Was this your first hint? "A Sermon by Dr. Bob Griffin, Teaching Elder at Sovereign Grace Church"
-
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!
The New and True Exodus....In Jesus....Central Gospel Truth
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
Yes.....
The first expression of that kingdom was realized in the theocratic nation of Israel. Israel was the promised seed of Abraham and Canaan was Yahweh’s sanctuary where the nation would enjoy the blessing of communion with the God of their patriarchal fathers. But what was only implied in Eden was now overt: The theocratic kingdom had its source in a great redemptive act. Israel was born out of divine redemption and this reality was the foundational premise of the covenant and identity marker of the covenant people (Exodus 15:1-18, 20:1-2).
d. The Israelite kingdom was a redemptive kingdom and, given its place as firstlevel fulfillment of the kingdom promised to Abraham, it follows that the final form of the kingdom would also be associated with redemption. Again, this is precisely what the Scriptures reveal.
- No sooner did the prophets declare the destruction of the Israelite kingdom than they began to speak of a future kingdom associated with the promised son of David. David’s existing kingdom would come to its decreed end, but this didn’t mean the end of Yahweh’s oath to permanently establish David’s kingdom in his son.
- The Lord’s enduring commitment to David’s house and kingdom was attested historically in the recovery of a Judean remnant following the Babylonian destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. This miniscule restoration was used by the prophets to reaffirm that Yahweh had not forgotten or forsaken His promise to David. Most importantly, the return of the Judean remnant under Cyrus reinforced the connection between Yahweh’s kingdom and the principle of redemption. As the Lord redeemed a remnant from Babylonian captivity, so the true Davidic kingdom would be the product of divine redemption through an appointed messiah (ref. esp. Isaiah 42:1-54:17).
e. It is in relation to the concept of a redemptive kingdom that the doctrine of the Day of the Lord emerged in the prophets. Yahweh would indeed come and establish His kingdom through a great redemptive act, but, consistent with the meaning of redemption, that act would involve judgment and deliverance. The Lord was going to usher in His kingdom by defeating the enemies who had taken His sons captive, thereby liberating them and taking them to Himself to be with Him in His dwelling place. The first Exodus was to find its own fulfillment in a second Exodus (Isaiah 51:1-11; cf. 11:1-16).
CHRISTOPHER CULVER.....
d. The Israelite kingdom was a redemptive kingdom and, given its place as firstlevel fulfillment of the kingdom promised to Abraham, it follows that the final form of the kingdom would also be associated with redemption. Again, this is precisely what the Scriptures reveal.
- No sooner did the prophets declare the destruction of the Israelite kingdom than they began to speak of a future kingdom associated with the promised son of David. David’s existing kingdom would come to its decreed end, but this didn’t mean the end of Yahweh’s oath to permanently establish David’s kingdom in his son.
- The Lord’s enduring commitment to David’s house and kingdom was attested historically in the recovery of a Judean remnant following the Babylonian destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. This miniscule restoration was used by the prophets to reaffirm that Yahweh had not forgotten or forsaken His promise to David. Most importantly, the return of the Judean remnant under Cyrus reinforced the connection between Yahweh’s kingdom and the principle of redemption. As the Lord redeemed a remnant from Babylonian captivity, so the true Davidic kingdom would be the product of divine redemption through an appointed messiah (ref. esp. Isaiah 42:1-54:17).
e. It is in relation to the concept of a redemptive kingdom that the doctrine of the Day of the Lord emerged in the prophets. Yahweh would indeed come and establish His kingdom through a great redemptive act, but, consistent with the meaning of redemption, that act would involve judgment and deliverance. The Lord was going to usher in His kingdom by defeating the enemies who had taken His sons captive, thereby liberating them and taking them to Himself to be with Him in His dwelling place. The first Exodus was to find its own fulfillment in a second Exodus (Isaiah 51:1-11; cf. 11:1-16).
CHRISTOPHER CULVER.....
IBID;
The doctrine of the Servant of Yahweh is evident elsewhere in the Old Testament – particularly in relation to the promised Davidic seed (ref. Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25; Zechariah 3:8; cf. also Haggai 2:20-23), but Isaiah’s treatment stands alone in its magnitude and scope. His prophecy provides essential content for bringing together the various aspects of Old Testament messianism.
- The prophets revealed a Messiah who would be the Son of David and Melchizedekian high priest. This One would also be the tangible manifestation of Yahweh in His coming to establish His kingdom in the earth. Moreover, both the prophets and history itself indicated that this kingdom was to be the product of Yahweh’s work of redemption in the great and awesome Day of the Lord (cf. Isaiah 3:1-4:6; Joel 3:9-21; Zephaniah 1:1-18, 3:1-20; Malachi 4:5-6; etc.).
The doctrine of the Servant of Yahweh is evident elsewhere in the Old Testament – particularly in relation to the promised Davidic seed (ref. Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25; Zechariah 3:8; cf. also Haggai 2:20-23), but Isaiah’s treatment stands alone in its magnitude and scope. His prophecy provides essential content for bringing together the various aspects of Old Testament messianism.
- The prophets revealed a Messiah who would be the Son of David and Melchizedekian high priest. This One would also be the tangible manifestation of Yahweh in His coming to establish His kingdom in the earth. Moreover, both the prophets and history itself indicated that this kingdom was to be the product of Yahweh’s work of redemption in the great and awesome Day of the Lord (cf. Isaiah 3:1-4:6; Joel 3:9-21; Zephaniah 1:1-18, 3:1-20; Malachi 4:5-6; etc.).
AGAIN;
The Servant’s priestly role as Yahweh’s true Israel is profound in itself, but all the more so in the light of the fact that He is also the presence of Yahweh as Israel’s Redeemer (Isaiah 59:15-20). In the Suffering Servant, the Lord Himself would bear the guilt of His people and satisfy the demands of justice against them.
- From the beginning God indicated that His kingdom was to be a redemptive kingdom; Yahweh, the great King, would establish it through a spectacular work of judgment, deliverance, and restoration. And as had been the case with its Israelite predecessor, sacrifice was to provide the redemptive foundation for the final kingdom. Though only indirectly implied, the future second Exodus predicted by Isaiah (ref. again 51:9-11) would also stand upon a second Passover as the instrument of redemption.
- At the same time, the Servant’s unique nature introduced a whole new dimension into the redemptive circumstance. This one would fulfill in Himself the twin roles of priest and sacrifice, but He would do so as Yahweh the Redeemer as well as the new Israel.
Satisfying the obligations of both parties, the Servant effectively embodied the covenant in Himself (42:1-7, 49:8-9). He would be Israel on behalf of Israel, but as the Lord Redeemer He would accomplish Yahweh’s purpose to redeem and recover to Himself all things (cf. Isaiah 49:5-6, 54:1-17; also Ephesians 1:7-10, 2:11-3:12; Colossians 1:19-20).
The Servant’s priestly role as Yahweh’s true Israel is profound in itself, but all the more so in the light of the fact that He is also the presence of Yahweh as Israel’s Redeemer (Isaiah 59:15-20). In the Suffering Servant, the Lord Himself would bear the guilt of His people and satisfy the demands of justice against them.
- From the beginning God indicated that His kingdom was to be a redemptive kingdom; Yahweh, the great King, would establish it through a spectacular work of judgment, deliverance, and restoration. And as had been the case with its Israelite predecessor, sacrifice was to provide the redemptive foundation for the final kingdom. Though only indirectly implied, the future second Exodus predicted by Isaiah (ref. again 51:9-11) would also stand upon a second Passover as the instrument of redemption.
- At the same time, the Servant’s unique nature introduced a whole new dimension into the redemptive circumstance. This one would fulfill in Himself the twin roles of priest and sacrifice, but He would do so as Yahweh the Redeemer as well as the new Israel.
Satisfying the obligations of both parties, the Servant effectively embodied the covenant in Himself (42:1-7, 49:8-9). He would be Israel on behalf of Israel, but as the Lord Redeemer He would accomplish Yahweh’s purpose to redeem and recover to Himself all things (cf. Isaiah 49:5-6, 54:1-17; also Ephesians 1:7-10, 2:11-3:12; Colossians 1:19-20).
Acts 1 has that view of the suffering one and the restoring king.
The Apostles began understand (though at first they did not) the suffering Messiah prophecies were fulfilled in the earthly mission of Christ. Further understanding of the two advents would be given them as the Holy Spirit would awaken them to "all truth."
Look at this statement found in Acts 1:
6So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
What Jesus remind those gathered is that there was a mission, a given charge that was to be taken up, a "redemptive kingdom" to be the missionary statement work until the "Kingdom to (of) Israel" is established.
The mistaken view of those in the first century was corrected as soon as the Spirit came...Acts2;
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord an
Since I am referenced here I will make a brief reply: this is replacement theology with a new name (agreeing with Doran, who is more intelligent and better educated than I am, and certainly than Icon). It is based on typology gone wild, which becomes of course a form of allegorical interpretation--which Icon denies he ever, ever uses.
I have to go teach Advanced Missions 2, and make sure I'm ready to teach Dispensational Theology in the next block. (Icon will immediately object to this post since he believes he knows more about dispensationalism than I do, correcting my definition of dispensation in a previous thread
. He will then probably insult me like he did Jerome on this thread, who provided a very good link and a positive contribution to the thread with a statement by a genuine scholar.)So, anyway, I don't have time for this right now. Have fun, kids!
See, here is a baseline area of disagreemen.
You view the recorded question of the Apostle as a mistaken view. Not true.
The mistaken view was that the Messiah as King would not suffer, and Christ had to very carefully teach them prior to the crucifixion that which the prophets stated had to be fulfilled.
Christ did not “correct” their mistaken view, but declared that it was not given when that view would be fulfilled.
The question was as valid then as now. A real physical kingdom in which the believers will rule and reign with Him.
That which the Apostles knew was going to take place and will take place according to the given plan of God.
There is some agreement with what you are presenting, but ultimately where we part is I look for that kingdom, you do not.
PastoralMusings
Active Member
Would someone enlighten me about how recognizing a theme that permeates Scripture is replacement theology?
Methinks that brush paints too broadly.
Methinks that brush paints too broadly.
Last edited:
I can't resist just one more post. (Must not continue, must not continue.... ) I object strongly to calling this doctrine "gospel," as in the OP. The Gospel is very clear in Scripture (1 Cor. 15:1-8): Christ died for our sins (as proven by the burial), and rose again (as proven by the witnesses). It's just wrong and dangerous to call anything but that (or one of the 4 Gospels) by the name "Gospel."
) I object strongly to calling this doctrine "gospel," as in the OP. The Gospel is very clear in Scripture (1 Cor. 15:1-8): Christ died for our sins (as proven by the burial), and rose again (as proven by the witnesses). It's just wrong and dangerous to call anything but that (or one of the 4 Gospels) by the name "Gospel."
Those who would advance that the believers in some manner replaced Israel as to the promises given to the nation of a future dramatic change of heart and desire (as only God can do) and that a physical reign of the King of Kings in a millennium is either currently ongoing or non-existant, and basically attempting to show Israel's rejection was a fatal cancellation of the covenant relationship with the Father are generally considered replacement theology holders.
There may be modifications and advancing different area differences, but basically that is the case.
Replacement theology is opposed to those who do endorse the premillennial view of the physical return of Christ to rule for a 1000 year period just prior to the final judgement of God. Such a view may be the popular dispensational which holds in some manner to a Darby thinking, moderately dispensational (not endorsing Darby yet seeing the rapture as hopeful), and the Historic premillennial view (Charles Spurgeon, Francis Schaeffer, Benjamin Newton (who opposed Darby)..)
I would add that Gentile believers are not presented as a separate replacement group in the Scriptures, but a group the is "grafted into the Israeli believers." (Romans 11)
I can't resist just one more post. (Must not continue, must not continue....
Back when I was most young, some mechanics would refer to the car manuals as the their bible, and I always was quite exercised by their terms.
You are most correct (as a teacher being precise must usually), however most on the BB would probably be poor students in my classroom. They are obstinately contentious.
The fact of the question means a limited understanding - the question does not imply a correct understanding of prophecy, & that they simply wanted to know when it would happen.
No. Jesus has been teaching them about the kingdom of God during the previous 40 days. The fact that they asked the question indicates they thought there was something important Jesus hadn't told them. It seems the expection of the disciples & the Jews was that Jesus would now complete his mission - mount a white horse, blow a trumpet & rally all Israel against the Romans. A earthly king like David.
Not an earthly, physical kingdom but a spiritual kingdom of those who rally to the Gospel.
10 days later the Holy Spirit was poured out on them from heaven; they preached the risen Christ, and thousands of Israel responded.
And we never again hear of an kingdom for the nation - the kingdom is for the redeemed people of Israel together with the redeemed people from all nations, as promised to Abram.
Your statement seems to negate that the Jews were typically (as they continue to this day) to look for. A physical king on the restored thrown of David. This is as the prophets declare, and that which they will continue to look, and for a time be blinded into accepting what is in error because of political authority and miracle working.
The Apostles question was not concerning prior teaching for such teaching focused primarily of the crucifixion in contrast to the kingly rule to help them come to terms with both aspects of the prophetic statements they had been taught. Their question rose out of teaching they had concerning that physical kingdom yet to be an event.
As stated to icon., the question was not mistaken doctrine needing corrected, but Christ gave further instructions concerning that event not dismissing or disproving the question.
John of Japan,
Okay...let's see what you have to offer
come on....after four pages of excerpts and dozens of scriptures...you offer this instead of a real response
Here we go again......in the other thread, you posted this;
Yes...I am glad you have studied the greek language, and learned to translate bible portions into Japanese...that is great.
Here you seem obsessed with rating each person and their learning.
Guess what John...you are not the only person with seminary training, or who have studied the languages...Many of the persons I have quoted from have studied as much as you, or even more that you. You are not the only person in history that has gone to seminary...no...there are many who have.
Some of us ...rank and file believers can read and see what those men offer . They show how the view you hold has error and in fact can be very mistaken on many areas. When we quote these lettered theologians, who you have not yet answered any of the scriptural arguments...but instead try and be critical of the persons themselves...exposes that you have no biblical answer.
You said that you have not heard of the New Exodus...and I believe you on that.
No...it is based on scripture as the 4 previous pages show, Your excuse is that the posts are long and complicated...that is exactly why I broke them down so you could comment on them a bit at a time, if you wanted to. Now I see that you cannot.
jerome in case you have not noticed posts always against those who hold the doctrines of grace, and he tries to undermine any positive contribution that members post...That is just an observation, not an insult.You seem to get that confused as judging by what you offer here
The bogus link was a caricature of the position offered that the man in the clip, Jerome, and you do not yet understand.
Now on to your next errant post
....
Okay...let's see what you have to offer
come on....after four pages of excerpts and dozens of scriptures...you offer this instead of a real responseHere we go again......in the other thread, you posted this;
Yes...I am glad you have studied the greek language, and learned to translate bible portions into Japanese...that is great.
Here you seem obsessed with rating each person and their learning.
Guess what John...you are not the only person with seminary training, or who have studied the languages...Many of the persons I have quoted from have studied as much as you, or even more that you. You are not the only person in history that has gone to seminary...no...there are many who have.
Some of us ...rank and file believers can read and see what those men offer . They show how the view you hold has error and in fact can be very mistaken on many areas. When we quote these lettered theologians, who you have not yet answered any of the scriptural arguments...but instead try and be critical of the persons themselves...exposes that you have no biblical answer.
You said that you have not heard of the New Exodus...and I believe you on that.
,
No...it is based on scripture as the 4 previous pages show, Your excuse is that the posts are long and complicated...that is exactly why I broke them down so you could comment on them a bit at a time, if you wanted to. Now I see that you cannot.
Which becomes a form of spiritual interpreation that the Apostles used but does not fit into the system you defend and get paid to teach.
That is what you are being paid to do...
Ah yes....another edifying thought from JOJ...where did I say I know more about it? I know enough about it to see the error and look for clearer teaching
Yes...the person who offered correction does know much more about it than you do, and the definition offered was a fuller explanation than what you offered....as I said, you are not the only person that has gone to seminary, or has a definition.correcting my definition of dispensation in a previous thread
Very kind thoughts from you!
jerome in case you have not noticed posts always against those who hold the doctrines of grace, and he tries to undermine any positive contribution that members post...That is just an observation, not an insult.You seem to get that confused as judging by what you offer here
Those you refer to as genuine scholar's seem to get it wrong more often than not...I hope this "genuine scholar "thing isnot contagious
The bogus link was a caricature of the position offered that the man in the clip, Jerome, and you do not yet understand.
Now on to your next errant post
....
John of Japan,
people are free to object to truth here on BB ..let's see what our "professional Theologian" wants to object to here as He strongly objects to it???
JOJ refers to the historic facts of the gospel..posting this;
Christ died for our sins (as proven by the burial), and rose again (as proven by the witnesses).
In 1 cor 15 we read this;
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Paul includes the teaching is "according to the scriptures plural", that is all 66 books contain the gospel....not just the historic facts, as we see here in Galatians.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Christ died for our sins (as proven by the burial), and rose again (as proven by the witnesses).
Paul did not have such a view. Redemptive History does not have such a fragmented view, and that is why the dispensational system fragments the scripture so that it's adherent cannot grasp onto it.
Okay..let's see ;I can't resist just one more post. (Must not continue, must not continue....
people are free to object to truth here on BB ..let's see what our "professional Theologian" wants to object to here as He strongly objects to it???
:
JOJ refers to the historic facts of the gospel..posting this;
Christ died for our sins (as proven by the burial), and rose again (as proven by the witnesses).
In 1 cor 15 we read this;
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Paul includes the teaching is "according to the scriptures plural", that is all 66 books contain the gospel....not just the historic facts, as we see here in Galatians.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Christ died for our sins (as proven by the burial), and rose again (as proven by the witnesses).
Paul did not have such a view. Redemptive History does not have such a fragmented view, and that is why the dispensational system fragments the scripture so that it's adherent cannot grasp onto it.
Do you not understand the difference between "according to" and "including"? Paul did not say, "including all the Scriptures," but "according to the Scriptures," meaning he was teaching that the true Gospel is based on Scripture.
Your view as stated here would seem to include every single bit of the whole Bible as "Gospel," and that is contrary to Scripture.
I am going to port your remaining statement to a new thread.
Yes. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I also understand Paul to be saying what Jesus taught in Luke 24:25-27.
You would agree with Jesus words here ....right?...in all the scriptures...
How does "all the Scriptures concerning Himself" add up to "the Gospel"? The passage does not define "all the Scriptures concerning Himself" as Gospel.
I have given the Gospel many hundreds of times in different languages and countries. I am so glad that God made the Gospel easy to explain and understand to all peoples, as it is in 1 Cor. 15, not some vast complicated doctrine that only theologians could explain.