It speaks of coming out of a grave....is that literal?
Or Spiritual?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual understanding - part 8
- Thread starter Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
Or Spiritual?
It described a literal event in spiritual terms
Okay....now...are you now guilty of spiritualizing the scripture
As you have said that we do?
The Lord described Israel’s obligation in characteristic language and He followed that same pattern in describing their failure: From Sinai forward they had refused to be attentive to Him, even turning their backs to Him in stubborn rebellion and making their ears dull so as to not have to listen to Him. In a word, the covenant sons set their hearts as flint against their Lord’s covenant prescription and instruction and so also against the prophets He sent to them to rebuke and correct them (cf. Psalm 78; Nehemiah 9:16ff; Jeremiah 5:23; Ezekiel 3:1-9; Daniel 9:3ff).
c. Since the days in which He delivered them from Egypt and gathered them to Himself in covenant union at Sinai, Israel – the chosen son – had remained a wayward and disobedient people, ever wandering away from the Lord who loved them and giving themselves to the gods of their own desires and selfish concern. Whether in open rebellion and apostasy or devout acts of piety and worship, the covenant sons had been driven by the same ultimate and controlling motivation: their unwavering allegiance to self-interest (ref. 7:5-6; cf. Hosea 11:1-2; Ezekiel 20:1-32; Isaiah 1:1-14; Amos 5:21-26; cf. also Exodus 16:1-3, 17:1-3; Numbers 11:1-10, 12:1-10, 13:1-14:10). Even while adamantly voicing their commitment to fidelity (Exodus 19:7-8, 24:3-8), the sons of Israel continued to turn a deaf ear to Yahweh; finally He determined to give them over to themselves; He would no longer hear their cries and deliver them; rather, He was going to deliver them over (7:13-14; cf. Isaiah 66:1-4; Hosea 2:1-13; Amos 4:1-5:27; Lamentations 2:1-17).
90
These are the three components of the second “word” and their meaning is clear: The destruction and desolation of the kingdom of Israel was not the Lord’s doing; the sons of the kingdom had brought this upon themselves as surely as if their own hands had wielded the swords, set the fires and held the chains that dragged them to Babylon (7:14; cf. Ezekiel 18:1-32, 24:1-23; cf. also Isaiah 1:1-9, 5:1-7, 30:1-17, 57:1-13; Jeremiah 2).
sermon notes from zech.7kit culver
a. Thus the third “word” in the oracle returned to the central theme of the prophecy, namely Yahweh’s restoration of His dwelling place. The men of Bethel inquired about the sanctuary; the Lord responded by addressing the restoration of Jerusalem (Zion) – a restoration that would see the renewal of His relationship with His people; His return to them and their return to Him (8:1-5; cf. 1:3, 16-17). And given the nature of their exile, their return to their Lord meant their forgiveness, cleansing and regathering to Him, not to a geographical location (ref. 1:12-2:12). This message is the focus of the larger oracle, and so also of the burdens which it introduced (cf. 9:1-12, 10:1-12, 12:8-13:2, 14:9-21).
Notably, the Lord here grounded His pledge to restore Zion in His fierce and enduring jealousy for her (8:2, cf. 1:14). Jealousy is a relational concept and here draws upon the imagery of Zion as Yahweh’s spouse (cf. Ezekiel 16, 23 with Isaiah 49:14-22, 54:1-8; Hosea 1-2; etc.). Here it’s important to recall that “Zion” is a broad concept which ultimately extends to the relationship between the Lord and His creation. Zion speaks to sacred space, and thus is used in the Scripture to refer to Jerusalem as Yahweh’s dwelling place and, indirectly, to Israel as the community (often designated the “daughter of Zion”) among whom He dwelled and through whom He interacted with the world (cf. Psalm 9:11, 20:2, 48:1-14; cf. also Isaiah 1:8, 27, 3:16-17, 66:7-9; Zechariah 9:9). And since the scriptural idea of sacred space (God’s dwelling place) looked to a fulfillment to come in relation to the Messiah, so it was with the concept of Zion (ref. Psalm 2:6-8; cf. also Isaiah 49:1-21, 52:1-53:12, 59:1-60:22; etc.).
Yahweh’s jealousy for Zion indicated, not His commitment to a city, a physical sanctuary and a nation as such, but rather His passionate and unwaveri
c. Since the days in which He delivered them from Egypt and gathered them to Himself in covenant union at Sinai, Israel – the chosen son – had remained a wayward and disobedient people, ever wandering away from the Lord who loved them and giving themselves to the gods of their own desires and selfish concern. Whether in open rebellion and apostasy or devout acts of piety and worship, the covenant sons had been driven by the same ultimate and controlling motivation: their unwavering allegiance to self-interest (ref. 7:5-6; cf. Hosea 11:1-2; Ezekiel 20:1-32; Isaiah 1:1-14; Amos 5:21-26; cf. also Exodus 16:1-3, 17:1-3; Numbers 11:1-10, 12:1-10, 13:1-14:10). Even while adamantly voicing their commitment to fidelity (Exodus 19:7-8, 24:3-8), the sons of Israel continued to turn a deaf ear to Yahweh; finally He determined to give them over to themselves; He would no longer hear their cries and deliver them; rather, He was going to deliver them over (7:13-14; cf. Isaiah 66:1-4; Hosea 2:1-13; Amos 4:1-5:27; Lamentations 2:1-17).
90
These are the three components of the second “word” and their meaning is clear: The destruction and desolation of the kingdom of Israel was not the Lord’s doing; the sons of the kingdom had brought this upon themselves as surely as if their own hands had wielded the swords, set the fires and held the chains that dragged them to Babylon (7:14; cf. Ezekiel 18:1-32, 24:1-23; cf. also Isaiah 1:1-9, 5:1-7, 30:1-17, 57:1-13; Jeremiah 2).
sermon notes from zech.7kit culver
a. Thus the third “word” in the oracle returned to the central theme of the prophecy, namely Yahweh’s restoration of His dwelling place. The men of Bethel inquired about the sanctuary; the Lord responded by addressing the restoration of Jerusalem (Zion) – a restoration that would see the renewal of His relationship with His people; His return to them and their return to Him (8:1-5; cf. 1:3, 16-17). And given the nature of their exile, their return to their Lord meant their forgiveness, cleansing and regathering to Him, not to a geographical location (ref. 1:12-2:12). This message is the focus of the larger oracle, and so also of the burdens which it introduced (cf. 9:1-12, 10:1-12, 12:8-13:2, 14:9-21).
Notably, the Lord here grounded His pledge to restore Zion in His fierce and enduring jealousy for her (8:2, cf. 1:14). Jealousy is a relational concept and here draws upon the imagery of Zion as Yahweh’s spouse (cf. Ezekiel 16, 23 with Isaiah 49:14-22, 54:1-8; Hosea 1-2; etc.). Here it’s important to recall that “Zion” is a broad concept which ultimately extends to the relationship between the Lord and His creation. Zion speaks to sacred space, and thus is used in the Scripture to refer to Jerusalem as Yahweh’s dwelling place and, indirectly, to Israel as the community (often designated the “daughter of Zion”) among whom He dwelled and through whom He interacted with the world (cf. Psalm 9:11, 20:2, 48:1-14; cf. also Isaiah 1:8, 27, 3:16-17, 66:7-9; Zechariah 9:9). And since the scriptural idea of sacred space (God’s dwelling place) looked to a fulfillment to come in relation to the Messiah, so it was with the concept of Zion (ref. Psalm 2:6-8; cf. also Isaiah 49:1-21, 52:1-53:12, 59:1-60:22; etc.).
Yahweh’s jealousy for Zion indicated, not His commitment to a city, a physical sanctuary and a nation as such, but rather His passionate and unwaveri
Last edited:
...... His passionate and unwavering commitment to his covenant people, chosen in Christ Jesus before the creation, redeemed at Calvary, born again by his Holy Spirit.
The promises to Abraham for the blessings of his seed to all families, all nations, are, through the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, to all the redeemed who by grace receive him in true repentance and a living faith.
The Gospels and Epistles record the fulfilment of the OC prophecies in the Church of believers in Christ, beginning with the 3,000 Jews at Pentecost.
It is serious heresy to claim the promises of God for a Godless nation. Paul makes that clear in Galatians, as does Peter in his sermons and letters.
Dispensationalist Futurism is a heretical Jewish fable.
The promises to Abraham for the blessings of his seed to all families, all nations, are, through the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, to all the redeemed who by grace receive him in true repentance and a living faith.
The Gospels and Epistles record the fulfilment of the OC prophecies in the Church of believers in Christ, beginning with the 3,000 Jews at Pentecost.
It is serious heresy to claim the promises of God for a Godless nation. Paul makes that clear in Galatians, as does Peter in his sermons and letters.
Dispensationalist Futurism is a heretical Jewish fable.
Did you find my "Repent and be baptized" hymn helpful?
#102
Our whole new covenant relationship with our Triune God is expressed in that act of commitment.
TweetY - any Scriptures to prove an ongoing separation of New Covenant Israel from the New Covenant Church?
And is calling Israel "that tern" a term of abuse or love? As you don't read your own posts, we can be sure you don't read the posts of others. You never quote Scripture. Do you read Scripture?
Last edited:
No, rather that we see that God uses spiritual language to refer to a physical and literal condition!
Yes I do, but I still see israel and the Church as being not the same entity to God!
So...does sun, moon, and stars mean a change of government ?
or does it have to mean sun , moon, and stars then?
All depends upon the contex!
on the Kingdom;
The Old Testament prophets spoke of the coming kingdom as the glorious result of the Day of Yahweh – the day when He would arise and, once and for all, destroy His enemies, liberate His captive people and restore them and their desolate habitation to Himself. Many times in Israel’s history the Lord had intervened in this fashion on behalf of His covenant people, but each time His hand of deliverance and ingathering had not resolved the real issue: Each episode had left Israel in its state of alienation and enmity. The people may have been restored to the kingdom land and they might have experienced some degree of contrition and repentance, but their hearts remained estranged from their God.
The scriptural portrait of God’s triumph over His enemies was depicted primarily in terms of Israel’s national enemies – the human enemies of the theocratic kingdom. But a careful, consistent reading of the Old Testament prophets shows that Yahweh’s promise of conquest, liberation and ingathering looked beyond a national, geographical restoration for exiled Israel to the liberation and renewal of the whole created order (cf. Isaiah 7-12, 34:1-35:10, 42:1-45:25, 54:1-17, 65:1366:24; cf. also Daniel 2 and 7; Hosea 1-3; Joel 2-3; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-5:6; Zephaniah 3; Zechariah 14).
In the end, Yahweh would have to arise and exercise His conquering and liberating power so as to deliver Abraham’s children from themselves and their own self-enslavement. He would “circumcise their hearts to love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul in order that they would truly live” (Deuteronomy 30:6; cf. Isaiah 44:1-23; Ezekiel 37; etc.). The Day of Yahweh would involve His conquest of the enemies of His people and His creation, the greatest of which is death itself. Thus the triumph of God’s kingdom is His triumph over the creational curse. God’s true enemies – all of which the Son conquered – are all entities, structures and powers which contradict and oppose the shalomic design and order of His creation and His relationship with it.
The promise of the kingdom was the pledge of creational renewal. Most importantly, this was not to be the repair of the existing order, but the transformation of the creation that it should at last and forever attain to and experience the design for which God brought it into existence. Thus the prophets spoke of the kingdom in terms of the destruction of the curse and the ushering in of a creational order unknown in the present scheme of things. And at the heart of this new creational paradigm would be a Creator-creature intimacy and harmony utterly foreign to the present order – an intimacy centered in the ServantMessiah (cf. Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:1-12, 42:1-13, 49:1-13, 61:1-62:12 with 64:8-65:25; cf. also Hosea 2:14-3:5; Joel 3:9-21; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-5:5; Zechariah 3:1-10; etc.). The intimacy and harmony of the coming kingdom would be pervasive, defining every relationship within the created order and every creature’s relationship with its Creator. And as this relationship was to be secured by the Servant in His coming, so also it was to be bound up in Him: He would be the peace – the shalom – of Adam’s race and the whole creation over which man presides as image-son (Isaiah 9:1-7, 52:1-55:13; Jeremiah 33:1-16; Micah 5:1ff).
For all the diverse perspectives and imagery in the Scripture’s depiction of the coming kingdom of God, the promise of the kingdom was, at bottom, the promise of shalom, with all this concept entails and implies. And this being the case, the reality of shalom is the backdrop for Paul’s summary declaration that the consummate kingdom is the state of the created order in which God is “all in all.”
Some have interpreted Paul’s final clause (“in order that God may be all in all”) as modifying only the participial phrase immediately preceding it. In this case, Paul’s meaning is that God subjected all things to Christ in order that He (God) would be all in all. Though grammatically possible (and true in some sense), the context better supports connecting this final clause with the main clause and thus the sentence as a whole. Treated this way, Paul’s point was that God’s ultimate design for His relationship with His creation is that He should be “all in all,” and this consummate state is attained when Christ – with the whole creation in subjection to Him – subjects Himself to the Father. In this way the entire created order will be “summed up” in God by being summed up in Christ (ref. Ephesians 1:9-10); every created thing will be related to God in and through Jesus Christ.
The Scripture employs the concept of shalom to express this all-encompassing relationship, thus highlighting that shalom vastly transcends the human notion of “peace.” It connotes integrity or wholeness, and when considered in relation to the created order, it refers to the perfection and blessedness of complete creational harmony – harmony at every level and in every respect
The Old Testament prophets spoke of the coming kingdom as the glorious result of the Day of Yahweh – the day when He would arise and, once and for all, destroy His enemies, liberate His captive people and restore them and their desolate habitation to Himself. Many times in Israel’s history the Lord had intervened in this fashion on behalf of His covenant people, but each time His hand of deliverance and ingathering had not resolved the real issue: Each episode had left Israel in its state of alienation and enmity. The people may have been restored to the kingdom land and they might have experienced some degree of contrition and repentance, but their hearts remained estranged from their God.
The scriptural portrait of God’s triumph over His enemies was depicted primarily in terms of Israel’s national enemies – the human enemies of the theocratic kingdom. But a careful, consistent reading of the Old Testament prophets shows that Yahweh’s promise of conquest, liberation and ingathering looked beyond a national, geographical restoration for exiled Israel to the liberation and renewal of the whole created order (cf. Isaiah 7-12, 34:1-35:10, 42:1-45:25, 54:1-17, 65:1366:24; cf. also Daniel 2 and 7; Hosea 1-3; Joel 2-3; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-5:6; Zephaniah 3; Zechariah 14).
In the end, Yahweh would have to arise and exercise His conquering and liberating power so as to deliver Abraham’s children from themselves and their own self-enslavement. He would “circumcise their hearts to love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul in order that they would truly live” (Deuteronomy 30:6; cf. Isaiah 44:1-23; Ezekiel 37; etc.). The Day of Yahweh would involve His conquest of the enemies of His people and His creation, the greatest of which is death itself. Thus the triumph of God’s kingdom is His triumph over the creational curse. God’s true enemies – all of which the Son conquered – are all entities, structures and powers which contradict and oppose the shalomic design and order of His creation and His relationship with it.
The promise of the kingdom was the pledge of creational renewal. Most importantly, this was not to be the repair of the existing order, but the transformation of the creation that it should at last and forever attain to and experience the design for which God brought it into existence. Thus the prophets spoke of the kingdom in terms of the destruction of the curse and the ushering in of a creational order unknown in the present scheme of things. And at the heart of this new creational paradigm would be a Creator-creature intimacy and harmony utterly foreign to the present order – an intimacy centered in the ServantMessiah (cf. Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:1-12, 42:1-13, 49:1-13, 61:1-62:12 with 64:8-65:25; cf. also Hosea 2:14-3:5; Joel 3:9-21; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-5:5; Zechariah 3:1-10; etc.). The intimacy and harmony of the coming kingdom would be pervasive, defining every relationship within the created order and every creature’s relationship with its Creator. And as this relationship was to be secured by the Servant in His coming, so also it was to be bound up in Him: He would be the peace – the shalom – of Adam’s race and the whole creation over which man presides as image-son (Isaiah 9:1-7, 52:1-55:13; Jeremiah 33:1-16; Micah 5:1ff).
For all the diverse perspectives and imagery in the Scripture’s depiction of the coming kingdom of God, the promise of the kingdom was, at bottom, the promise of shalom, with all this concept entails and implies. And this being the case, the reality of shalom is the backdrop for Paul’s summary declaration that the consummate kingdom is the state of the created order in which God is “all in all.”
Some have interpreted Paul’s final clause (“in order that God may be all in all”) as modifying only the participial phrase immediately preceding it. In this case, Paul’s meaning is that God subjected all things to Christ in order that He (God) would be all in all. Though grammatically possible (and true in some sense), the context better supports connecting this final clause with the main clause and thus the sentence as a whole. Treated this way, Paul’s point was that God’s ultimate design for His relationship with His creation is that He should be “all in all,” and this consummate state is attained when Christ – with the whole creation in subjection to Him – subjects Himself to the Father. In this way the entire created order will be “summed up” in God by being summed up in Christ (ref. Ephesians 1:9-10); every created thing will be related to God in and through Jesus Christ.
The Scripture employs the concept of shalom to express this all-encompassing relationship, thus highlighting that shalom vastly transcends the human notion of “peace.” It connotes integrity or wholeness, and when considered in relation to the created order, it refers to the perfection and blessedness of complete creational harmony – harmony at every level and in every respect
Now I understand.
You are saying OT prophecies are written in spiritual language, which needs to be literalised. That is a completely novel proposition, the exact opposite of what other futurists maintain.
The normal futurist argument is that OT prophecies are written in literal language that should be interpreted literally, particularly relating to literal Israel.
We would maintain that the literal language of OT prophecies should be understood as predicting Christ and the New Covenant Church, the present spiritual Gospel kingdom of God, its citizens being all true Christians.
It has been suggested that an infinite number of monkeys typing for infinite years would type the works of Shakespeare. Their spokesmonkey reports progress - "we are successfully typing TweetY's posts."
My understanding is that the church has saved jews within it, as those would be Israel, the jews who have been saved by God!
This is Not the Way to Answer This Bible Question • Gary DeMar
Piper writes, “when the New Testament speaks of the Lord being near or at the gates or at hand, it is not teaching a necessary time frame for the Lord’s appearance.” Contrary to what he argues, the word “near” or “at hand” does address a time frame that is in the near future of the present audience. The Greek word ἐγγύς (engus), often translated as “near” or “at hand,” carries the following definition in terms of “time”: “concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass: Matthew 24:32; Matthew 26:18; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:30, 31; John 2:13; John 6:4; John 7:2; John 11:55; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:10 of the near advent of persons [Phil. 4:5] … at the door [Mt. 24:33; Mk. 13:29] … near to being cursed [near to disappear] [Heb. 8:13].” ((Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, “ἐγγύς,” 164-165.)) Also, “‘near, close by (regarding position: spiritually or physically); soon (near in time).’” Any concordance will show that ἐγγύς is almost always used to refer to what is near in terms of time and distance. I don’t recall any exceptions. Kenneth L. Gentry writes:
I urge you: Check any modern English translation. Consult your own favorite version. You will discover that they all speak of temporal nearness… This word commonly speaks of events near in time, such as an approaching Passover (Matt 26:18), the coming of summer (Matt. 24:32), and a soon occurring festival (John 2:13). Again, check any modern version; the results will be the same. (The Book of Revelation Made Easy (Powder Springs, GA: American vision Press, 2010), 19.))
Notice how ἐγγύς is used in Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:8, 20, 28, 30, 31). Does ἐγγύς mean something different in each of these verses?
What about, “so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He/it is near, right at the doors” (Matt. 24:33)? Notice that “near” means “right at the doors.” What does “right at the doors mean”? It certainly doesn’t mean some doors in a distant country in a distant time. Who would ever say “it’s right at the doors” and mean a set of doors far in the distance or in another era? In Revelation 3:20 we find, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” We see something similar in the epistle of James:
“Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door” (vv. 7-9).
Piper writes, “when the New Testament speaks of the Lord being near or at the gates or at hand, it is not teaching a necessary time frame for the Lord’s appearance.” Contrary to what he argues, the word “near” or “at hand” does address a time frame that is in the near future of the present audience. The Greek word ἐγγύς (engus), often translated as “near” or “at hand,” carries the following definition in terms of “time”: “concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass: Matthew 24:32; Matthew 26:18; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:30, 31; John 2:13; John 6:4; John 7:2; John 11:55; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:10 of the near advent of persons [Phil. 4:5] … at the door [Mt. 24:33; Mk. 13:29] … near to being cursed [near to disappear] [Heb. 8:13].” ((Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, “ἐγγύς,” 164-165.)) Also, “‘near, close by (regarding position: spiritually or physically); soon (near in time).’” Any concordance will show that ἐγγύς is almost always used to refer to what is near in terms of time and distance. I don’t recall any exceptions. Kenneth L. Gentry writes:
I urge you: Check any modern English translation. Consult your own favorite version. You will discover that they all speak of temporal nearness… This word commonly speaks of events near in time, such as an approaching Passover (Matt 26:18), the coming of summer (Matt. 24:32), and a soon occurring festival (John 2:13). Again, check any modern version; the results will be the same. (The Book of Revelation Made Easy (Powder Springs, GA: American vision Press, 2010), 19.))
Notice how ἐγγύς is used in Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:8, 20, 28, 30, 31). Does ἐγγύς mean something different in each of these verses?
What about, “so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He/it is near, right at the doors” (Matt. 24:33)? Notice that “near” means “right at the doors.” What does “right at the doors mean”? It certainly doesn’t mean some doors in a distant country in a distant time. Who would ever say “it’s right at the doors” and mean a set of doors far in the distance or in another era? In Revelation 3:20 we find, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” We see something similar in the epistle of James:
“Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door” (vv. 7-9).
Congratulations TweetY - you are the top poster on this thread.
43 of 135
We agree that the Church includes Jews, and has from Pentecost onwards. Paul writes that Gentiles believers in Christ are included in the commonwealth of Israel. Ephesians 2
Are you now saying that as saved Jews are Israel, those unsaved Israelis occupying a country they call "Israel" are not Israel? It would help us AND you also to understand what you write if you always quote Scripture to support what you write.
Paul stated that not all Israel is Israel, as only Jews who trust in Jesus are the Heirs of Abraham, correct?
Agreed. That means that the Israelis have no valid claim on Palestine. Also unbelieving Jews are not Abraham's heirs. Only when they turn to Christ in repentance and faith do they become Abraham's descendants and heirs according to the promises. Galatians 3.
The Jews still have that claim. but only the last generation alive at second coming will have that fulfilled!
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:30 AM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:30 AM Pacific.
- Status