Pink on the Second Advent/Davidic Covenant

[J.D.]

I'm going to mimic Rippon on this and just post some commentary from AW Pink that I happened to come across tonight as I was persuing another line of study. The first paragraph is very important and I would like everyone to read it and know that it reflects my feelings about the subject exactly. I have not declared war on dispensationalism or dispensationalists. It's just that eschatological views have been foremost in my studies lately, and I'm eager to learn more.

Notice Pink solicites understanding between brethren, and does not committ to any particular view, but offers much helpful insight.

The entire work can be viewed here: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Divine_Covenants/divine_covenants_06.htm

We recently saw an article which was headed "Humility and the Second Advent"; but after reading through the same, we laid it down with a feeling of disappointment. We had hoped from its title that the writer of it (quite unknown to us) would emphasize the deep need for lowliness of heart when taking up the prophetic Scriptures. God’s holy Word ought ever to be approached with great reverence and sobriety, but particularly is this the case with prophecy, for on no other subject (except it be the vexed question of church government) have God’s servants differed more widely than in their views of things to come. It seems as though God has put not a little into His Word for the express purpose of staining human pride. Certainly, dogmatism ill becomes any of us where so many have erred.

 

[J.D.]

We dare not say it is in a spirit of true humility that we now take up our pen, for the heart is very deceitful, and it generally follows that when we deem ourselves most humble, pride is at work in its subtlest form. It is, however, with considerable diffidence that we continue these chapters on the Davidic covenant, for it presents to me the most difficult aspect of the whole subject. Possibly this is because of my early training, for it is never an easy matter to get quite away from our first thoughts and impressions on a subject. During the years of our spiritual infancy we heard and read nothing but the premillennial interpretation of prophecy, and, of course (as a spiritual child), we readily accepted all that our teachers said. But for the last decade, we have sought to carefully examine what was taught us, and we have discovered that, some of it at least, was but "fairy tales."

 

[J.D.]

Common fairness compelled us to weigh the postmillennial view. In doing so, we recognized a very real danger of allowing our mind to run to an opposite extreme. We are free to admit that, upon a number of important points this system of prophetic interpretation is no more satisfying to us than the "pre"; and therefore at the present time we are not prepared to commit ourselves to the entire position of either the one or the other. Nor does that which is known as amillennialism completely solve the problems. In other words, we now have no definite ideas concerning coming events, applying to ourselves those words of the Lord, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7). But this makes it the more difficult to write on our subject, and we can do so only according to that measure of light which God has vouchsafed us, urging our readers to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21).

 

[Revmitchell]

Didn't Pink espouse the Gap Theory?

 

[J.D.]

We seem to be fully warranted in saying that what serves to divide interpreters of prophecy more than anything else is whether its language is to be taken literally or figuratively. This, of course, opens a wide and most important field of study, into which we must not now enter. Yet we cannot forbear from pointing out that—it certainly seems to me—we have a most solemn warning in the papist perversion of the Lord’s Supper, of the real danger there is of wresting Scripture at the very time we appear to honor it (by "childlike" faith and simplicity) in taking it at its face value. If Rome’s insistence that "this is my body" means just what it says, shows us what serious results follow when mistaking the emblem for the reality which it represents, ought not this to serve as a very real check against the gross carnalizings of chiliasm which literalizes what is spiritual and makes earthly what is heavenly?

 

[J.D.]

The above remarks have been prompted by the promises contained in the Davidic covenant, recorded in 2 Samuel 7:11-16. In view of all that has been before us in connection with the preceding covenants, it is but reasonable to expect that this one too has both a "letter" and a "spirit" significance. This expectation is, we believe, capable of clear demonstration: in their primary and inferior aspects those promises respected Solomon and his immediate successors, but in their ultimate and higher meaning they looked forward to Christ and His kingdom. In the account which David gave to the princes of Israel of the divine communications he had received concerning the throne, he affirmed that God said unto him, "Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his Father" (1 Chron. 28:6). Yet the application of the same words to Christ Himself— "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son" (Heb. 1:5) —leaves us in no doubt as to their deeper spiritual import.

 

[J.D.]

[skipping to the chapter summary]We must not here anticipate too much what we hope to yet take up in detail, but in bringing this chapter to a close it is pertinent to point out that, in view of what was before us in the previous chapter-on the terms of Messianic prophecy being cast, more or less, in the mold of the typical history of Israel—we surely should not repeat the mistake of the carnal Jews, who expected Christ to sit on an earthly throne. When Old Testament prediction announced that the Messiah was to occupy the throne and kingdom of David, was it not intimated that He was to rule over God’s heritage,and accomplish spiritually and perfectly what His prototype did but temporally and partially namely, bring deliverance, security, and everlasting blessing to the people of God? In view of the divine personality of the Messianic King and the worldwide extent of His kingdom, all of necessity rises to a higher plane, Immanuel’s reign must be of another order than that of the son of Jesse-spiritual, heavenly, eternal.

 

[J.D.]

It should be quite obvious to those who are really acquainted with the earlier Scriptures that, in keeping with the character and times of the old covenant, any representation then made of Christ’s throne and kingdom would, in the main at least, be of a figurative and symbolic nature, exhibited under the veil of the typical images supplied by Israel’s commonwealth and history. It was thus that all the "better" things of the new covenant were shadowed forth. The immeasurable superiority of Christ’s person over all who were His types compels us to look for a far grander and nobler discharge of His offices than which pertained unto them. It is true there is a resemblance between Christ as prophet and Moses (Deut. 18:18);nevertheless the contrast is far more evident (Heb. 3:3, 5).It is true that there is an agreement between Christ as priest and Melchizedek and Aaron (Heb. 5:1-5;7:21);nevertheless the antitype far excels them (Rev. 5:6,etc.). So the throne He sits on and the kingdom He administers is infinitely higher than any that David or Solomon ever occupied (Heb. 2:9;1:3). Beware of degrading the divine King to the level of human ones!

 

[J.D.]

The Lord of glory no more stood (or stands) in need of any outward enthronement or local seat of government on earth, in order to prove His title to David’s kingdom, than He required any physical "anointing" to constitute Him priest forever, or a material altar for the due presentation of His sacrifice to God. As another has well said, "Being the Son of the living God, and as such, the Heir of all things, He possessed from the first all the powers of the kingdom, and proved that He possessed them by every word He uttered, every work of deliverance He performed, every judgment He pronounced, every act of mercy and forgiveness He dispensed, and the resistless control He wielded over the elements of nature and the realms of the dead. These were the signs of royalty He bore about with Him upon earth; and wonderful though they were, eclipsing in real grandeur all the glory of David and Solomon, they were still but the earlier preludes of that peerless majesty which David described from afar when he saw Him, as the Lord, seated in royal state at His Father’s right hand."

[that's all]

 

[Rippon]

Didn't Pink espouse the Gap Theory?

Not to my knowledge.But what's that got to do with the price of eggs in China or this thread?Stay on-subject.

Good work J.D.The esteemed Arthur Pink knew whereof he spoke.(He was a hardcore dispensationalist for almost two decades prior to his repudiation of the same.)

 

[J.D.]

Didn't Pink espouse the Gap Theory?

Don't know. I think Spurgeon did. Sorry for the short answer. I'm signing off now. Later.

 

[Allan]

In the account which David gave to the princes of Israel of the divine communications he had received concerning the throne, he affirmed that God said unto him, "Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his Father" (1 Chron. 28:6). Yet the application of the same words to Christ Himself— "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son" (Heb. 1:5) —leaves us in no doubt as to their deeper spiritual import.

Sorry, but Pink is incorrect here.

Just because there are similar wordings does not necessitate a quote, especially when the texts of Hebrews does not authenticate a quote being given.

In Hebrews 1:5 it is asking to which 'angel' has God stated..

The usage of "I will to Him a Father, and He shall be a Son" is there to illuminate several things that exalted Him above the angelic host. This primarily is given to show that Christ/God became flesh and that in the incarnation a new relationship was going to seen/under taken for the benifit of men.


However in relation to Solomon it speaks to the fact that God had chosen make Solomon King over or instead of his elder brother who would typically have taken rulership at the fathers demise. In God's choosing him God was establishing that Solomon would not be alone but that God would be watching over him with great personal interest and care.

These two reference have nothing in common other than some words that are similar, yet these in no way further his point about some more spiritual meaning.

 

[Allan]

[skipping to the chapter summary]We must not here anticipate too much what we hope to yet take up in detail, but in bringing this chapter to a close it is pertinent to point out that, in view of what was before us in the previous chapter-on the terms of Messianic prophecy being cast, more or less, in the mold of the typical history of Israel—we surely should not repeat the mistake of the carnal Jews, who expected Christ to sit on an earthly throne. When Old Testament prediction announced that the Messiah was to occupy the throne and kingdom of David, was it not intimated that He was to rule over God’s heritage,and accomplish spiritually and perfectly what His prototype did but temporally and partially namely, bring deliverance, security, and everlasting blessing to the people of God? In view of the divine personality of the Messianic King and the worldwide extent of His kingdom, all of necessity rises to a higher plane, Immanuel’s reign must be of another order than that of the son of Jesse-spiritual, heavenly, eternal.

This is a sad commentary of God's integrity if what you presumes is true.
To Pink, God, who made certain promises to Israel as a Nation has/had no intention of fulfilling them as He declared them. God plainly states the throne will be inhabitted, not spiritually but physically and will rule over the 'land' and the world. In Luke 1 we find the angels of God making this same declaration that God will give to Him the throne of David. Additionally, the Jews were not 'incorrect' about Christ sitting upon an earthly throne. Their 'mistake' was assuming that time was then and that they had not remembered (either willingly or ignorantly) those thing which should transpire first to the messiah in order that the second part (recieving Davids throne) could be properly fulfilled. You could say that because they did not consider the first part they were looking for the 'second' advent rather than acknowledging His first and that it would entail.

I have asked this of you before in another thread and I will replace it here you:

Originally Posted by J.D.
Who said there was never a Kingdom previously?

Well, if there was a previous Kingdom and it is to be restored was this kingdom physical or was it not?

Good question, would have to research it. But off the top of my head, I'm thinking either he never "recieved" it, having alway been the King of Kings in reality, as David himself said, "the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool", or, in a temporal fashion, when God raised him from the dead, and made him to be "both Lord and Christ".

Ah, but the text states that the Lord will give to Him "the throne of His father David". Deal with the text my brother. The reference here deals with "David's Throne" thus Davids literal and therefore earthly Kingdom.

National Israel, and its tributaries. But over what Kingdom does Christ reign?

That is what I am asking you concerning the just those verses I have given.. for now. If God is to 'give to Him' the throne of His father David to reign over the house of Jacob (which is a constant reference to Ethnic National Israel), what other conclusion contextually, exegetically, or hermeneutically can one come to? Answer: None. Any other answer must be obtain allegorically.

And I will add the part you didn't highlight: and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Is the everlasting Kingdom for Jews only?

Who ever stated that Christ's Kingdom will end. Do presume that the 1000 years is the extent of His Kingdom reign. It is only a marker regarding His reign.
[Secondly who said it was a Kingdom "only" for the Jews]

And AW Pink bragged that he had quoted over 500 Bible verses in his defense of dispensationalism, which he later vehemently renounced and refuted. Any cultist can produce proof texts. It takes exigesis and good hermeneutics to get the meaning. I believe we can agree on that.

Well my brother, I "challenge you" to prove my accertion that the phrase "house of Jacob" is consistantly and contextually is not always a reference to National Ethnic Israel. I am apparently no better than pagan in understand so it should be pretty easy to do for you

To help out a little - God does not give a meaning to some thing the OT and then change it to something else in the NT. What it means in the OT it will continue to mean in the NT, period.

 

[J.D.]

This is a sad commentary of God's integrity if what you presumes is true.
To Pink, God, who made certain promises to Israel as a Nation has/had no intention of fulfilling them as He declared them. God plainly states the throne will be inhabitted, not spiritually but physically and will rule over the 'land' and the world. In Luke 1 we find the angels of God making this same declaration that God will give to Him the throne of David. Additionally, the Jews were not 'incorrect' about Christ sitting upon an earthly throne. Their 'mistake' was assuming that time was then and that they had not remembered (either willingly or ignorantly) those thing which should transpire first to the messiah in order that the second part (recieving Davids throne) could be properly fulfilled. You could say that because they did not consider the first part they were looking for the 'second' advent rather than acknowledging His first and that it would entail.

I have asked this of you before in another thread and I will replace it here you:

God does not have an integrity problem, but the unbelieving Jews do. They broke his covenant - why should be bless them?

Those that believe "do enter in" (Heb 3, 4).

God HAS fulfilled His promises to His believing covenant people (Acts 13), not by giving them land (which National Israel had already received anyway, but by transgression lost), but by raising Christ from the dead (v33 of Acts 13), and will bring it to greater magnitude in the consummation of the end.

Also, God's believing covenant people have inhereted something BETTER (see Hebrews, any chapter) than land - they've inhereted heaven itself (Heb 11:16; Heb 12:22).

The reason the unbelieving Jews missed the Messiah is because they were not interested in a heavenly Kingdom. Their hatred of the Romans drove them to desire a political/military overthrow only -just like the Jews of Samuel's day, who wanted a king to lead them in battle against the Phillistines and Canaanites, thereby rejecting God's Kingly Rule from Heaven. God saying to Samuel, "they have not rejected you but have rejected me", in the same manner the first century Jews rejected Christ from being King.

To which Christ states: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?", and, "So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed [him]. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others."

 

[Allan]

God does not have an integrity problem, but the unbelieving Jews do. They broke his covenant - why should be bless them?

Because God promised to.
Ever read Psalms 89 which speaks of David and his people Israel.

Psa 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

Psa 89:28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
Psa 89:29 His seed also will I make [to endure] for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
Psa 89:30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
Psa 89:31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
Psa 89:32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
Psa 89:33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
Psa 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Psa 89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

Next you stated:

Those that believe "do enter in" (Heb 3, 4).

No one said they didn't.

God HAS fulfilled His promises to His believing covenant people (Acts 13), not by giving them land (which National Israel had already received anyway, but by transgression lost), but by raising Christ from the dead (v33 of Acts 13), and will bring it to greater magnitude in the consummation of the end.

The land is only one portion of the covenant promise dear brother but one that is to be fulfilled. The land was not to hold temporarily but to be theirs perpetually.
Have you ever looked at ALL the covenant holds regarding His promises in it. Trust me, God has not fulfilled His promises to Isreal by half and that at the very most.

Also, God's believing covenant people have inhereted something BETTER (see Hebrews, any chapter) than land - they've inhereted heaven itself (Heb 11:16; Heb 12:22).

Here you tie your own tongue. Previously you said they already inhereted God's promises and now you say they have inhereted something better. If they have something better then the Old was not obtained but something new. You have God making covenants and promises and then breaking them but that is Ok because He has now made me a better offer.

The reason the unbelieving Jews missed the Messiah is because they were not interested in a heavenly Kingdom. Their hatred of the Romans drove them to desire a political/military overthrow only -just like the Jews of Samuel's day, who wanted a king to lead them in battle against the Phillistines and Canaanites, thereby rejecting God's Kingly Rule from Heaven. God saying to Samuel, "they have not rejected you but have rejected me", in the same manner the first century Jews rejected Christ from being King.

They are sort of similar but only slightly so. In Samuels day they had a choice but in Christ's they were under judgment from God so they would NOT see (as a nation) but be blind. Thus Pauls statement that a partial blinding is indeed upon Israel. The reason the nation did not seek for Him is because they, as a Nation, was already under judgment for rejection of God and had continued and still continues till the time of the Gentiles is ended - as says Paul.

So there are similarities of actions but they should not be considered the same per-say.

To which Christ states: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?",

Actaully Christ did not make this statement following your previous thought. What you said above is no where in the conversation of Jesus and Nic (John 3) You are ad-libing to the scriptures.

and, "So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed [him]. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others."

Who has disputed this. But this, two Israels, does not make (Yoda sound effects ). If anything it can be shown to dispute it be cause if you would look at Mat 21:43

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The implication here is that Israel will no longer be husbandmen God uses to cultivate His vineyard but 'another' Nation will be given this to do. So it will not be Israel but another who will continue the work of God - till time of the gentiles ends.

 

[Allan]

oops.. double post.


BTW - JD, You still haven't given an aswer to my question concerning the prophey - the Lord will 'give to Him' the throne of His father David to reign "over the house of Jacob" in Post # 12 (which directly regards the Davidic Covenant).

 

[J.D.]

Quote:
Psa 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

Psa 89:28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
Psa 89:29 His seed also will I make [to endure] for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
Psa 89:30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
Psa 89:31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
Psa 89:32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
Psa 89:33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
Psa 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Psa 89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

Notice, if David's children forsake the LAW they will be chastised, but God will keep the COVENANT with DAVID.

God's people are in covenant by GRACE, not works, even in the OT. The obedience to LAW was required by people were were ALREADY GOD'S PEOPLE, exactly as it is in the NT - we are saved (entered into covenant) by grace, then regulated by law of Christ. See the pattern in Paul's writings? You're saved by grace, but seeing you have received this grace, here's how you should walk.

And God certainly did not lie to David - for He DID send Christ to sit on his throne, who is there NOW as the everlasting King. God has not failed in any of His promises.

 

[J.D.]

The implication here is that Israel will no longer be husbandmen God uses to cultivate His vineyard but 'another' Nation will be given this to do. So it will not be Israel but another who will continue the work of God - till time of the gentiles ends.

But it says that God DESTROYED the husbandmen. Remember how the veil of the temple was torn in two? Old Testament Israel simply doesn't exist anymore, and never will again. It was destroyed.

 

[J.D.]

oops.. double post.


BTW - JD, You still haven't given an aswer to my question concerning the prophey - the Lord will 'give to Him' the throne of His father David to reign "over the house of Jacob" in Post # 12 (which directly regards the Davidic Covenant).

I don't get your point. I guess you're saying that "house of Jacob" ties the promises to genetic Jews only. But the bible says that those who are of the faith of Abraham are Jews indeed.

 

[OldRegular]

Good work J.D.The esteemed Arthur Pink knew whereof he spoke.(He was a hardcore dispensationalist for almost two decades prior to his repudiation of the same.)

Good point Rippon!:thumbs: