Featured Spiritual Death

Martin Marprelate,

.

I enjoy your solid posts as you are one of the few who consistently offer bible truth and solid verses and plant seed that can grow in other believers.
Does that mean we will always agree? No, not necessarily. I am sure I post things that you have a slightly different twist on, and the other way around. That is fine and normal.
On the penal substitution threads, you have schooled those who drifted away from the safe harbor of scripture.

[QUOTE]A couple of other similarities between Eden and the New Jerusalem came into my mind. The first I had intended to post, but it slipped my mind. The others have occurred to me since.[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is an exact example. One plants, one waters, but God gives the increase.

Yes. This correct observation-only comes about by having in mind the fullness of redemptive history.
God has designed the believing church to welcome such truths.
Eph3:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

God's eternal purpose is progressively revealed, so it is correct to see where does it start, and finish. That informs us on all that is in between as we correctly examine the puzzle pieces.
Man in the fall was estranged from God and true knowledge as you have correctly alluded to.
All men post-fall men lack that unless and until they are regenerated.

Pastor Culver again;
For the most part, Jesus’ public self-interpretation was focused on the matter of fulfillment. That is, He explained Himself in terms of the Scriptures and their promise of a final, everlasting kingdom. Jesus’ constant refrain was that Israel’s failure to know Him reflected its failure to understand the Scriptures; at every turn He answered His detractors and those who marveled at Him by directing them to what the Scriptures said and promised about the coming Messiah and the kingdom He would inaugurate (cf. Matthew 4:12-17, 5:17-20, 13:10-15, 21:1-46, 22:23-46; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:16-30; John 5:16-47, 7:14-42, 10:22-38, etc.).

Pastor Culver adds this;

This same connotation is carried forward and further developed in the Bible’s treatment of Mount Zion as the site of the temple in Jerusalem. It was there that the sons of Israel met with Yahweh, and the prophets spoke of the day when all the nations would join them. The point of that imagery is not that the whole world would literally journey to Jerusalem, but that, in the fulfillment to come, all the nations would become worshippers of the true and living God (Isaiah 66:20; Jeremiah 3:17; Micah 4:1-2). Jerusalem is so closely linked with the “mount of God” that the terms are sometimes used synonymously (ref. Isaiah 37:32, 66:20; Daniel 9:16; Joel 2:32, 3:17; Zechariah 8:3).

But within Ezekiel’s prophecy, the phrase “mountain of God” is used in relation to Eden (ref. 28:11-16). This particular passage is set in a larger context in which God, through His prophet, was proclaiming a lament over the king of Tyre in view of his city’s coming destruction (26:1-28:19). God had determined to destroy this important Phoenician port city because of its arrogant presumption that Jerusalem’s downfall at the hand of Babylon (24:1-27) would serve its own profit (ref. 26:1-2).

a. The lament of chapter 28 is directed toward the king of Tyre, but many see in this historical account a symbolic representation of Adam’s (or Satan’s) fall. It is said of the king that he had been in Eden and that he had borne the “seal of perfection” as the “anointed cherub who covers.” It was only when arrogance and rebellion welled up in him that he was cast off the holy “mountain of God” (ref. 28:14-16). Thus the prophet’s description and condemnation of the king of Tyre – while perfectly applicable to the historical figure identified in the lament, is also suggestive of the dynamics of Adam’s fall in Eden (applying this passage to Satan is much more problematic).

b. But the point here is to note the correlation of Eden with the “mountain of God.” Assuming a legitimate symbolic aspect to Ezekiel 28, when compared with the corresponding Exodus passages it spotlights what is indirectly evident from the creation narrative, namely that Eden – as sacred space – represented the place of divine/human encounter. Exodus calls Horeb the “mountain of God,” and it was there that God met with Moses, the sons of Israel, and later Ezekiel. But this concept is also associated with Eden, implying that, in the initial creation, it was the place of divine/human interaction. This conclusion is supported by details within the first three chapters of Genesis, as will be seen.

Obviously any who just want to oppose biblical thought will never see these kinds of things or get close to truth on this. The look to secular history, or philosophy to explain away truth.
Obviously some will declare we cannot know truth, but they can state whatever they want, and believe or not believe what is offered.

 

Martin M said,

Pastor Culver;
At the time of the Fall, God promised a day in which the serpent (and, by implication, his works and the curse brought about through his deception) would be overthrown and destroyed by a “seed” to come from Eve. The doctrine of the kingdom flows out of this primal promise and its historical development and speaks to the promise’s fulfillment. In the Scriptures the “kingdom of God” doesn’t refer to God’s supreme lordship as such, but to His work of restoration in fulfillment of His oath in Genesis 3:15. It is for this reason that it is a redemptive kingdom; it is the outcome of God’s sovereign activity in recovering the estranged creation to Himself through judgment, deliverance, and renewal


This global salvation was to be effected through the Servant’s work of vicarious atonement (53:1-12) and, as a result of it, Zion (symbolizing Yahweh’s covenant wife who bears children for him – ref. 50:1; also Hosea 2:1-23) would be restored from her desolation. In her restoration she would then gather in the innumerable “children” of the covenant Lord secured for Him by the atoning work of His Servant (54:1-17).

The focal point of the Servant’s work in Isaiah’s prophecy is the recovery to God of estranged mankind. But, in keeping with the fact that the curse extended to the whole creation, Isaiah showed that work of recovery to reach beyond man to embrace the entire created order. Through His Servant, Yahweh would vanquish the curse and usher in a new creation (cf. 65:1-25, 66:5-24 with 11:1-10).

B. The Emergent Kingdom – The Coming of Immanuel

John was appointed by the Lord to prepare Israel for the coming of the long-awaited kingdom. And at the heart of that kingdom was the profound reality of theophany: The uniform prophetic message was that Yahweh Himself would inaugurate His kingdom in connection with His own personal presence in the world. The promise of the kingdom was the promise of Immanuel – “God with us” – and this theme is most prevalent in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. 7:1-12:6, 19:18-25, 25:1-27:13, 32:1-20, 40:1-11, 42:1-9, 49:1-13, 59:1-20, etc.).

In particular, Isaiah associated the eschatological coming of Yahweh with the coming of His Servant. Importantly, this Servant is presented in unique terms as both the fulfillment of Israel (Isaiah 49:1ff) and the presence of Yahweh (cf. Isaiah 40:1-11 with 42:1-16; also Zechariah 2:10-11). In this way the text indirectly indicates that, in this one individual, there is some sort of conjoining of the covenant Father and son; both parties to the covenant are represented in him. While Christians commonly recognize that the Isaianic “Servant of the Lord” represents Yahweh Himself in His coming to inaugurate His kingdom, it is far less common for them to find in this individual the fulfillment of Israel, Yahweh’s covenant son. The result is that they miss a crucial aspect of Christ’s identity and role as the God-Man.


Central to the Old Testament promise of the kingdom was the fact that Yahweh Himself would come and establish it. But prophetic revelation also indicated that Yahweh’s kingdom was to be ruled by the seed promised in the Davidic Covenant. Isaiah reconciled these truths by revealing that David who would restore and rule over David’s kingdom would do so according to the principle of Immanuel: His victory and dominion were to be Yahweh’s; in His rule Yahweh’s own rule would be expressed.

But another stream of Old Testament messianism also converged with the promise to David of a royal “Branch”: The coming Davidic ruler was to be a king-priest – a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God (cf. Psalm 110 with Zechariah 6:9-15; cf. also Genesis 14:18 with Hebrews 5-7).


Though perhaps not apparent at first glance, this messianic component is central to the doctrine of the kingdom of God. The reason is tied to the fact that the Lord’s kingdom is, in every manifestation, a redemptive kingdom – a kingdom having its origin and essence in the principle of redemption.

a. This truth was implied in the primal promise of the protoevangelium: In the most basic sense, redemption involves liberation secured by appropriate payment, and in the instance of the post-Fall circumstance the issue was liberation from the curse. This deliverance was to be secured by the woman’s seed as He overcame the serpent through the implied price of His own bruising. Given the nature and effects of the Fall, any manifestation of God’s kingdom – that is, God’s rule through man, the image-son – would necessarily involve redemption. The kingdom of God concerns divine-human dominion in the context of divine-human communion, and this reality demands the liberation of man from the subjugating power of his estrangement from his Creator-Father.

 

Martin, I know you welcome these ideas so I am just skimming through to get to rev.22 in response to your post:
we continue;
a. The fact that the Servant represents both parties to Israel’s covenant is foundational to properly interacting with Isaiah’s presentation of Him. First of all, the Servant is Yahweh’s true Israel, and the significance of this becomes evident when the biblical idea of “Israel” is unfolded.

- The immediate inclination is to think of Israel as a national, ethnic people, but it is first and foremost a biblical concept. Israel found its first expression in a single individual, and only later in the corporate body descended from him. As a concept, “Israel” principally embodies the ideas of seed of Abraham, son of God, servant of Yahweh, disciple and witness. The latter three, especially, come to the forefront in Isaiah’s prophecy.

The nation of Israel was God’s son in that it had been “begotten” by redemptive “birth” in keeping with the Lord’s covenant with Abraham. Yahweh had promised to be the God of Abraham and his descendents, and He upheld that promise by delivering Israel from exile and bondage and bringing them to be with Him in His sanctuary-land.

But, being the recipients of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises, Israel was to fulfill the core feature of the covenant that, in Abraham and his seed, all the families of the earth would be blessed. That blessing consisted in the nations coming to know and worship Abraham’s God. From the vantage point of the Fall, it meant the undoing of the curse; it meant the reconciliation of Creator-Father and estranged image-son. In its calling as Abraham’s seed, the nation of Israel was to fulfill this promise of reconciliation. Israel was Yahweh’s servant (Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1-2, 21), set apart as His disciple to learn of Him through devoted faithfulness to the covenant by which He revealed Himself (42:18-24). By that life of faithfulness, in turn, the servant-son would bear witness to the divine Father to the surrounding nations (Isaiah 43:10-15, 44:6-8).

These designations show that the concept “Israel” speaks to man as truly man – man as he exists in intimate communion with God as Father and communicates His presence and lordship throughout His creation.

- Israel was son, servant, disciple and witness, but the nation failed to fulfill its identity in every way. Israel could not be Israel, and its failure brought the Abrahamic promise (and the Edenic oath behind it) into jeopardy. If God were to fulfill His oath of restoration and reconciliation, a new Israel was needed, as this is precisely what Isaiah promised (49:1ff).

This new Israel would fulfill Israel’s identity and calling, and this meant mediating Yahweh’s blessing to all the earth’s people – blessing that consists in intimate relational knowledge of the Creator-Father. But in the context of divine-human estrangement, such knowledge necessitates reconciliation, and this is where the Servant-Israel’s priesthood comes in.

b. 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).

I had not had a chance to sit and offer you more on this until now.
take your time and enjoy seeing the work of God in the recovery of sacred space, peace and rest.

 

Martin, here is more to consider and to add on to.

The promise of Yahweh’s kingdom was the promise of His recovery of sacred space, and, within the Israelite context, sacred space was symbolized in Israel’s temple in Jerusalem.

This is the reason the prophetic witness to the kingdom has a primary focal point in the temple concept. In that day the mountain of the Lord – symbolic of His dwelling place (Exodus 15:17) – would be the greatest of all the mountains (Isaiah 2:1-3; Zechariah 8:1-3), rising and expanding to fill the whole earth (Daniel 2:31-35, 44-45; cf. also Isaiah 11:9).

So Jerusalem (Zion) – the Lord’s symbolic throne – would be the center of the earth with all the nations and peoples coming into it (ref. again Isaiah 2:1-3, also 51:1-11, 62:1-12, 66:19-20 with Jeremiah 3:14-17, 31:1-6; Micah 4:1-7; Zechariah 8:19-23). And more narrowly, that great day would see the erecting of the Lord’s true temple with His glory filling His sanctuary forever (ref. Ezekiel 40-47, esp. 43:1-5 and 44:1-4; also Haggai 2:1-9; Zechariah 6:9-15).

1) The first of those is John’s association of Christ with the principle of light. The introduction to his gospel account emphasizes this as a central theme, and he refers to it repeatedly throughout its length (1:1-9, 3:1-21, 5:33-36, 8:12, 9:1-5 with 9:35-41, 11:1-10, 12:20-46). Being true deity, Jesus is the true light that has come into the world (cf. 1 John 1:5) – a world characterized by the darkness of alienation and unbelief. And interjecting Himself as light into the darkness, He came to illumine the world of men; Jesus came to those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death in order to illumine their way and thereby set their feet on the path of life and peace (ref. Luke 1:76-79; cf. also Isaiah 9:1-7 with Matthew 4:12-17).

 

more about the light;
Thus the priest Zacharias associated the day of salvation – that is, the emergence of life out of death – with the dawning of the “sunrise from on high,” and Simeon saw in Yahweh’s salvation “a light to illumine the Gentiles” as well as the radiant glory of the sons of Israel (Luke 1:76-79, 2:27-32).

- Similarly, John could proclaim that the One who Himself is light and life has come to shine upon men in order to give them the light that both brings and is itself true life (John 1:1-4, 8:12).

- Taking up these themes of light and life, Paul showed the Corinthians how their operation in the first, physical creation prefigured the fulfillment to come in the new creation. The same God who, in the beginning, had commanded light to shine forth and vanquish the darkness of the chaotic creation (Genesis 1:3) was now causing the light of the renewing knowledge of His full glory in Jesus Christ to rise in and dispel the spiritual darkness that fills the hearts of men (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 with 3:1-18).

The concept of light is central to God’s creative presence, but inasmuch as both the first and new creations find their ultimate purpose in divine-human relationship, it’s not at all surprising that the Scripture makes light a key theme in God’s relational presence.

Later, when the time had come to redeem His covenant “son” according to His promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:12-14), Yahweh brought darkness upon the whole subjugating nation while causing His people to dwell in unceasing light (Exodus 10:21-23). So also, after accomplishing His great redemption, Yahweh led His “son” – as a shepherd leads his sheep – by the light of His own perpetual presence manifested in a luminescent pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:17-22).

- And when He had made His covenant with Abraham’s seed, the Lord established His presence in Israel’s midst by His Shekinah – His glory-cloud – in the Holy of Holies. And outside the veil in the Holy Place, the perpetual light of the lampstand testified that the endless day of Yahweh’s dwelling place was the result of the radiant splendor of His presence and not the luminaries of the natural creation (cf. Exodus 25:31-37, 27:20-21, 40:33-38).

 

lol, Here we have the JonC, I do not understand anything you post, so I will deride it, Baloney fallacy..These posts were getting back to several ideas Martin offered, and I am more than confident he will readily grasp them and be edified by them.

Your objections are duly noted and filed and I am sure you can offer your ideas in one of the many similar threads you start...so good luck with that my friend. Thanks for your positive and edifying "thoughts". once again;

To sum up your attack, I mean "thoughts";

1]BUT their position is dead on arrival. They miss two fundamental issues.

2]First, neither have maintained logical consistency. But have engaged a formal logical fallacy

3]all they can do is continue to offer commentary neither can understand).

4] Ignoring this makes their explanations nothing but nonsense, a complex building on no foundation at all. Just a bunch of someone else's words they do not grasp.

Thanks again for these keen insights,lol