Question for covenantalist regarding the new covenant.

[Jope]

Does the church, heavenly Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, Jerusalem above the mother of all give birth to the kingdom of God from the earth?

Jerusalem, be she earthly (Mt. 24:8) or heavenly (Gal. 4:19), gives birth to Christ.

Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. (the firstborn?)

Correct.

 

[Jope]

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matt 16:18 NKJV

Will she be born again from Hades into the kingdom of God?

The Church is born again from the first Adam.

 

[thomas15]

Do you believe in a progressive revelation of scripture, so that, the chosen place for God's name (Deut. 26:2) wasn't revealed until David (2 Chron. 6:6), the OT saints didn't know the name of Christ (Pr. 30:4)? If so, it shouldn't be foreign to also believe that the Apostles didn't know of the gospel of the grace of God (Luke 18:34) and Peter didn't know of God's instruction of "calling [Gentiles]...[clean]" (Acts 10:28, KJV), until Acts 10.

Jope, let me tell you what Icon belives. He believes that (believers) are living in the kingdom right now at this point in time and that he (Icon) is ruling in said kingdom. As in the parable of the minas, Icon is probably ruling over somewhere between 5 to 10 cities and posting on this BB at the same time!

Replacement kingdom right now theology.

 

[DHK]

DHK
It does indeed.

I give you Scripture (and common sense). You give me nothing but opinion. Your "philosophy is wrong.

Your rigid yet natural method of interpretation betrays you,

Take a course in hermeneutics. Even the fourth chapter of MacArthur's book, Charismatic Chaos, has a very good chapter on hermeneutical principles--principles to follow in the interpretation of the Bible.
First and foremost, the Bible is to be interpreted literally unless the context explicitly directs otherwise.

How is a nation called a son?

He isn't!!!!

22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

This is a metaphor, a figure of speech. A nation is not a person. There are many metaphors in the Bible. Jesus is a rock. I can break rocks. Can I bread Jesus? No. It is a metaphor. Jesus said "I am the door." Do you knock on him? No. It is a metaphor.

All believers are found IN the TRUE Covenant Son

Vain philosophy. No scriptural proof.

The nation was collectively Yahweh’s “son,” so that fidelity to the covenant implied solidarity and harmony among Israel’s tribes. Israel’s calling was to be a priestly kingdom (ref. Exodus 19:3-6), and a kingdom divided against itself can neither thrive nor endure. The nation’s increasing fragmentation finally culminated inintertribal warfare (19:1-20:48) – a phenomenon that would later be repeated in
national conflicts between the two Israelite sub-kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

That kingdom spoken of in the OT is Israel. It has nothing to do with the NT believers, or the bride of Christ.

Yes...unbelieving Hebrew Israel did reject Him.....The elect remnant is part of the New Exodus,,,Christian Israel.....a Kingdom of priests.

An example. There were about 100,000 present at the Temple on the Day of Pentecost. Only 3,000 were saved. They were Jews that were born again, became part of the bride, and from henceforth were called Christians, part of the family of God. The rest remained unsaved Jews of the nation of Israel. Among them were the very ones that crucified our Lord.
There is a sharp division here. The believing Jews have nothing to do with Israel. They left that Judaism behind and became followers of Christ that day.

Yes they are now part of the Israel of God...christian Israel.

There is no such animal as Christian Israel.
This too is a vain philosophy not supported in Scripture.
.

The theme of Hebrews is the preeminence, superiority and finality of the Lord Jesus Christ in His Person and work as the fulfillment of the Old Testament “shadow”

OK, that was a nice cut and paste.

2 The truth is that God in free and sovereign grace chose one man, Abraham, and in Abraham, a nation, and in that nation, his Elect, his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and singular “Seed of Abraham,” and in him, all believers (Acts 7:2–3; Gen. 12:1–3; 17:1–7; Jn. 8:31–56; Rom. 2:28–29; 4:9–17; 9:6–30; Gal. 3:6–16; 4:4–5). The Scriptures further draw a distinction between national or physical Israel—the “seed of Abraham” (spe?rma 'Abraa?m), i.e., the Jews, and the “children of Abraham” (te?kna 'Abraa?m), i.e., believers from among both Jews and Gentiles.
Dr. W. R. Downing • Pacific Institute for Religious Studies
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley 8

Don't believe everything you read.
The Abrahamic Covenant promised that in Abraham all the nations of world would be blessed. We share in that covenant. We are in some ways beneficiaries of it because it affected the whole world. But the direct descendents of it are the Jews, specifically the believing Jews who will turn to him as a nation in the latter days.

• “Better.” (Gk: krei,sswn, from kra,toj, “strong,” hence: “better, more useful, serviceable, more advantageous, excellent”). This word is used to emphasize the superiority of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ and the superiority of the Gospel Covenant over the Old Covenant. This term occurs 13 times:
Dr. W. R. Downing • Pacific Institute for Religious Studies
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley

Why did you need to quote downing to verify what I had already told you?

The is a literal meaning here.Just because it is allegorical does not mean a lieral truth is not taught.

Yes it does. It is allegorical and not literal.

There are unbelieving gentiles=heathen
there is believing gentiles = Christian israel, the church

Israel is not the church.
This is Replacement Theology, a well known theology. It is what the RCC has believed for centuries. And it is what Islam believes as well. Islam believes they will "replace" Christianity. That is the ultimate and logical conclusion of "Replacement Theology." Do you believe that?

There are unbelieving Jews today+ heathen
There are believing jews today= christian Israel

You are either a Christian or of the nation of Israel. You can't be both.
Likewise: You can be a Muslim or a Christian; but you can't be both.
Make up your mind.

You are once again mistaken, because of this fact:

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.[/QUOTE]
Again it is a figure of speech. Only spiritually can we be of the seed of Abraham, not literally. Literally we belong to the family of God. We were born into His family when we were born again. We were not born into Abraham's family but rather made heir's of God and joint-heirs with Christ--a privilege that Abraham did not have.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jope

Hm. Never thought of that one.

I had not thought of it either:type: However taking two years to study through hebrews ,and still learning much from that book....It is such a strong and clear passage....it over-shadows much of what i had taken in from the pre pov. Jope.....re-read chapter twelve....this portion;

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Take some time and think about verse 26-27...yet once more/the removing of those things/those things which cannot be shaken....

without be concerned about responding to me in a premill defence....just think about this being written just before the temple destruction......Jesus speaking from Heaven.....the end of the jewish theocracy,it being shaken and removed.

at first I found it somewhat unsettling....it did not fit my tribulation map.:tongue3:
Still, I would say that everything I said stands. The Church receives the kingdom in a secondary distal aspect.

The Church depends on Israel to receive the kingdom. Without Israel receiving her kingdom, the Church also cannot receive it.

This is what is at issue...the church is primary

ht I would give you a gentle nudge about

If you claim that the kingdom had already began when Hebrews was written, which was before AD 70, then when would you claim that Luke 21:31 took place? Or do you believe that this (Luke 21:31) is speaking of a future event to us?

Luke 21 ESV, bold emphasis mine
21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.​

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1987_chilton_days-of-vengeance.html

Jope download this......it takes quite awhile to work through it as it is loaded with scripture.enjoy it. I do not agree with all of it, but the question becomes....can you answer to it?

23Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25“And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” 29And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. 31So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Yes...i believe this was fulfilled on 1st century israel as Jesus spoke to them about the end of the age/world....the age of the jewish theocracy as it was under Moses;..Jesus gave them their final warning what would happen to that generation....and it happened exactly

(On Matthew 24:13)
"We must remember that "the end" in this passage is not the end of the world, but rather the end of the age, the end of the Temple, the sacrificial system, the covenant nation of Israel, and the last remnants of the pre-Christian era." (Days of Vengeance, p. 89)

"(The Book of Revelation) is about the destruction of Israel and Christ’s victory over His enemies in the establishment of the New Covenant Temple. In fact, as we shall see, the word coming as used in the Book of Revelation never refers to the Second Coming. Revelation prophesies the judgment of God on apostate Israel; and while it does briefly point to events beyond its immediate concerns, that is done merely as a “wrap-up,” to show that the ungodly will never prevail against Christ’s Kingdom. But the main focus of Revelation is upon events which were soon to take place." (Days of Vengeance, p. 43)

(On Rev 6:15-17) “This passage is not speaking of the End of the World, but the End of Israel in A.D.70.” (p. 148).

(On Revelation 11:15)
"At this point in history God’s plan is made apparent: He has placed Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the Covenant. The destruction of apostate Israel and the Temple revealed that God had created a new nation, a new Temple, as Jesus prophesied to the Jewish leaders: ‘Therefore I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it’ (Matt.21:43). Thus the Kingdom of God, the ‘Fifth Kingdom’ prophesied in Daniel 2, becomes universalized, as the heavenly choir sings: ‘The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.’"(Days of Vengeance: p.287-288)​

 

[Jope]

23Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25“And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” 29And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. 31So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Yes...i believe this was fulfilled on 1st century israel as Jesus spoke to them about the end of the age/world....the age of the jewish theocracy as it was under Moses;..Jesus gave them their final warning what would happen to that generation....and it happened exactly

So do you believe that the Kingdom was started when Hebrews (pre-70AD) was written?

Here's what you said:

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved

28, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

They need grace to serve in the Kingdom. the kingdom has begun.

If so, why would Jesus say that the Kingdom was "near" (Luke 21:31, ESV) if it had already begun?

 

[Jope]

Jope



I had not thought of it either:type: However taking two years to study through hebrews ,and still learning much from that book....It is such a strong and clear passage....it over-shadows much of what i had taken in from the pre pov. Jope.....re-read chapter twelve....this portion;

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Take some time and think about verse 26-27...yet once more/the removing of those things/those things which cannot be shaken....

without be concerned about responding to me in a premill defence....just think about this being written just before the temple destruction......Jesus speaking from Heaven.....the end of the jewish theocracy,it being shaken and removed.

at first I found it somewhat unsettling....it did not fit my tribulation map.:tongue3:

Iconoclast,

You say that the Jewish theocracy is what the author of Hebrews has in mind about what will be removed. Verse 26 tells us that it's the earth and heaven that is promised to be shaken though.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I give you Scripture (and common sense). You give me nothing but opinion. Your "philosophy is wrong.

I think I have offered a fair amount of scripture.

[/B]This is a metaphor, a figure of speech. A nation is not a person.

Before you lecture me on hermenutics...you must come to grips on the language God has chosen to employ.....I explain what Ex4:22 means...you offer nothing here but a denial......God calls the nation....His firstborn Son.

Explain this passage how you see it.What is the meaning of the phrase, why is it included in the passage?


here you go: from Kit Culver;

The covenant at Sinai defined and established the formal relationship
between God and Israel as Father and son.
- The intimacy implied by this relationship was to be expressed by
Yahweh’s presence in the midst of His people. Thus, fundamental to the
covenant and its administration was the provision of a sanctuary and
mediating priesthood (ref. again Exodus 25:1-8 and 29:42-46 with 15:17).
- Yahweh was present with His son in connection with His sanctuary, but
specifically in relation to the Holy of Holies and its sole furnishing. The
ark of the covenant was the ark of Yahweh’s presence. Without the ark, it
didn’t matter if the duly appointed priests continued to perform their
prescribed service within the tabernacle; under that circumstance their
ministry was merely vain religious exercise inside an empty shrine.

Yahweh’s absence from His sanctuary indicated His estrangement from His son
and a perverting of the covenant itself. Israel had relentlessly departed from its
Father since the days at Sinai and now the Father affirmed that estrangement by
His own departure. Nevertheless, Yahweh’s promise to Abraham would stand: He
would bring restoration, but only through Judah’s royal seed; he would reunite the
ark and sanctuary in the place the Lord had determined to put His name.

That kingdom spoken of in the OT is Israel. It has nothing to do with the NT believers, or the bride of Christ.

This view is not accurate...you have so many different....kingdoms, gospels, saints, it is wrong and confusing.

here again KIT Culver;

Like the creational kingdom centered in Eden, the Israelite kingdom was
preparatory and promissory. It portrayed and represented in a typological
way God’s true and ultimate kingdom, but for that very reason was not
that kingdom. The creational kingdom had God exercising His sovereign
rule through man, the image-son, and so it was to be with the Israelite
kingdom. In a sense, Israel’s judges had performed that intermediary
function during the early centuries of the theocracy (ref. again 1 Samuel
8:4-6), but the emergence of a king was a necessary step in the history of
Israel if the Israelite theocracy were to fulfill its typological role.

An example. There were about 100,000 present at the Temple on the Day of Pentecost. Only 3,000 were saved. They were Jews that were born again, became part of the bride, and from henceforth were called Christians, part of the family of God

.

There are of necessity some ideas in common.Let's take your example here .....
Many of them were no doubt OT saints...part of the Hebrew Israel of God under Moses.....now as saved church members they transitioned to being part of the Christian Israel....the people of God who you say does not exist.

The rest remained unsaved Jews of the nation of Israel. Among them were the very ones that crucified our Lord.

As I have pointed out to you many times....not all Israel was of Israel.

There is a sharp division here. The believing Jews have nothing to do with Israel. They left that Judaism behind and became followers of Christ that day.

hint; ot believers = Hebrew Israel
nt believers= Christian Israel

There is no such animal as Christian Israel.
This too is a vain philosophy not supported in Scripture.
.

The teaching is there you do not want to see it....for example...you use the term tribulation saints.....where is that found again?
It is in every premill book....

OK, that was a nice cut and paste.

Don't believe everything you read.
The Abrahamic Covenant promised that in Abraham all the nations of world would be blessed. We share in that covenant. We are in some ways beneficiaries of it because it affected the whole world. But the direct descendents of it are the Jews, specifically the believing Jews who will turn to him as a nation in the latter days.

That is not what Gal 3 teaches;

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.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

:laugh:looks as if I have scripture here DHK...and you have the vain philosophy as you say:laugh:

Why did you need to quote downing to verify what I had already told you?

Because sometimes you say things as if the other person could not possibly have seen it in scripture before.Not only have I seen it, but I live in the book of Hebrews.

Yes it does. It is allegorical and not literal.

allegory metaphor,parable, symbolic language all have literal meaning

Israel is not the church.

Israel was 5 different things in scripture.

This is Replacement Theology, a well known theology.

It is not replacement theology...it is biblical fulfillment.

It is what the RCC has believed for centuries. And it is what Islam believes as well. Islam believes they will "replace" Christianity. That is the ultimate and logical conclusion of "Replacement Theology." Do you believe that?

No...I do not believe in replacement theology.

You are either a Christian or of the nation of Israel. You can't be both.
Likewise: You can be a Muslim or a Christian; but you can't be both.
Make up your mind

.

My mind is made up...you just reject it.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Again it is a figure of speech. Only spiritually can we be of the seed of Abraham, not literally. Literally we belong to the family of God. We were born into His family when we were born again. We were not born into Abraham's family but rather made heir's of God and joint-heirs with Christ--a privilege that Abraham did not have.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You really need a better understanding here....

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.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Leave your dispy error which denies this clear statement.My theology embraces this,:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast,

You say that the Jewish theocracy is what the author of Hebrews has in mind about what will be removed. Verse 26 tells us that it's the earth and heaven that is promised to be shaken though.

Yes.. the world as they know it was going to change radically and finally.Sometimes the language of cataclysmic events
sun .moon and stars,....falling from heaven, sun not giving light, moon to blood..etc signal a change of Government or administration....

Josephs dream;
9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.


Joels prophecy...in acts2
the language in mt 24....

from isa13in the ot.
fall of babylon -

10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

isa34

4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.


sounds like rev 6 look:
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb

vs 16..bonus language found in Hosea....
8 The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars;:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

For any who like to study..here is more from Pastor Culver:

By bringing the ark to Jerusalem David had symbolically enthroned
Yahweh on Mount Zion, and he had done so through his labors as the
Lord’s chosen king-priest. Though David couldn’t know it at that time,
this action provided the foundational context for God’s covenant with him,
specifically as that covenant would contribute to the developing revelation
of redemption in Christ. In ushering in the eschatological kingdom,
David’s promised Son would likewise establish Yahweh’s unqualified rule
by His work as king-priest (cf. Psalm 110; Isaiah 2:1-4, 52:1-10; Micah
3:1-4:7; Zechariah 2:1-3:10 with Revelation 11:15-12:10; etc.).

In God’s developing revelation of His redemption in Christ, the two primary
streams of Old Testament messianism (kingly and priestly) notably converge in
the person of David. And having come together in him, they are projected onto
the son promised in the covenant. What is not directly evident in the covenant
itself is made explicit by its connection with Psalm 110: The Davidic Branch, in
whom Yahweh had determined to establish David’s throne and kingdom forever,
would exercise His everlasting reign in the context of a perpetual priesthood.
In fulfilling the Davidic kingship (cf. 110:1 with Matthew 22:41-45), the Davidic
Branch would also fulfill the kingship of Melchizedek – the king of peace
(“Salem”) and priest of God Most High (cf. 110:4 with Hebrews 5:5-10 and
Romans 8:33-34 with Hebrews 7:1-8:6; cf. also Revelation 5:4-6). As the ultimate
David, this son would establish Yahweh’s kingdom and secure its peace through
the conquest of all its enemies. But having done so, He would go on to build
Yahweh’s house, ruling forever as a priest upon His throne (Zechariah 6:9-15).

This principle, first introduced with the tabernacle (cf. Genesis 15:13-14 with
Exodus 11:1-2, 12:35-36), becomes in the biblical storyline a foundational
kingdom theme that eventually finds its ultimate fulfillment in Yahweh’s true
house composed of men from every tribe, tongue and nation (cf. Haggai 2:1-9
with Zechariah 6:9-15; also Matthew 16:13-18 with 1 Peter 2:1-10). And so, even
as the text records David’s ingathering of the “precious value” of the subjects of
his kingdom for use in building the Lord’s holy dwelling, it does so conscious that
it is pointing prophetically to the day when David’s greater Son would Himself
repeat and fulfill His father’s work (cf. Amos 9:11-15 with Acts 15:1-18)

 

[Iconoclast]

But the shepherd motif also connects this episode with the Davidic
Covenant, and it is with that in view that the ultimate significance
of David’s intercession becomes evident. The covenant had its
focal point in a Davidic seed such that David was to realize his
own personal and regal significance in that seed. By means of
God’s covenant with him, David was established as a type of his
promised son; thus, from the point of the making of the covenant,
the Scripture explicitly refers to this son of David under the name
David (Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25; Hosea 3:5; cf. Isaiah 11:1, 10).


The covenantal/relational significance of the Shekinah explains why the Lord
used a vision of His glory departing from the temple to communicate to His priest
Ezekiel (who, along with many others, was already in exile in Babylon) the
gravity of Judah’s impending desolation and captivity (Ezekiel 10:1-11:23). The
vision indicated that the city where Yahweh had put His name was now empty of
His presence and His sanctuary had been reduced to a meaningless religious relic.
David’s kingdom was ichabod: the glory had departed from Israel.
Thus the irony of Judah’s conviction that Jerusalem would not fall by virtue of
God’s presence there. The temple still stood, but the people couldn’t see what
Ezekiel did: Yahweh had already departed His sanctuary; Jerusalem with its focal
point in the temple had become an unclean place and would be destroyed (Ezekiel
24:1-27). The holiness of Jerusalem and its temple was due to the Lord’s presence
there; without it they were no more holy than Sodom or Babylon. The returning
exiles rebuilt the temple on Mount Zion, but the Lord didn’t restore His presence
to it. The divine glory would return to the sanctuary when Yahweh Himself – not
His glory-cloud – came to it (Malachi 3:1-4; cf. Isaiah 4:2-6; Jeremiah 3:12-18).

So also the revelation of the coming Davidic king showed the promised kingdom
to be distinct from the Israelite theocracy. The cursing of David’s dynasty pointed
to this truth, but the prophets made it explicit by revealing that this Seed would
rule over Yahweh’s kingdom as a king-priest. The structure of the theocracy had
established an unbridgeable separation between Israel’s kings and priests, so that
the conjoining of those offices in one man indicated a new covenant and therefore
a new kind of kingdom (cf. Psalm 110; Zechariah 6:9-15; Hebrews 5:1-9:15).

When considered within the broader Old Testament revelation, the house and
throne promised to David are explicitly shown to transcend Israelite categories
and substance and assume cosmic proportions. For the son in whom David’s
house, throne and kingdom were to be established is the same individual through
whom Yahweh would bring about the comprehensive cataclysm of a new creation
(cf. Isaiah 11:1-9 with 65:1-66:23; also Hosea 2:1-3:5 and Amos 9:11-15).

 

[Jope]

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.

Hey there Iconoclast.

I know scriptures like these are used by those of your party to claim that we are presently in the kingdom because the apostle taught about the kingdom. Careful look at the same passage you have quoted, will show that Paul thought the kingdom a future one to enter into though: "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God". He does not say, "we have through much tribulation entered the kingdom of God". If Paul did say that they had already entered the kingdom of God, wouldn't it be strange that Christ told them that that same kingdom draweth nigh at 70AD (as your position suggests), as seen in Luke 21:31?

St. Peter as well, says that the kingdom is a future one to enter into in 2 Peter 1:11. "For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (ESV, italic emphasis mine).

Concerning why so many examples can be found of the kingdom being spoken of in the New Testament, George Peters writes:

While some are wrong in not more accurately distinguishing between the Divine Sovereignty (Props. 80 and 81) and the covenanted kingdom (Prop. 49, etc.), yet, as the Bible, they correctly make the kingdom of God the central topic around which all other doctrines logically arrange themselves. Correctly apprehending the kingdom of God as the guiding idea, Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol. i. p. 65) justly observes: “The dogmatic theology which understands its vocation will be neither more nor less than a theology of the kingdom in all the force of the word.” He aptly remarks (p. 168): “The idea of the kingdom of God is the golden thread which runs through all; and of this kingdom the Bible is the document;” and quotes Nitzsch: “The Word of God is the testimony of His kingdom, in the form of a history and doctrine explained and continued by personal organs.” Many others, however they may treat it, designate it as Augustine (The City of God), a fundamental thought or idea.

Obs. 1. Its importance may be estimated by considering the following particulars: 1. The kingdom is the object designed by the oath-bound covenant (Prop. 49). 2. It is the great theme, the burden of prophecy (Props. 33-35, etc). 3. It is a subject which embraces a larger proportion of Revelation than all other subjects combined; thus indicating the estimation in which it is held by God. Dr. Pye Smith, Bickersteth, and others have well observed and commented on this peculiarity-viz., that inspired writers say more respecting the kingdom of Christ than they do concerning all other things treated or discussed in the Word. 4. It was the leading subject of the preaching of John the Baptist, Christ, the disciples and apostles (Props. 38-74).

Peters, G. (2005). The Theocratic Kingdom. Redding, California: Pleasant Places Press. (Original work published 1884). Vol. 1, Prop. 1, Obs. 0-1.​

 

[Jope]

Yes.. the world as they know it was going to change radically and finally.Sometimes the language of cataclysmic events
sun .moon and stars,....falling from heaven, sun not giving light, moon to blood..etc signal a change of Government or administration....

Josephs dream;
9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.

Hello Iconoclast.

Joseph's dream doesn't say that "​​​​​​​​All the host of heaven [would] rot away, ​​​​​​​and the skies roll up like a scroll" (Isa. 34:4, ESV).

Joseph only says that "the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me" (Gen. 37:9, ESV).

What do you think would've happened if Noah thought God was speaking in a metaphorical sense when He said "“I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood" (Gen. 6:13-14a, ESV).

Would we be alive today?

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Iconoclast.

Joseph's dream doesn't say that "​​​​​​​​All the host of heaven [would] rot away, ​​​​​​​and the skies roll up like a scroll" (Isa. 34:4, ESV).

Joseph only says that "the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me" (Gen. 37:9, ESV)

.

I did not say it did.I used it to show how scripture speaks of celestial bodies.
How did the literal sun, moon or eleven stars bow down to Joseph....

The skies rolling up like a scroll was not the end of time, but a judgement upon Edom...


Might be time to re-read the post...EHHH:wavey:

 

[DHK]

DHK

here you go: from Kit Culver;

here again KIT Culver;

OK, that was a nice cut and paste.

Yep, cut and paste; cut and paste. And especially from this man.
But who is Kit Culver?

Do a quick search on the internet and here is what you will find:
[FONT=&quot]

Sovereign Grace Community Church in Denver, CO is a non-denominational body that embraces many of the distinctives of historical Reformation theology, but from a baptistic and New Covenant perspective. We are redemptive-historical in our approach to biblical interpretation.

He [/FONT]is the pastor of a small church in Denver. They meet in an SDA meeting hall. It isn't even a Baptist church; it is non-denominational.
Why should I trust anything he says? He is not an authority.

You cut and paste just from anyone on the internet who has anything to say on the subject that just might agree with you no matter who it might be??
That is a shameful way to do Bible Study IMO.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yep, cut and paste; cut and paste. And especially from this man.
But who is Kit Culver?

Do a quick search on the internet and here is what you will find:
[FONT=&quot]

He [/FONT]is the pastor of a small church in Denver. They meet in an SDA meeting hall. It isn't even a Baptist church; it is non-denominational.
Why should I trust anything he says? He is not an authority.

.

Yes that is the Pastor and the church.He is a baptist.I have spoken with him. He is on sermonaudio. I questioned him on a 62 message sermon series, and asked where he and the church stood on many issues...he was very gracious to me, and sent me 400 pages of notes for my consideration. I intend to get together with him for some fellowship and discussion as he seems to be a very gifted person and solid brother.
The sermon series on God and sacred space is very thought provoking and triggers many thoughts on kingdom living and growth in holiness and service.
I draw from as many sources as I can. If the pastors are still alive...I go where they are and speak to them face to face..asking questions and interacting.
I am no one special DHK...driving a truck around...however they know that God has set his love upon me, and they make time to offer help to me in my studies and christian life.
Far from being shameful...I believe it is quite biblical.
You should consider doing this also DHK. then perhaps you would no longer hold the carnal christian heresy and some of the other wrong ideas you cling to. Other people have studied the bible also DHK, and they see it different than you do.I hope that is not a news flash to you.

You cut and paste just from anyone on the internet who has anything to say on the subject that just might agree with you no matter who it might be??
That is a shameful way to do Bible Study IMO

DHK....I will quote from the clerk at the grocery store if he comes with truth from scripture.
When I study I come up with certain ideas. I am not afraid to test those ideas and learn from others.
I listen sometimes to those who i do not always agree with.I listen to presbyterians, congregationist, christian reformed, some non denominational, even some evangelicals, and dispensationalists.
Fundamentalists mostly disturb me with their legalism so I avoid many of them...even though I would that God will use even them. [I still have some Curtis Hutson tapes at home}
It is not wrong to use other peoples labours in the word DHK.I do not despise other peoples teaching as you have done in times past.
To despise God's gifts to his church is not wise...

If Pastor Culver does not help you...that is on you.I do not agree with everything he says...but I do see that he and others have seen things that you have not even began to consider....so why should I not listen,and consider what they say???:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Yes that is the Pastor and the church.He is a baptist.I have spoken with him. He is on sermonaudio. I questioned him on a 62 message sermon series, and asked where he and the church stood on many issues...he was very gracious to me, and sent me 400 pages of notes for my consideration. I intend to get together with him for some fellowship and discussion as he seems to be a very gifted person and solid brother.
The sermon series on God and sacred space is very thought provoking and triggers many thoughts on kingdom living and growth in holiness and service.
I draw from as many sources as I can. If the pastors are still alive...I go where they are and speak to them face to face..asking questions and interacting.
I am no one special DHK...driving a truck around...however they know that God has set his love upon me, and they make time to offer help to me in my studies and christian life.
Far from being shameful...I believe it is quite biblical.

I believe the SDA "The Great Controversy," written by Ellen G. White, is more than 400 pages, and so is the RCC Catechism. Quantity does not guarantee quality. "But the foolish and unlearned" avoid.

You should consider doing this also DHK. then perhaps you would no longer hold the carnal christian heresy and some of the other wrong ideas you cling to. Other people have studied the bible also DHK, and they see it different than you do.I hope that is not a news flash to you.

I have a library of over 2,000 books plus many more on a computer library, and then what I can access online. I usually stay away from online searches unless I know the source. I do check reliable sources, not just any online source. I have many Calvinistic writings.
The "Carnal Christian heresy" is of recent origin and is not found in any pre-20th century writing, perhaps even pre-21st century writing, it is that recent. When Paul writes to the Corinthians "Ye are yet carnal," and people deny the very scriptures here, it really is astounding!

DHK....I will quote from the clerk at the grocery store if he comes with truth from scripture.
When I study I come up with certain ideas. I am not afraid to test those ideas and learn from others.
I listen sometimes to those who i do not always agree with.I listen to presbyterians, congregationist, christian reformed, some non denominational, even some evangelicals, and dispensationalists.

It is like a smorgasbord isn't it. Choose what you want. If you want infant baptism then so be it. Baptismal regeneration, choose it. I am thankful I didn't have that kind of education. I was brought up (after I was saved) in a church that preached the truth--not a wishy washy smorgasbord of ideas where you can just pick and choose whatever doctrine you wanted to believe.

Fundamentalists mostly disturb me with their legalism so I avoid many of them...even though I would that God will use even them. [I still have some Curtis Hutson tapes at home}

You don't know what legalism is do you?
A legalist isn't saved.

It is not wrong to use other peoples labours in the word DHK.I do not despise other peoples teaching as you have done in times past.
To despise God's gifts to his church is not wise...

I don't either. I have quoted others from time to time--but not excessively. When debating I like to hear the other person's side, not Kit Culver's for example.

If Pastor Culver does not help you...that is on you.I do not agree with everything he says...but I do see that he and others have seen things that you have not even began to consider....so why should I not listen,and consider what they say???:thumbs::thumbs:

It is not Kit Culver that I am debating; it is you.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I believe the SDA "The Great Controversy," written by Ellen G. White, is more than 400 pages, and so is the RCC Catechism. Quantity does not guarantee quality. "But the foolish and unlearned" avoid.

Pastor Culver is not a follower of Ellen G.White, or the RC.Church.Judging by his notes and over 70 messages I have listened to,he is an able minister of the new Covenant.You would be hard pressed to answer him.You perhaps know that so you ridicule him and pass Judgement. A wise man would seek correction and teaching if available.
From observing your posts over time you "circle the wagons" against anyone who does not follow your fundamentalist stylings.You are free to do that DHK...as I am free to observe and comment upon it.

I have a library of over 2,000 books plus many more on a computer library, and then what I can access online. I usually stay away from online searches unless I know the source. I do check reliable sources, not just any online source. I have many Calvinistic writings

.

Having a nice library is good and commendable:thumbs:You must be able to interact with the material in a biblical fashion before you can be said to"have them". If you cannot accurately quote and interact with them...in reality you have nothing that will profit you or anyone else.

The "Carnal Christian heresy" is of recent origin and is not found in any pre-20th century writing, perhaps even pre-21st century writing, it is that recent.

That is correct...it is an off shoot of Finney,and the Wesleyan holiness, second work of grace crowd

When Paul writes to the Corinthians "Ye are yet carnal," and people deny the very scriptures here, it really is astounding!

We do not deny what Paul said. We just listen to teachers who open up the passage and show which words were used...and then can come to a biblical understanding.You refused to listen or read those sources....or you did listen , knew you were wrong, but could not own up to it.That is between you and God. You say people here deny the scriptures on this, but i assured you it was your teaching that was in clear error...but you refused to check it out.That is what happened.:thumbs:

It is like a smorgasbord isn't it.

There are many different teachings around..yes....many different creeds and Catechisms, denominations, gospels.

Choose what you want.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
In light of this.....yes...we are responsible to seek and search out the truth.

If you want infant baptism then so be it. Baptismal regeneration, choose it

.

If a person believes that to be biblical he should choose it and go on to the judgement with it, if he rejects the truth.

I am thankful I didn't have that kind of education.

Okay..let's see what kind of "education" you have-

I was brought up (after I was saved) in a church that preached the truth--not a wishy washy smorgasbord of ideas where you can just pick and choose whatever doctrine you wanted to believe.

So lets examine this.You are A NEWBORN BABE,in a church you believe had truth.....and yet the truth is ...as a new born babe...you had no real idea what was true,and what might have been or still is error.
Without any background how did you a new christian know truth from error...

because the fundamentalist pastor yelled and screamed..."well my bible says"...or he was quick to warn you about the evil of facial hair, or the need to separate from every other church on the planet, or of course the old standby...KJO?

You don't know what legalism is do you?
A legalist isn't saved.

legalism is what I hear in most fundamentalist messages.I have heard it often on the radio,and unfortunately too many times in visiting random churches.
It will sound like they have a concern to obey 2 cor6:14-7:1...but it is the same sermon and moralizing over and over. replacing God's standard and law...with the fundy list of do and don't do this or that.

I don't either. I have quoted others from time to time--but not excessively. When debating I like to hear the other person's side, not Kit Culver's for example.

It is not Kit Culver that I am debating; it is you.

[/QUOTE]

This idea is raised often.It is misguided and wrong.If truth is the goal..it should not matter who offered it or wrote it as all truth is God's truth.

If you want to compete we could play chess or horseshoes, or bocce ball.
i am not so prideful that I have to say...here are my thoughts on it.When there are more gifted persons the less gifted person should shut up and listen to the wiser more mature brother.

Otherwise what are you looking to do? catch me using a wrong word, or twist what I say so you can seem to be"winning".This is a prideful idea.
This seems perverse to me.If you need to"Win' and come out on top...you can do many things.....play one on one basketball with blind persons, or race people in wheelchairs.
If the goal to come to truth is being pursued and someone offers a helpful link worthy of consideration...you should say, thanks for posting this link.I will look at it and respond.
If you disagree ...show why.

 

[Iconoclast]

here is more from Pastor Culvers series for those who like to study;
Israel’s repentance would prepare them to receive their Messiah, but it also represented
the reuniting of their hearts with their fathers. The meaning becomes clear when it is
recognized that the text is referring to the patriarchal fathers. The people of Israel were
the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the kingdom promise first came, and
the Israelite nation was the first realization of that promise. But the children had turned
away from their fathers by rejecting the patriarchs’ God and covenant. Now the time had
come for Yahweh to inaugurate the true kingdom promised to the fathers – the kingdom
they had seen by faith and longed for up until the day of their death (Hebrews 11:8-16).
Only by repentance – by rethinking what it means to be sons of the kingdom – would the
children of the patriarchs be reunited with them and prepared for Abraham’s Seed.

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.

The doctrine of the Servant of Yahweh is evident elsewhere in the Old Testament –
particularly in relation to the promised Davidic seed (ref. Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25;
Zechariah 3:8; cf. also Haggai 2:20-23), but Isaiah’s treatment stands alone in its
magnitude and scope. His prophecy provides essential content for bringing together the
various aspects of Old Testament messianism.
- The prophets revealed a Messiah who would be the Son of David and
Melchizedekian high priest. This One would also be the tangible manifestation of
Yahweh in His coming to establish His kingdom in the earth. Moreover, both the
prophets and history itself indicated that this kingdom was to be the product of
Yahweh’s work of redemption in the great and awesome Day of the Lord (cf.
Isaiah 3:1-4:6; Joel 3:9-21; Zephaniah 1:1-18, 3:1-20; Malachi 4:5-6; etc.).

 

[Iconoclast]

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).

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).Well before the captivities, the sons of Israel understood the connection between Yahweh’s
kingdom and His sanctuary, and this is the reason the post-exile prophets were so emphatic that
the remnant’s reconstruction of the physical temple in Jerusalem didn’t indicate the impending
inauguration of the eschatological kingdom proclaimed by their predecessors. As with David’s
former kingdom, the Lord’s dwelling place in the midst of His people would highlight the final
kingdom, but the sanctuary of that kingdom was to be built by the Davidic Branch (Zechariah
6:9-15); until that day, any temple in Jerusalem only spoke of fulfillment yet to come.