Question for covenantalist regarding the new covenant.

[Iconoclast]

Jope

What's your take on Psalm 45? Specifically verses 13-14?

Also, Luke 12:35-36?

Psalm 45 ESV
13​​​​​​​​All glorious is the princess in her chamber, with robes interwoven with gold. ​​​ 14​​​​​​​​In many-colored robes she is led to the king, ​​​​​​​with her virgin companions following behind her.

Luke 12 ESV
35“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks.​

Who do you think the "virgin companions" are of Psalm 45:14, and the "princess" of the preceding verse?

Also, who is Christ speaking to in Luke 12:35-36, who are to "be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast"?

(Do you think that Matthew 25:1-13 elucidates any of this?)

[/QUOTE]


Another good question and I see why you would seek to enlist these fine verses as support texts:thumbs:

I am on lunch break and just posted the other response.....

Psalm 45 is a key psalm as so many are...in that the writer to Hebrews quotes it in a key parts of chapter 1;


any thoughts and response I offer as to the language employed of a bride will have to start with this section here in Hebrews 1 and 2...both chapters..


1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


Give me some time on this ,as right now this section quoted in Hebrews has triggered so many thoughts about Jesus Kingship and complete dominion that my thoughts are all over the place like a run away team of horses pulling a stagecoach with no driver like in the cowboy movies...lol

in other words;

Jesus superior to all things, men, angels ,.... The eternal nature of His person and work....all enemies being made His footstool....who are those who comprise the bride....from before the world was ,to the finality of the Father speaking ....IN SON.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;

Those spoken of in LK.and MT. have to be about this....RIGHTEOUSNESS
24/7

SOME see this as future...I see it as having already commenced;

5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.



12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord:

13 Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

14 And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the Lord.

15 And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord, and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.

 

[Jope]

Another good question and I see why you would seek to enlist these fine verses as support texts:thumbs:

I am on lunch break and just posted the other response.....

Psalm 45 is a key psalm as so many are...in that the writer to Hebrews quotes it in a key parts of chapter 1;


any thoughts and response I offer as to the language employed of a bride will have to start with this section here in Hebrews 1 and 2...both chapters..


1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


Give me some time on this ,as right now this section quoted in Hebrews has triggered so many thoughts about Jesus Kingship and complete dominion that my thoughts are all over the place like a run away team of horses pulling a stagecoach with no driver like in the cowboy movies...lol

Oh dear

Take yer time.

I'll give you a hint though: Jesus was sent to Israel (Mt. 15:24; Rom. 15:8). Would Luke 12:36 be speaking to Israel and not the Church then?

in other words;

Jesus superior to all things, men, angels ,.... The eternal nature of His person and work....all enemies being made His footstool....who are those who comprise the bride....from before the world was ,to the finality of the Father speaking ....IN SON.

The Trinity already has a wife (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:5). The Church is the bride that the Father arranges for His Son (Mt. 22:2; see also Rev. 19:7).

 

[Jope]

Iconoclast,

good book and a classic presentation of that view....I initially enjoyed it very much as it offered much help and many verses...

It's quite the book. What I feel whenever I read it is that I should have a Bible beside me to check and see if what he is saying can be lined up with all the scriptures. It's that kind of a book.

(By the way, just curious; did you read the whole book)?

it was the passages that were not addressed that caused me to continue searching it out a bit more.

If it's not too much to ask, would you mind posting some of the said passages?

 

[Jope]

good verse...

Galatians 6:16 only tells us that Paul wants "peace and mercy" upon the Israel of God.

 

[Jope]

The Trinity already has a wife (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:5). The Church is the bride that the Father arranges for His Son (Mt. 22:2; see also Rev. 19:7).

And I mean to distinguish the two wives.

 

[thomas15]

Jope, the patriarch of cut and past has decided that there is indeed some hope for you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast,

It's quite the book. What I feel whenever I read it is that I should have a Bible beside me to check and see if what he is saying can be lined up with all the scriptures. It's that kind of a book.

(By the way, just curious; did you read the whole book)?

Yes I did and thought it was the truth at that time,because it seemed to cover everything...until other works came my way.

If it's not too much to ask, would you mind posting some of the said passages?

I will give some examples...LK17:20,21 look in the scripture index..it is mentioned only 2 times....pg443,452.....without comment???

to say that the Kingdom was contingent upon the attitude of Israel needs to be rejected....to not deal squarely with Lk17:20-21 is to have already made up your mind that the Kingdom is well into the future.

on pages 478-481....passages speaking of the Kingdom realities are put off as if they are all future...when the nt writers say they are happening now.

isa 49...is mentioned without comment and passed over quickly.I now understand that this robs the verses and our obligation to live up to them...and waters them down to a vague promise that means little to us now.

The other views highlight how shall we live in light of our position.


I used to use this book as a main reference tool.....but now I see it has many issues...

The description of the postmill view on 386 is horrible and not accurate.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jope, the patriarch of cut and past has decided that there is indeed some hope for you.

Popped out of your shell Thomas....and still no answers to what you were asked about.....you remind me of punxatauny phil.:wavey::laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

And I mean to distinguish the two wives.

I do not think scripture makes this same distinction....

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

one new man, one church, one bride

The book of revelation shows to women...the bride[christian Israel] and the harlot[apostate Israel]

 

[Jope]

I will give some examples...LK17:20,21 look in the scripture index..it is mentioned only 2 times....pg443,452.....without comment???

I just read something from Lewis Chafer on the same passage. Let me see if I can find it.

to say that the Kingdom was contingent upon the attitude of Israel needs to be rejected....

Why would you say that?

to not deal squarely with Lk17:20-21 is to have already made up your mind that the Kingdom is well into the future.

Again, lemme find that Lewis Chafer content.

on pages 478-481....passages speaking of the Kingdom realities are put off as if they are all future...when the nt writers say they are happening now.

Can you give examples?

isa 49...is mentioned without comment and passed over quickly.I now understand that this robs the verses and our obligation to live up to them...and waters them down to a vague promise that means little to us now.

I am dispensational, and I see that the Church and Israel are distinct, but I would say that The Church, being Christ's body (Eph. 5:30-32), is within Israel (Mt. 1:1).

I know I may not receive support from either dispensationalists and covenantalists about my position, but I see my position as what scripture teaches.

I also see my position as being able to describe Isa. 49, as I have shown in other posts.

 

[Iconoclast]

I just read something from Lewis Chafer on the same passage. Let me see if I can find it.



Why would you say that?



Again, lemme find that Lewis Chafer content.



Can you give examples?



I am dispensational, and I see that the Church and Israel are distinct, but I would say that The Church, being Christ's body (Eph. 5:30-32), is within Israel (Mt. 1:1).

I know I may not receive support from either dispensationalists and covenantalists about my position, but I see my position as what scripture teaches.

I also see my position as being able to describe Isa. 49, as I have shown in other posts.

Jope,

I am glad you have an understanding and a position:thumbs: I would that there were many who take a stand for what they see as truth.
Truth delights to be investigated.

Let me say this....if you buy a boat one thing that happens is you want to test the boat....to see if it does not have a leak.

theologically....we go with what we understand unless and until someone can poke holes in it. If holes or defects are found, sometimes a patch or repair can be put into play.Sometimes it becomes necessary to abandon one ship for another if the one you are in cannot hold against the water.

My Dispy view which i held for several years seemed to hold water for a long time.....but I found that as i looked at why godly men have differed on these truths...i found that some of the other boats seemed more sea worthy:thumbs:

I learned many things from many a godly dispy,and we agree that Jesus and His church has already won the victory to be fully revealed on the last day.

I do not claim to be a prophecy expert.If the need arises....i can still present your view with some degree of accuracy.

I do however believe i now see more in line with biblical revelation God's eternal purpose with His Church as the centerpiece and plan A so to speak...not earthly Israel...and fawning over them as if the shadow is greater than the reality.

Once you break out of that mold...going back almost seems like the Hebrews wanting to go back to the shadows once the substance and reformation came about.

If you find those quotes or if you want to interact on the book things to come, i will. I do not feel like i am as much anti dispy[though i now am to some extent]...as i am for following the truth where it goes in a positive way.

Jope....let's say i and others have gone off course concerning prophecy.

The millenium is yet a literal future earthly kingdom, the anti- christ is waiting in the wings.....and the secret rapture takes place in a couple of weeks.....
If i am a believer as i profess to be,saved by Jesus blood and the rapture happens, i will be changed in the twinkling of an eye....with my postmill/amill books still on my bookshelf and bookbag.....

I might lose some rewards for drifting and not studying correctly....

if the post/amill teachings are correct.....and we are not living and serving ,and witnessing to those truths right here and right now... we are indeed defective and weak servants...some even disobedient to a point of showing they were never In Christ to begin with.....like the guy who hid his talent in the bushel.


i am going to serve as if the postmill writers were correct, because I believe what they stress in living the christian life here and now seems the most scriptural to me.
Even if the historic premill view was correct [like Spurgeon,and Ladd] believed...we still should live and serve like the postmill men write about.


From some of your posts i believe you are already seeing some "inconsistencies" with the position...which will happen. keep holding what you hold to, but read some of the more reputable views from the post and amill side....even to check on how would you respond to someone coming to your bible study holding these views.


You asked also for an example...here from romans 15-
Paul speaking to gentiles in Rome says part of what Jesus did...was [to confirm the promises made to "the fathers" that the gentiles might glorify God.....

because most of national israel did not get it, does not mean the gentiles were not included in God's purpose the whole time....then in verse 12....he again quotes from Isa in a definate messianic passage about the Kingdom....say it is happening as the gentiles are coming in to the kingdom in droves.....not in the future,,,but in the proclamation of the gospel by the early church....not by the 144000, not by tribulation saints, not by those enduring any other thing but what happened in apostoloic times.



8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God,B] to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy[/B]; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

 

[Jope]

Hello again Iconoclast

if the post/amill teachings are correct.....and we are not living and serving ,and witnessing to those truths right here and right now... we are indeed defective and weak servants...some even disobedient to a point of showing they were never In Christ to begin with.....like the guy who hid his talent in the bushel.


i am going to serve as if the postmill writers were correct, because I believe what they stress in living the christian life here and now seems the most scriptural to me.
Even if the historic premill view was correct [like Spurgeon,and Ladd] believed...we still should live and serve like the postmill men write about.

If you mean to say that Matt. 24:14 provides more incentive for the postmillennialist than to the premillennialist to go out into the world and preach that Christ has risen, then I would say that the premillennial position holds no more or less than the postmillennial position to preach that Christ has risen.

Postmillennialism, like premillennialism, has to accept that there are those who preach that Christ has risen and those who preach the Word of God to build up the Church (1 Corinthians 3:5-8). Both have to accept the variety of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:14), so that there are those Christians whose occupation is not missionary.

Postmillennialism also has to accept the fact that the present world is being ruled by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), and that the wisdom of the Spirit cannot be received by the world who belongs to Satan (1 Corinthians 2:12-14).

How can the Spirit of God, who may be said in Postmillennialism or Amillennialism to be poured out on "all flesh" (Acts 2:16-17), be poured out on the flesh of the present world that "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:14, ESV)?

Postmillennialism does not recognize that the gospel to be preached of Matthew 24:14 is the gospel of the kingdom that the Church does not preach, because the gospel of the kingdom doesn't include the death and resurrection of Christ. The twelve didn't know of the doctrine of the death and resurrection of Christ while they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Luke 9:2; 10:9; Mt. 10:7), otherwise, when Christ told them of His death and resurrection, they would have "understood...these things. This saying [wouldn't have been] hidden from them" (Luke 18:34, ESV). Hence, the gospel of the kingdom is to be distinguished from the gospel of the grace of God.

 

[Jope]

Jope,

I am glad you have an understanding and a position:thumbs: I would that there were many who take a stand for what they see as truth.
Truth delights to be investigated.

Let me say this....if you buy a boat one thing that happens is you want to test the boat....to see if it does not have a leak.

theologically....we go with what we understand unless and until someone can poke holes in it. If holes or defects are found, sometimes a patch or repair can be put into play.Sometimes it becomes necessary to abandon one ship for another if the one you are in cannot hold against the water.

Yes, and I hope to persuade you to come back to the dark side, mwahaha .

There is a good reason that I hold to my view. It concerns the Abrahamic, Palestinian and Davidic covenants. Maybe you'll reply to my next section below.

My Dispy view which i held for several years seemed to hold water for a long time.....but I found that as i looked at why godly men have differed on these truths...i found that some of the other boats seemed more sea worthy:thumbs:

I learned many things from many a godly dispy,and we agree that Jesus and His church has already won the victory to be fully revealed on the last day.

I do not claim to be a prophecy expert.If the need arises....i can still present your view with some degree of accuracy.

I do however believe i now see more in line with biblical revelation God's eternal purpose with His Church as the centerpiece and plan A so to speak...not earthly Israel...and fawning over them as if the shadow is greater than the reality.

Would you accept the position that the Abrahamic, Palestinian and Davidic covenants, (1), were made to the Jews (and not Gentiles?),

that, (2), they were made to the Jews before the Church was built, seeing as Christ said that the Church was a future building?

Matthew 16:18 ESV, bold and underline emphasis mine
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

and (3), they are never found explicit in scripture to be cancelled, as the Mosaic covenant is in Jeremiah 31?

 

[thomas15]

I see that The Patriarch of cut and paste knows that he is the the patriarch of cut and paste.

 

[Jope]

You asked also for an example...here from romans 15-
Paul speaking to gentiles in Rome says part of what Jesus did...was [to confirm the promises made to "the fathers" that the gentiles might glorify God.....

because most of national israel did not get it, does not mean the gentiles were not included in God's purpose the whole time....then in verse 12....he again quotes from Isa in a definate messianic passage about the Kingdom....say it is happening as the gentiles are coming in to the kingdom in droves.....not in the future,,,but in the proclamation of the gospel by the early church....not by the 144000, not by tribulation saints, not by those enduring any other thing but what happened in apostoloic times.



8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God,B] to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy[/B]; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

What is being said in Romans 15, which you quoted, is that Christ will reign over the Gentiles in the millennium.

These Gentiles (spoken of in Romans 15:9-12) shouldn't be confused with the predominantly Gentile Church.

There are three persons in humanity in the program of God: the Gentiles, the Jews, and the Church, else Paul wouldn't have distinguished the three in 1 Cor. 10:32:

KJV
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God​

When a Jew or Gentile becomes a Christian, he forsakes his heritage, and becomes a part of the Church, Christ's body and bride.

Ephesians 5 KJV
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Galatians 3 KJV
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 12 KJV
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

So the Gentiles were included in the purpose of God, as prophesied in Scripture. This was revealed. What wasn't revealed was the predominantly Gentile bride of Christ. This mystery is now revealed, "and by the scriptures of the prophets" (Rom. 16:26, KJV).

 

[Jope]

I just read something from Lewis Chafer on the same passage. Let me see if I can find it.

Hey Iconoclast. Here's what I found:

There is a sense in which the kingdom of God, as the rule of God in the hearts of individuals, is present in the world today. This should not be confused with the Messianic kingdom which is to be set up over a nation, and extended through them to all nations with the King ruling, not in the individual heart, but on the throne of David, in the city of Jerusalem. As the King came nearer to His death, and the rejection became more evident, He made mention of that aspect of the rule of God in the individual heart which was to characterize the hitherto unannounced age of grace. The following passage (like Mat_13:1-52), taken from the later teachings of Christ as recorded by Luke, is an example: “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation [outward show]: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (‘in your midst,’ Luk_17:20-21). In no sense could it be truthfully said that the kingdom of God was in the hearts of those Christ-rejecting Pharisees. There was, however, a real sense in which the kingdom of God was to be, as it is now, in the hearts of individual believers; but the direct statement of Christ is to the effect that the kingdom was then, in the Person of the King, in their midst. So, also, the phrase, the kingdom of God cometh not with outward show, anticipates the present aspect of the rule of God in the individual heart; but after this, and according to all prophecy, the kingdom of heaven will come with outward show. There is much promise of a transformed earth, which condition will be ushered in, not by unseen forces and processes, but through the resistless power and presence of the returning King. So, also, He could say to Israel: “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you” (Luk_10:9). As certainly as the King was before the nation, so certainly their kingdom was before them, and this was the appeal of the gospel of the kingdom which was given to “the children of the kingdom” only. When the King was rejected, His kingdom was rejected. When His kingdom was rejected and its realization delayed until the return of the King, the application of all Scripture which conditions life in the kingdom was delayed as well, and will be delayed as long as the King tarries.

Chafer, L. (1976). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, with special permission of Dallas Theological Seminary. Ecclesiology, Chapter IX.​

Chafer couldn't have said it better: "There was, however, a real sense in which the kingdom of God was to be, as it is now, in the hearts of individual believers; but the direct statement of Christ is to the effect that the kingdom was then, in the Person of the King, in their midst."

Paul said, that "the kingdom of God is [a matter] of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17, ESV).

Chafer also says elsewhere in the same work of Systematic Theology:

The kingdom is not incorporeal or separate from that which is material, but still it is spiritual in that the will of God will be directly effective in all matters of government and conduct. The joy and blessedness of fellowship with God will be experienced by all. The universal, temporal kingdom will be conducted in perfect righteousness and true holiness. The kingdom of God will again be “in the midst” (Luk_17:21, R.V. marg.) in the Person of the Messiah King and He will rule in the grace and power of the sevenfold Spirit (Isa_11:2-5).

Ibid. Christology, Chapter XIII. II. 3. e.​

 

[Jope]

I do not think scripture makes this same distinction....

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

one new man, one church, one bride

The book of revelation shows to women...the bride[christian Israel] and the harlot[apostate Israel]

But how do you answer Luke 12:35-36 and its statement that Christ is to return to this subject after a wedding feast?

Luke 12 ESV
35“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks.​

The Church is not a legitimate candidate for a primary recipient of this piece of scripture. This piece of scripture tells us that there is a subject that is going to be returned to by Christ after he weds a bride.

Who is this subject that Christ returns to after he weds a bride?

(And on that note, , when was Isaiah 54:4-10 ever fulfilled?):

ESV
4​​​​​​​​“Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; ​​​​​​​be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced; ​​​​​​​for you will forget the shame of your youth, ​​​​​​​and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. ​​​ 5​​​​​​​​For your Maker is your husband, ​​​​​​​the LORD of hosts is his name; ​​​​​​​and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, ​​​​​​​the God of the whole earth he is called. ​​​ 6​​​​​​​​For the LORD has called you ​​​​​​​like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit, ​​​​​​​like a wife of youth when she is cast off, ​​​​​​​says your God. ​​​ 7​​​​​​​​For a brief moment I deserted you, ​​​​​​​but with great compassion I will gather you. ​​​ 8​​​​​​​​In overflowing anger for a moment ​​​​​​​I hid my face from you, ​​​​​​​but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,” ​​​​​​​says the LORD, your Redeemer. ​​​ 9​​​​​​​​“This is like the days of Noah to me: ​​​​​​​as I swore that the waters of Noah ​​​​​​​should no more go over the earth, ​​​​​​​so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, ​​​​​​​and will not rebuke you. ​​​ 10​​​​​​​​For the mountains may depart ​​​​​​​and the hills be removed, ​​​​​​​but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, ​​​​​​​and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” ​​​​​​​says the LORD, who has compassion on you. ​​​

 

[Jope]

Hey Iconoclast. Here's what I found:

Here is also something I wrote on the subject (of Luke 17:20-21):

The Jews were wanting the kingdom of God to come without their acknowledging the fact that the Messiah had to rule over it. For it had been said, by the Lord, that they wanted to take away His (Christ's) inheritance (of land, Gen. 13:15), and make it theirs (Lk 20:14; John 11:47-53). They had learned Moses so well. So well to know that if they were to be pious, the Kingdom would come (Deut 28:1; 15:5-6; Ex. 19:5-6). The Land that had been sworn of God to be given to them (Gen. 17:8; Ps 105:9-11) would only be given by observance (Deut 7:12-13; Jer 11:4-5). "He was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come" (Luke 17:20), but could not see that their Messiah whom He wrote about (John 5:46-47) governing the Kingdom of God would be needed for that Kingdom (Numbers 24:7b):

"​​​​​​​...[Christ] shall be higher than Agag, ​​​​​​​and his kingdom shall be exalted​​​" (ESV).​

They had rejected the one that came in the Father's name (John 5:43), "what more could have been done" (Isa. 5:4, KJV)? The signs that the Jews required (1Cor 1:22; Ex. 4:1-9, 30-31; Judges 2:10-11) had been done (John 12:37-41, Acts 2:22). No doubt the kingdom of God was in their midst (Luke 17:20-21). The ones in the seat of Moses had authority during that dispensation that the Kingdom of God had come in (Mt. 23:2-3; Lk. 11:20), showing the contingency of the seat of Moses to this kingdom despite the impiety of those then occupying it.

It has been universally admitted by writers of prominence (e.g. Neander, Hagenbach, Schaff, Kurts, etc.) whatever their respective views concerning the Kingdom itself, that the Jews, including the pious, held to a personal coming of the Messiah, the literal restoration of the Davidic throne and kingdom, the personal reign of Messiah on David's throne, the resultant exaltation of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and the fulfillment of the Millennial descriptions of that reign. It is also acknowledged that the utterances of Luke 1:71; Acts 1:6; Luke 2:26, 30, etc., include the above belief, and that down, at least to the day of Pentecost, the Jews, the disciples, and even the apostles held to such a view.

Pentecost, J. D. (1958). Things to Come. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Dunham Publishing Company. p. 410.​

(See also Luke 2:25, 38; 23:51).

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello again Iconoclast

If you mean to say that Matt. 24:14 provides more incentive for the postmillennialist than to the premillennialist to go out into the world and preach that Christ has risen, then I would say that the premillennial position holds no more or less than the postmillennial position to preach that Christ has risen.

Those in History who believed that we have entered the kingdom now attempted to live according to that belief by the Spirits power.

Postmillennialism, like premillennialism, has to accept that there are those who preach that Christ has risen and those who preach the Word of God to build up the Church (1 Corinthians 3:5-8). Both have to accept the variety of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:14), so that there are those Christians whose occupation is not missionary.

I am not sure about where you are going here.

Postmillennialism also has to accept the fact that the present world is being ruled by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4),

This world is ruled by God...not satan.Unsaved people in the world are hindered by their own sin and satanic deception.

and that the wisdom of the Spirit cannot be received by the world who belongs to Satan (1 Corinthians 2:12-14).

Agreed....the unsaved are totally depraved.

How can the Spirit of God, who may be said in Postmillennialism or Amillennialism to be poured out on "all flesh" (Acts 2:16-17), be poured out on the flesh of the present world that "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:14, ESV)?

before the cross the Spirit worked upon those who were in Israel primarily. After the cross as Peter explains from Joel....this is that....The spirits work was going worldwide according to God's eternal purpose....ALL Flesh, not Israel only. That is what peter was talking about.

Jobe...why would the Apostles quote these passages to them , if they were not going to be fulfilled until after us???? The first sermon to these who were filled with the Spirit ...was.....in the future what Joel said will take place? Or did he say....THIS IS THAT.

Postmillennialism does not recognize that the gospel to be preached of Matthew 24:14 is the gospel of the kingdom that the Church does not preach, because the gospel of the kingdom doesn't include the death and resurrection of Christ.

Jobe...I understand what the teaching says...but I do reject these artificial divisions of different gospels at different times because scripture rejects such an idea....like this:

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.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

We are told this about the gospel in reference to gentiles coming in.
The kingdom was still preached after the cross by the apostles:
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

In the 70"s prophecy books [pre] used to have different colors for all these supposed different gospels///Gospel of the kingdom,everlasting gospel, gospel of the tribulation saints, etc....I believe this is completely misguided.

The twelve didn't know of the doctrine of the death and resurrection of Christ while they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Luke 9:2; 10:9; Mt. 10:7), otherwise, when Christ told them of His death and resurrection, they would have "understood...these things. This saying [wouldn't have been] hidden from them" (Luke 18:34, ESV). Hence, the gospel of the kingdom is to be distinguished from the gospel of the grace of God.

No.....there was a legitimate offer of the kingdom.If was offered and established...but rejected by the apostate jews....

22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

23 This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

24 This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.


42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

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.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

The nation was not Sweden, or france in vs 43...it is the Christian Israel...the church. God named Israel and he defines who Israel is.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jobe

They had rejected the one that came in the Father's name (John 5:43), "what more could have been done" (Isa. 5:4, KJV)? The signs that the Jews required (1Cor 1:22; Ex. 4:1-9, 30-31; Judges 2:10-11) had been done (John 12:37-41, Acts 2:22). No doubt the kingdom of God was in their midst (Luke 17:20-21). The ones in the seat of Moses had authority during that dispensation that the Kingdom of God had come in (Mt. 23:2-3; Lk. 11:20), showing the contingency of the seat of Moses to this kingdom despite the impiety of those then occupying it.

isa 5 corresponds to Mt 21!

No doubt the kingdom of God was in their midst (Luke 17:20-21).

They like premills were looking at the physical, Jesus spoke of the inward nature of the entrance into the kingdom . What you write here does not alter the view.