraham thought to be Isaac, was to be resurrected because of this promise. We know that the seed is Christ and we inherit eternal life and resurrection by being "in Christ."
How could any right minded Christian claim the abrahamic covenant to be conditional or non literal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How could any right minded Christian claim the abrahamic covenant to be conditional or non literal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Jope, post
You actually think it was not reproachable that the reformers neglected prophecy? And no, futuristic interpretations are not recent. The best adherents to your beliefs all claim that the entire primitive church, all the way to late 3rd century Origen, were premillennial. Some even notice that the primitive church regarded it heresy to hold anything else than the premillennial and futuristic interpretation!
Is the accusation valid? Jesus gave very clear & explicit prophecies concerning the destruction, which were fulfilled in AD 70. He also prophesied the passing away of heaven & earth, & gave no warning signs.You actually think it was not reproachable that the reformers neglected prophecy? And no, futuristic interpretations are not recent. The best adherents to your beliefs all claim that the entire primitive church, all the way to late 3rd century Origen, were premillennial. Some even notice that the primitive church regarded it heresy to hold anything else than the premillennial and futuristic interpretation!
His general advice for all living after the destruction is:
Luke 21:34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.36 Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
Did the Reformers neglect THAT prophecy? Were they unconcerned about Christian living in the expectation of our Lord's return?
I think NOT.
And what an amazement it is to find Luther desiring the church to be reformed to the pre-Augustinian days, inadvertently desiring the church to be reverting to the days of premillennialism!
Wouldn't we all want an oppressing church to be reformed? Luther was concerned for the means of justification. Luther's supposed "inadvertent desires" have no place in a serious discussion.Regarding your point that we downplay the words of Christ, how?
You personally may not, but the whole concept of "literal interpretation" of OC prophecy focusing on the nation Israel & the Jews, rather than Christ & his Church seriously downplays the words of Christ.
And how do premillennialists today not contemporarize prophecy?
Ian said:
Why werethe entire ancient church premillennial and expecting a future fulfillment of daniel's 70th week? They were much closer to 70AD than you and I. Why do they wonder about and talk about what the number of the beast (666), is? They should already know because the beast should have existed in 70AD already!
Do you recognize that prophecy, as evidenced elsewhere in the bible, can have double fulfillment? Partial fulfillment?
Do you recognize that covenants should guide your interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy and not the other way around?
Why does future prophecy have to be specially non literal but every other prophecy of the bible has been fulfilled literally? Did you know that Luther said that the literal interpretation of the Word is the only interpretation to die by?
Can you please explain to us who the two witnesses of revelation 11 were? What was the image of the beast, in 70AD, described in rev 13? Revelation 16:8-9 describes the sun scorching men with great heat. Verse 4 describes the rivers being turned into blood. Rev 17:13-14 describes the beast making war with Jesus Christ and rev 19 describes him coming from heaven with all his saints to destroy this beast. Rev 19:21 can not be reconciled with the idea of Jesus coming in 70AD in a "spiritual" way. When did this occur in 70AD? Do you have any witnesses, any historians to describe any of this?
What does Romans 11:25-29 mean to you? Are Jews reconciled to God because of their covenants?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"PrmtvBptst1832,
You have not shown exegetically how you can interpret all the references to the coming of Lord as having been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and still maintain a (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. I will interpret your refusal to do this as proof that you cannot.
In his Olivet prophecy, in 3 Gospels, Jesus makes it clear that the destruction will take place in the lifetime of "this generation." Clearly AD 70 is intended. He proceeds to prophesy the passing of heaven & earth at a time unknown. You have not shown exegetically how you can interpret all the references to the coming of Lord as having been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and still maintain a (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. I will interpret your refusal to do this as proof that you cannot.
The destruction took place exactly as prophesied. We are presently waiting for the coming of our Saviour for resurrection & judgment - and the passing away of heaven & earth. Watch & pray ...
Rev. 6.12-17 means what it says and says what it means. Jesus said, "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." -Mt. 24.7. You claim that this was fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Luke 21:7 So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”
8 And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them. 9 But when you hear of wars and commotions, do not be terrified; for these things must come to pass first, but the end will not come immediately.”
8 And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them. 9 But when you hear of wars and commotions, do not be terrified; for these things must come to pass first, but the end will not come immediately.”
He did go on to give specific signs at which they should flee the city:
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Were these literal earthquakes or figurative ones? These earthquakes were intended to be understood literally, just as the famines and pestilences. Rev. 16.8 seems to be speaking of a literal earthquake.
Literal earthquakes are recorded in Acts, & the Gospels at the crucifixion. We haven'd got an inspired account of the destruction - the believers didn't stay in the city to check the prophetic details. Were these literal earthquakes or figurative ones? These earthquakes were intended to be understood literally, just as the famines and pestilences. Rev. 16.8 seems to be speaking of a literal earthquake.
You seem to want an either/or answer, but I cannot give it to you. It is more likely both/and. At any rate, these things must take place leading up to the coming of the Lord and the end of the age.
It is interesting that these people recognize "the great day of his wrath," whereas the Jews did not. Jesus used similar language about the destruction of Jerusalem in Lk. 23.30, but both are presented in scripture as the judgment of God so we should not be surprised.
They recognised "the great day of his wrath," too late! Jesus warned the women that their children would suffer - Luke 23:“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ 30 Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ 31 For if they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?”
Those children, in their 40s, having refused to repent, would cry in terror when they realised they were facing the wrath of the Lamb whose Gospel of peace they had despised. Rev. 6 echoes that cry. Isaiah had previously given a similar warning to rebellious Jerusalem.
It is of course likely that when Jesus returns people will again cry in such terror.
The Reformers were taken up with addressing mainly what is the real Gospel in the scrptures, what is the real salvation God provided for us in the death and resurrection of Christ, so they did notfocus much upon prophecy!
And the ECF were maily pre Mils in their viewpoints cannot be denied, so any who would wish to spiritualize the prophetic word of God go against their own esablished church traditions!
The scriptures tell us just as was intime before the Flood, society will be evil and blowing off God on a whole, so why would we expect the world to be converted by the church then, apart from the Second Coming?
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 PM Pacific.
This is linguistically simplistic. The Greek word genea doesn't always mean "generation," but can also mean "literally, those descended from a common ancestor race, clan, descendants (perhaps AC 8.33); as an ethnic group kind (LU 16.8)" (Friberg's Anlex through BibleWorks).
Before I start, you need to keep a civil tongue in your head and treat your correspondents with respect. Perhaps a perusal of Proverbs 29:9 & 11 will be helpful to you.How can the kingdom be near if it's already started? Remember the advice that Thumper's mother gave to him in Bambi: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Matthew 4:17. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near" (cf. also Mark 1:15). The verb for 'draw near' or 'be at hand' is eggizo. The same verb is used in Matthew 26:46 and it did not take Judas 40 years to approach Christ.
Matthew 11:12. "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the righteous take it by force."
Matthew 12:28. "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of heaven has come upon you." These two texts show that the kingdom of heaven was already present at the time that the Lord Jesus spoke the words. But the KoH starts small and grows (Matthew 13:31-33), so it was apparent only to those with eyes to see. Of course the time will come, when our Lord returns, when it will be obvious to all (Matthew 13:47-50).
So what shall we say about Luke 21:31? Well Luke does not contradict Matthew, so it must mean that the destruction of Jerusalem was another indication that the kingdom of heaven was present with power.
Do you imagine that David is going to complain that his Descendant according to the flesh occupies, not a tiny throne in Jerusalem but the throne that governs and controls all the Universe?
If you actually read the texts I quoted, you might understand.
Matthew 4:17. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near" (cf. also Mark 1:15). The verb for 'draw near' or 'be at hand' is eggizo. The same verb is used in Matthew 26:46 and it did not take Judas 40 years to approach Christ.
Matthew 11:12. "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the righteous take it by force."
Matthew 12:28. "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of heaven has come upon you." These two texts show that the kingdom of heaven was already present at the time that the Lord Jesus spoke the words. But the KoH starts small and grows (Matthew 13:31-33), so it was apparent only to those with eyes to see. Of course the time will come, when our Lord returns, when it will be obvious to all (Matthew 13:47-50).
So what shall we say about Luke 21:31? Well Luke does not contradict Matthew, so it must mean that the destruction of Jerusalem was another indication that the kingdom of heaven was present with power.
And this is supposed to be an argument, is it?
And what is this supposed to be? I can still find no text that has the Lord Jesus saying, "I will sit on My throne." Either you need to show me the text or admit that there isn't one. There is no need to get in a tizzy.
Revelation 3:21. "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." When did our Lord sit down with the father on His throne? When He had overcome and returned to heaven.(Psalm 110:1; Daniel 7:13-14; Mark 16:19). There He will sit until His enemies are made His footstool. In the New Jerusalem, there is still only one throne (Revelation 22:3). I understand that you and your fellow-dispensationalists believe in an intermediate 1,000 year kingdom in the current Jerusalem, but that is your problem and not mine.
Again, that is not my problem. I can only explain my beliefs, not someone else's.
I think you'll find it can. Something dramatic happened with the coming of Christ- the Kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God began. This is the stone cut out without hands (Daniel 2:34) that will overcome all the nations of the earth (Revelation 11:15); it is the grain of mustard seed that will become a mighty tree; it is the leaven which will leaven the whole world (Matthew 13:31-33 again).
Of course the promises to David are fulfilled, but your god is too small! My God is able to do exceedingly abundantly, above all that we ask or think! The promises to David are fulfilled in a way more wonderful than he could have supposed. 'Indeed, He says, "it is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth"' (Isaiah 49:6). David conquered a few kings round and about Israel; Christ will destroy all rule that opposes His Father and reign over all the nations (Psalm 2:8-9; Psalm 110:5-7). And yes, He will reign from Jerusalem, but not from a small piece of real estate in the Levant. He will rule from the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven to the new earth.
Chafer fails to understand. The New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 & 22 is not a 'heavenly, spiritual throne in the sense that he means it. It will be a physical kingdom on a renewed physical earth on which we shall live in resurrection bodies, which are both 'flesh and bones' (Luke 24:39) and 'spiritual' in that they are not subject to fleshly decay.
Do you imagine that David is going to complain that his Descendant according to the flesh occupies, not a tiny throne in Jerusalem but the throne that governs and controls all the Universe?
Last edited:
- Status