'The Great Commission' Given To Israel

[kyredneck]

Yeshua, Israel under the law of Moses had no "good news" to preach.

They did have a covenant with God that required circumcision whether natural born Israeli citizen or proselyte, 613 rules to be kept and a curse if one didn't keep everyone of them.

A really hard sell.

HankD

Zactly.

"Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Acts 15:10

 

[Iconoclast]

Here we see what God expected them to know and live accordingly;
and what we are to learn now

From John Owen on Hebrews12-

The Socinian expositor, who affects subtilty and curiosity, affirms, “That
by mount Sion, either heaven itself, or rather a spiritual mountain, whose
roots are on the earth, and whose top reacheth unto heaven, from whence
we may easily enter into heaven itself, is intended:” wherein he understood
nothing himself of what he wrote; for it is not sense, nor to be understood.
And the reason he gives, namely, “That Sion in the Scripture is more
frequently taken for heaven than the church,” is so far from truth, that he
cannot give any one instance where it is so taken.
But to know the true reason why the apostle calls the state of believers under the new testament
by the name of Sion, we may consider some of the things that are spoken of Sion in the Scripture. And I shall instance in a few only, because theyare multiplied throughout the whole Book of God; as,
(1.) It is the place of God’s habitation, where he dwells for ever, Psalm 9:11, 76:2;Joel 3:21, etc.

(2.) It is the seat of the throne, reign, and kingdom of Christ,
Psalm 2:6; Isaiah 24:23; Micah 4:7.

(3.) It is the object of divine promises innumerable, Psalm
69:35, Isaiah 1:27; of Christ himself, Isaiah 59:20.

(4.) Thence did the gospel proceed, and the law of Christ come
forth,Isaiah 40:9; Micah 4:2.

(5.) It was the object of God’s especial love, and the place of the
birth of the elect, Psalm 87:2,5.

(6.) The joy of the whole earth, Psalm 48:2.

(7.) Salvation, and all blessings came forth out of Sion, Psalm
14:7, 110:2, 128:5; with sundry other things alike glorious.
147
Now these things were not spoken of nor accomplished towards that
mount Sion which was in Jerusalem absolutely, but only as it was typical of
believers under the gospel.
So the meaning of the apostle is, that by the
gospel believers do come unto that state wherein they have an interest in,
and a right unto, all the blessed and glorious things that are spoken in the
Scriptures concerning and unto Sion.

All the privileges ascribed, all the
promises made unto it, are theirs. Sion is the place of God’s especial
gracious residence, of the throne of Christ in his reign, the subject of all
graces, the object of all promises, as the Scripture abundantly testifies.
This is the first privilege of believers under the gospel. They “come unto
mount Sion;” that is, they are interested in all the promises of God made
unto Sion, recorded in the Scripture, in all the love and care of God
expressed towards it, in all the spiritual glories assigned unto it. The things
spoken of it were never accomplished in the earthly Sion, but only
typically; spiritually,

 

[Iconoclast]

I also enjoy how Owen offers these portions of scripture:


This, therefore, is “the general assembly of the first-born, written” or enrolled “in heaven,” namely, the elect of God, called, and by gratuitous adoption interested in all the privileges of the first-born; that is, made coheirs with Christ and heirs of God, or of the whole heavenly inheritance.

But although this is comprehensive of them all in all generations, yet believers come in a peculiar manner unto them of whom the church of God doth consist in the days of their profession. And further to make out this glorious privilege, we may observe, —
Obs. 8. That Jesus Christ alone is absolutely the first-born and heir of all. See the exposition on chapter 1:2, where this is handled at
large. He is the first-born among the elect, the eldest brother in the family of God, whereunto are annexed dominion and power over
the whole creation; whence he is called “The first-born of every
creature,” Colossians 1:15.

Obs. 9. Under the old testament, the promises of Christ, and that he was to proceed from that people according to the flesh, gave the
title of sonship unto the church of Israel. So God calls them “his son, his first-born,” Exodus 4:22; because the holy seed was preserved in them. So these words of the prophet, Hosea 11:1,
“When Israel was a child I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt,” are applied by the evangelist unto the person of Christ,
Matthew 2:15.
For although they were first spoken of the whole church of Israel, yet were they not so upon their own
account, but of His alone who was to come forth of them.

 

[kyredneck]

:thumbs: Excellent application of Edwards here Icon; it’s odd, I’ve always liked and greatly respected him but I don’t own a book of his, only have read fragments of his writings. He sounds a whoooole lot like a PB here:

“….that by the gospel believers do come unto that state wherein they have an interest in,
and a right unto, all the blessed and glorious things that are spoken in the Scriptures concerning and unto Sion.

All the privileges ascribed, all the promises made unto it, are theirs. Sion is the place of God’s especial
gracious residence, of the throne of Christ in his reign, the subject of all graces, the object of all promises, as the Scripture abundantly testifies. This is the first privilege of believers under the gospel. They “come unto mount Sion;” that is, they are interested in all the promises of God made unto Sion, recorded in the Scripture, in all the love and care of God expressed towards it, in all the spiritual glories assigned unto it…..”

That’s what we refer to as gospel or temporal salvation; with the most common intent in the use of the word ‘saved’ in the NT is those ‘born from above’ being made whole by entering into the benefits of the kingdom here on earth.

Again, I loved your use of Edwards here; duty calls, have to go, I may comment more later.

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbs: Excellent application of Edwards here Icon; it’s odd, I’ve always liked and greatly respected him but I don’t own a book of his, only have read fragments of his writings. He sounds a whoooole lot like a PB here:

“….that by the gospel believers do come unto that state wherein they have an interest in,
and a right unto, all the blessed and glorious things that are spoken in the Scriptures concerning and unto Sion.

All the privileges ascribed, all the promises made unto it, are theirs. Sion is the place of God’s especial
gracious residence, of the throne of Christ in his reign, the subject of all graces, the object of all promises, as the Scripture abundantly testifies. This is the first privilege of believers under the gospel. They “come unto mount Sion;” that is, they are interested in all the promises of God made unto Sion, recorded in the Scripture, in all the love and care of God expressed towards it, in all the spiritual glories assigned unto it…..”

That’s what we refer to as gospel or temporal salvation; with the most common intent in the use of the word ‘saved’ in the NT is those ‘born from above’ being made whole by entering into the benefits of the kingdom here on earth.

Again, I loved your use of Edwards here; duty calls, have to go, I may comment more later.

I enjoy reading both Jonathan Edwards and John Owen upon occasion,and will quote from both....This one was John Owen, from his Hebrews commentary.

I started reading to see his comments on vs 25-29 but did not get that far as I enjoyed these portions which speak of so great a salvation as we have been blessed with.....Now I will look ahead and see what he says on that:laugh:

Any Christian should both rejoice and enjoy such teaching. Some who speak against reading teachers, or as they say dead saints, fail to grasp they are alive still and their teaching lives on.

 

[OldRegular]

I have Owen's seven volume commentary on Hebrews. Intended to read it after retiring. The problem with the old Saints like Gill and Owens is that they get so wound up in what they are writing they forget that there is a punctuation mark called the Period.

Someone has condensed Owens 7 volume set on Hebrews to one volume. I believe Hebrews properly understood is one of the more useful books in the Bible. It presents an excellent contrast of the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have Owen's seven volume commentary on Hebrews. Intended to read it after retiring. The problem with the old Saints like Gill and Owens is that they get so wound up in what they are writing they forget that there is a punctuation mark called the Period.

Someone has condensed Owens 7 volume set on Hebrews to one volume. I believe Hebrews properly understood is one of the more useful books in the Bible. It presents an excellent contrast of the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant.

That is exactly how I feel about reading some of these men...Owen can go really in depth as I think he also wrote for the benefit of students who would like to really examine the original language.

I only read small portions of Him as a rule in that...The verses he offers send me all over the bible and he triggers many other useful thoughts so much so that I get side tracked and study out a whole different topic than what I was intending to...lol...

Most of the Commentaries I have bought are on Hebrews[ OWEN, Gouge, Brown, Pink, Newell, Hughes, Calvin, Henry,} as it is a veritable gold mine of study on the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ....mainly His eternal working as our Great High Priest.

I am convinced that Hebrews 10-12 speaks as much toward endtimes as does the book of revelation.....it reveals His oversight over the growing kingdom.

I am working on the idea that Hebrews 2: 4-8 and Hebrews 10-12 give us the battle plan for Kingdom activity , growth and service:wavey:
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him




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.
:thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

I also have Hughes Commentary on Hebrews and one by Kistemaker and of course Henry.

I also have a commentary on Revelation by Hughes. It is fairly short and, unlike many, a commentary that one can read. It is, to me, much like a devotional book.

Kistemaker took over the series by Hendricksen after his death. Have his commentary on Revelation which replaces Hendricksen's More Than Conquerors but is three times as long.

 

[kyredneck]

I enjoy reading both Jonathan Edwards and John Owen upon occasion,and will quote from both....This one was John Owen, from his Hebrews commentary.

Ain't that something? I read Owen but my sub-conscious sees Edwards; oh well, probably because they were both named John and were both prominent Puritans. I've always admired Edwards for his determination and resolve to be the best he could be; his method reminds me of autosuggestion or self hypnosis or something along those lines.

I have Owen's seven volume commentary on Hebrews. Intended to read it after retiring. The problem with the old Saints like Gill and Owens is that they get so wound up in what they are writing they forget that there is a punctuation mark called the Period.

Lol! So true. Those guys were very thorough in their explanations back then, Edersheim is another that takes 10,000 words to say what would be better articulated in 1000 today.

That is exactly how I feel about reading some of these men...Owen can go really in depth as I think he also wrote for the benefit of students who would like to really examine the original language.

I only read small portions of Him as a rule in that...

You're using them as a reference Icon, much as I do, and I suspect the majority of students of the word do also.

 

[kyredneck]

...I also have a commentary on Revelation by Hughes. It is fairly short and, unlike many, a commentary that one can read. It is, to me, much like a devotional book....

Would you consider Hughes as following an Idealist approach to the Book? Idealism has always reminded me of devotional reading.

 

[Iconoclast]

I also have Hughes Commentary on Hebrews and one by Kistemaker and of course Henry.

I also have a commentary on Revelation by Hughes. It is fairly short and, unlike many, a commentary that one can read. It is, to me, much like a devotional book.

Kistemaker took over the series by Hendricksen after his death. Have his commentary on Revelation which replaces Hendricksen's More Than Conquerors but is three times as long.

yes...I have that one also...:laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

Would you consider Hughes as following an Idealist approach to the book of Revelation?

 

[OldRegular]

Would you consider Hughes as following an Idealist approach to the Book? Idealism has always reminded me of devotional reading.

Yes Hughes takes an idealist approach, an approach which I believe makes for a more credible understanding of Revelation.. I believe that taking an idealist approach permits use of the historicist interpretation on occasion. However the historicist approach alone simply runs out of time.

Hendricksen, Kistemaker, and the New Geneva Bible, now the Reformation Bible, see the Book of Revelation as presenting the battle between good and evil in seven different pictures. The seals, trumpets, and bowls are easily seen. Hendricksen and Kistemaker include the letters to the seven Churches as one of the seven, a mistake in my opinion. The New Geneva Bible has a much better concept in my opinion, a concept I used some years ago when I taught the Book of Revelation to a senior adult SS class.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes Hughes takes an idealist approach, an approach which I believe makes for a more credible understanding of Revelation.. I believe that taking an idealist approach permits use of the historicist interpretation on occasion. However the historicist approach alone simply runs out of time.

Hendricksen, Kistemaker, and the New Geneva Bible, now the Reformation Bible, see the Book of Revelation as presenting the battle between good and evil in seven different pictures. The seals, trumpets, and bowls are easily seen. Hendricksen and Kistemaker include the letters to the seven Churches as one of the seven, a mistake in my opinion. The New Geneva Bible has a much better concept in my opinion, a concept I used some years ago when I taught the Book of Revelation to a senior adult SS class.

However one teaches on revelation, need to take into accoun that some of still has of yet a future fulfillment!