John 3

I've just been reading along here today, so this is my first comment. I do have to call you out on your parallel of King David / King Jesus. You state here that Jesus is not always King, but will assume that role in the future, however, that is not supported by your parallel with David. You said yourself that David was King when he was a annointed, but had not yet assumed the kingdom...yet future. Then you say that Jesus is not yet King, he is only annointed as such. You seem to want to ride your type only as far as it will support your theory.

This likewise flies in the face of other Scripture where Jesus clearly identifies himself as a King. Before Pilate he talked about his Kingdom. I don't think it is a stretch to assume that one who talks about "HIS" kingdom is refering to some other persons kingdom. It is "HIS" because he is already King. That also follows the Scripture in Colossians that says we have presently been translated into the "kingdom of his dear Son." Seems once again that the Scripture testifies to the fact that he is already King.

Max

 

Hi Max. With all due respect I think you have misread what HoG was trying to say.

Christ IS King. There is no doubt about that. To deny that would simply to deny Scripture as you have pointed out.

However Christ is not currently reigning. He is currently our High Priest and Adovcate.

So while He IS the Annointed King His currently role if you will is High Priest/Adovcate. When He is done with that role He will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

However He is not currently ruling the nations with a rod of iron.

Hopefully that will clear that up a little bit.

 

This is almost a funny statement.

It's like the C/A debate in which both sides use the same rule book.

We claim, "Look at Scriptures!"

You claim, "These scholars say such and such."

Then, when it's pointed out that there are plenty of scholars on both sides, you claim, "See! You stand on scholars not scriptures!"

That, my friend, is called circular logic.

I don't post about scholars very often because I came to this understanding of scriptures entirely based on the grammar and context. I did not encounter these scholars until later.

I don't know about J. Jump.

But, I know some who came to this understanding solely upon reading what the words in scripture actually say instead of listening to popular theology 101. I know others who were introduced to this teaching because of scholars. Yet, without showing much scripture, you calmly claim that both groups are wrong.

On this very board are those who came to this understanding based on the grammar. There are those who are KJVO who came to it based entirely on context. And some who are both. Yet there are those on here whose arguements in one thread is that it's because they are KJVO, and in another it because they look at the Greek.

Most who are opposed to this teaching can only use circular logic. "I believe such and such, so it has to be right, so even if the words are different, they really mean such and such."

There is a small handful who are opposed to it on this board who actually debate, compare, and contrast Scriptures, while most simply scream and yell and call names and use nothing but invective. (Well, scream and yell as much as you are able in writing.)

 

You apparently need to reread what has been written, then.

Let me ask you a question: When David was anointed king and Saul was still on the throne, who was king?

 

With all due respect, this is what you wrote in post #66...

"Why do you not consider it parallel?

David was king, but his kingdom was future; Jesus has been anointed king, but his kingdom is future."

You apparently need to remember what you write.

Max

 

Max can you have two kings of the same kingdom at the same time both exercising authority?

 

JJump, I understand that, and believe that to be the case. I am challenging HoG on what he wrote... "Jesus is not a King yet."

Max

 

Which does not line up with what you wrote:

Both were anointed king. Both had kingdoms that were future. Both were king when they were anointed, but neither assumed kingship until later.

I have never claimed in this discussion, nor any on the BB, that one was king and the other wasn't at the same time in the parallel.

In fact, I have stated the exact opposite, repeatedly, then people such as yourself come up and claim that I said something that I did not say.

You assume that being anointed king and being in the position of king are the same thing. I have not stated such, and have gone to great pains over hundreds of pages to state the exact opposite.

David was anointed king. His kindom was future. Jesus was anointed king. His kingdom is yet future.

Did David assume the throne immediately? Did some make him ther king right then, with others rallying around Saul? When David assumed the throne, was he king of all Israel, or just the ones who supported him? Did every individual in Israel receive a position of glory and honor, or just the faithful ones who endured with him?

Has Jesus assumed the throne? Do some make him their king now, while others rally around the current god of this age? When Jesus assumes the throne, will he be king of all, or just king of those who are faithful? Will every individual receive a position of glory and honor, or just those who are faithful and endure?

 

You can't even quote yourself accurately, when you misrepresent what I say.

Below is what you quoted just a few posts ago, and then you change it into a lie. Not really surprising, sadly enough. Most people who are opposed to the gospel of the Kingdom have to do so to "win" a debate.

So, I'll give you a chance to straighten it out: Which one did I say?

 

I have posted page after page after page after page of Scripture on this subject.

A few have replied with Scripture.

Most have simply said, "Is not!", then demand the same Scriptures again, to which they exclaim "Is not!" then demand the same Scriptures again.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I didn't post it.

But, just to humor you, I'll post the same thing that I"ve posted numerous times before. This is from a series that I preached on "perishing":

Perishing part 4

Perishing is talking about ruling and reigning with the Lord, and those Christians who disqualify themselves for positions of authority in the coming Kingdom. That is what is meant by “perishing”. To perish is to lose one’s life. It’s not talking about losing your salvation, as that can never be lost, forfeited, or even given up.

[John 3] We find two aspects of the love of God demonstrated here. [John 3:16; may, age-lasting] We find in the first part, the love that God had for the world in that God sent the Lamb of God to die for the sins of the world.

The last part, he expresses the desire and made the provision for believers that they should not perish. Now, we see both John 3:3 and John 3:5 in John 3:16.

In the first part of John 3:16, we see [John 3:3]. Born from above is less confusing. The word “again” is the same word as “above” in 31. When the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, the veil in the temple was rent from above to the bottom. So, the birth here is from above; being born from above. This is being placed into the family of God. And everyone who is placed into the family of God is going to be able to see the Kingdom. (Remember, we did an indepth study of this a few months ago.)

There are several Greek words for the word “see”. One has to do with a worship or involved observation, and then there is this word, which is the word for the simple mechanical idea of seeing something; in this case, seeing the activities of the Kingdom.

But, in John 3:3, when you see the Kingdom, there is no participation, no involvement; just a casual observation. Well, not necessarily casual, because there may be some weeping and gnashing of teeth to go with it, for those who are not qualified to enter in. But, this verse is talking about a casual seeing. God has provided provision for the whole world; he has provided the means for everyone to be saved, or to be born from above. “Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Christ died for all of our sins.

Now, look in [John 3:5; out of water and of the spirit]. This verse says, “enter”. Here, we see a difference between seeing and entering. I can see into a car, but until I qualify by opening the door and crawling in, I cannot enter. I can simply see a football game, even though I may be on the team. There are plenty of people who have seen a football game, sitting on the 3rd string, sitting on the bench. But only the 1st stringers get to play; they’re the ones who are qualified to enter in. And that’s how it’s going to be in the Kingdom. There are going to be spectators, 2nd & 3rd stringers, and those are the ones who get to enter in. (Compare with racing.)

The ones who do not enter; the ones who do not qualify to rule & reign, they are the ones who perish or lose their life. I look at this like this: The word “water” is literal because the word “spirit” is literal. The preposition that rules those two nouns means that you have to take them both figuratively or both literally. This has to do with baptism and being filled and led of the spirit; it has to do with being influenced by the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit.

No one that has not been baptized will be qualified to enter in; to refuse baptism is direct disobedience. That’s the reason the children of Israel couldn’t enter Canaan; they were living in disobedience. Here we find verse 5 deals with qualifications of entering in to rule and reign with the Lord.

Now, look down in [John 3:14-15]. Turn with me to Numbers 21, so you can better understand this passage. [Numbers 21:4] “They” are the children of Israel; these are God’s people. They are not lost people. They were discouraged. These are the ones that came out of Egypt, all being baptized in the sea and in the cloud unto Moses. [Numbers 21:5] These people began to hate what God provided them. If you look at the manna they were loathing, it was a type and picture of the Word of God. They loathed the Word of God. Think how you would feel if you invited someone over to dinner every day for several years, then one day they stood up and said, “We loathe these steak and potatoes”. [Numbers 21:6] They perished.

[1 Corinthians 10; hold your finger here] Keep in mind that those who fell in the wilderness did not enter into Canaan. They lost their life. This may be hard to take, but even though Moses did not fall because of a serpent bite (he wasn’t bitten by a fiery serpent), Moses did perish in the latter end of his life because of unbelief. He fell just like those who were bitten by the fiery serpents fell in the wilderness. [1 Corinthians 10:9] The word “destroyed” is “perished”; perished by serpents; apollumi.)

Here we find reference to those who are mentioned here in [1 Corinthians 10:2-5]. That’s what I want to emphasize: the fact that this fiery serpent that Moses lifted up was the means where the children of Israel who had murmured against the Lord could keep from perishing. All they had to do was to look at the fiery serpent.

Back in [Numbers 21:7-9]. It’s interesting to note that Moses made the serpent of brass, and he lifted it up on a pole. Throughout Scripture, brass is a picture of the judgment of God; God had already judged the Lord Jesus Christ when he raised him again into the heavenlies.

Right now, the Lord Jesus Christ is raised into the heavenlies. He is our high priest today. So, to keep from perishing, to keep from losing our life, we have to appropriate the high priestly office of Jesus Christ in the heavenlies.

In [Philippians 3:10], Paul said, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection…” Paul wasn’t interested in knowing the Lord on just a casual basis; he was interested in knowing the Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the resurrection, because he goes on to say in [verse 11]. The out-resurrection from among the dead ones, literally. From among those who perish.

Paul was interested in being raised from among the dead ones. That gives you the story. Now, let’s go back to John 3. While you’re going back there, let’s take a stop at [Luke 14]. I want to show you how this word “lifted up” is translated in another way. [Luke 14:11] “Exalt” is the same word that’s translated “lifted up”.

Moses exalted the Lord Jesus Christ in type when he lifted up the serpent on the pole. Let me show you another passage. [Acts 2] I want to show you where the Lord Jesus Christ is today. [Acts 2:32-33a; end with exalted] That’s where Jesus is today; He’s at the right hand of God, exalted. God raised him up from among the dead.

[Acts 5] Keep in mind that this word exalted is the same word as “lifted up”. [Acts 5:31] In verse 30, it talks about his crucifixion, verse 31 it talks about his being raised to the right hand of God the father. [Acts 13:17] The word “exalted” here is the same Greek word as “lifted up”. (“Exalting” is not the same as “lifting” in John 15:2.)

Now, let’s go to [John 3] again. Let me bring this out; in Romans 4:25, it says, “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” The Lord Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us that we might be justified or qualified to rule & reign from the heavens.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[John 3:15] “Whosoever believeth…” This word “believeth” is a participle; it’s a verb used as a noun. It’s present active, and it’s singular in number. A literal translation would be, “in order that everyone the one believing”. It’s continual faithfulness and belief and confidence in God; it’s not on again, off again. It’s not one day we can trust the Lord, and the next day we can’t. “The one believing in him should not perish.” “Should not perish” is subjunctive. If this were talking about the security of the believer as far as heaven is concerned, it would be in the indicative mood; there’s not doubt about that!

The indicative mood in a Greek verb means that there is no doubt about it. The subjunctive mood is a mood of probability, but there’s a possibility of failing. We know there’s the possibility of failing. That’s the warnings that we find throughout the NT of failing to enter into God’s rest. But, is there the possibility of our salvation failing?

“Should not perish”, or should not lose their life. “But may have eternal age” or life for the coming age. This verb “may have” is also in the subjunctive. The whole thing is contingent on the present tense of the verb “believing” or our faithfulness, is what it amounts to. Does our common salvation depend upon our faithfulness? No, it depends upon God’s faithfulness, and his faithfulness never fails.

Our qualification for ruling and reigning depends on our faithfulness to use the throne of grace where we find the blood for deliverance and grace for acceptable service. If we fail to do this and go off into the error of our way, we’ll not qualify to rule and reign with the Lord, and therefore we will perish and lose our life in the age to come.

We find the same verbs in verse 16. What the Lord is trying to do; what the Holy Spirit is trying to do, is when he had John write 3:14-16, he’s saying, “I want you to remember what happened to Moses and the children of Israel in the desert so you can apply it to John 3:16”. Why? Because the verb tenses in John 3:16 are the same as we find in 3:15.

Let’s look at it: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…” Now, here again, the word “believeth” is a present active participle, it’s identical words in the Greek text, as found in verse 15, “…that whosoever believeth…” It’s the same tense; the same word. “…that everyone, the believer…” It’s really hard to have a go with this verb in the English. “Everyone who is believing…” It’s one who is continually, faithfully putting his confidence in the Lord. It’s a present tense; it’s a participle. It means that the individual is active in the believing or continuing in the believing or continuing in the faithfulness. “…and should not perish…” It’s an aorist subjunctive; it’s in the subjunctive mood. There is the possibility of failure. “…But, may have…” There’s the word “may” that belongs before “have”, just as it belongs in front of “have” in verse 15. “…but may…” Or may not. It’s contingent upon the believing or faithfulness of the one believing. “…but may have life for the coming age.”

You and I believe in the security of the saved individual; Scriptures teach that. But John 3:16 doesn’t teach that. So to get security out of John 3:16, the best thing to do is to not even look at the Greek NT: Because you can’t get that out of it.

[FONT=&quot]This is the reason we find Calvinism on one hand and Arminianism on the other; Arminian doctrine is teaching not loss of being put in the family of God, but "perishing" is loss of one’s life and one’s position of authority in the coming Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.[/FONT]

 

HOG, your problem isn't lack of scripture, it's all the garbage you add to scripture.

 

No one is disputing that. He is currently King. He was born King. He just isn't currently reigning yet. He is the Annointed Who's Reign is to come. He will rule the nations with a rod of iron for 1,000 years and then He will deliever the kingdom back to God and the throne will become the throne of God and the Lamb.

 

Forgive me for not getting your quote exactly right, but here is both of your statements...cut and pasted...

#1
"Jesus is always deity. He is not always king. He came as a prophet. Today he is our high priest. He has been anointed king. One day he will be king."

#2
"Why do you not consider it parallel? David was king, but his kingdom was future; Jesus has been anointed king, but his kingdom is future."

Thank you, by the way, for accusing me of lying.

Thank you for accusing me of not believing in kingdom salvation, when you don't know what I believe because I have never interacted with you on this subject before.

Why would I be opposed to the Gospel of the Kingdom when that is what Jesus preached.

All I did was call into question your use of the parallel...I think you over extended it.

Once again, thank you for giving me a chance to get it right... very generous!

Max

 

Where was his throne in Israel?

 

This argument reminds me of the assault on reason that Calvinists must employ when attempting to reconcile the clear and plain reading and understanding of 1 John 2:2 to fit their theological system.

The passage in John 3 is just what you see. It is the explanation of Christ to Nicodemus of the necessity of spiritual re-birth and the further interrogation by Nicodemus on the matter subsequently leading to Christ clearly presenting to gospel:

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is the gospel, in its most plain and clear form.

 

Amen! It is the gospel of the kingdom in its most plain and clear form!