Physical Kingdom Problems

Why not just read what it says and believe it? There might be some details we don't fully understand yet, but the solution is not to trounce on one and mangle another.

@Dave_L said:

I agree for the most part with the idea. But we cannot import OT terms without first running them through Christ and the NT writers who redefine them for us.

Bro. Dave,

May I remind you that the self-testimony of the Bible about its own reliability and usefulness is instructive. Paul underscores the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and commends its total adequacy in 2 Tim. 3:14-17:

• But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture "owes its origin and content to divine breath" (See Hendrikson); it is the product of God's "creative fiat" (See Packer). The manner in which the Scriptures were "breathed out by God" is not addressed in this passage.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation..." (2 Pet. 1:20-21). If it is the case, Peter is referring to the corpus of Scripture with the phrase "prophecy of Scripture" then this is a strong statement about the divine control over the writers of Scripture (See Pinnock).

This high regard for the Hebrew scriptures was extended to the New Testament corpus in time. In 1 Tim. 5:18, Paul quotes two passages, one from Deuteronomy (25:4) and one found in Luke 10:7. He makes no distinction of value between the two and introduces both with the formula: "Scripture says...." Already at this early stage in the development of the canon, part of the biblical tradition which later was expressed in the New Testament writings was considered on par with the Hebrew Scriptures.

There are several words that the Old Testament uses for "fountain" and "spring." The most common words are found:

• 1 Sam 29:1
• Prov 5:18
• Eccl 12:6

The term "spring" is used in a variety of ways:

• It is used for a woman's menstrual discharge (Lev 20:18)
• A source of life (Pss 36:9; 68:26)
• An allusion to a sexual intercourse (Prov 5:18)
• In a figurative speech (Jer 9:1)

Usually, the OT's usages of "water," in general and of "springs of water," in particular, have literal meanings.

• "And they came to Elim, where were twelve springs of water, and threescore and ten palm-trees: and they encamped there by the waters" (Exod 15:27). "And they journeyed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve springs of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they encamped there" (Num 33:9).

In addition, there are 16 passages in the Fourth Gospel (John 4:14, 48; 6:35, 37; 8:12, 51, 52; 10:5, 28; 11:26; 13:8, 38; 18:11) reveals in the the doctrine of salvation sayings of Jesus points to Him as the fulfillment of OT messianic expectations, His divine status, and the nature of His messiahship.

Jesus used and read from the OT. We must note first, and know, the "OT terms", who spoke them, to whom, and their original meaning to the original audiences before "running them through Christ and the NT writers". In this order and direction, only; and then, see if there is any redefinition by Christ or other NT Writers. The other way around is putting the cart before the horse. Now, Dave, do you see light in doing it this way? CM

SOURCES:

-- Hendriksen, W. (1957). New Testament commentary: Exposition of the pastoral epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker., pg 302.
-- Packer, J. I. (1979). God has spoken. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity., pg 98.
-- Pinnock, Clark H. (1971). Biblical revelation: The foundation of Christian theology. Chicago: Moody.

@Dave_L said:
If you do not redefine OT words and concepts according to the NT, you drag false concepts and prophecy into Revelation and add to John's words and meanings. John sternly warns against adding or taking away from the Book.

I would say that redefining words is already the problem and adds or takes away from what the text actually communicates.
Instead of "redefining" words and concepts, I would suggest to properly understand how words and concepts have been already defined.

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
If you do not redefine OT words and concepts according to the NT, you drag false concepts and prophecy into Revelation and add to John's words and meanings. John sternly warns against adding or taking away from the Book.

I would say that redefining words is already the problem and adds or takes away from what the text actually communicates.
Instead of "redefining" words and concepts, I would suggest to properly understand how words and concepts have been already defined.

If Jesus is the Temple along with us, how do you drag a physical temple into the mix? Or if Jesus IS Israel, wouldn't that change the landscape quite a bit? "" "" ""

Jesus didn't say he is the temple. He said "this temple" as in there are obviously more than one temple.

@Dave_L said:
If Jesus is the Temple along with us, how do you drag a physical temple into the mix?

I don't make Jesus=Temple nor do I propose a physical temple to be in the picture after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD70

Or if Jesus IS Israel, wouldn't that change the landscape quite a bit? "" "" ""

I don't make "Jesus=Israel", but my landscape is quite different from what most interpret into the book of Revelation

Your particular problem is that you start out with wrong premises (such as the two you mention above) and of course you are then ending with incorrect conclusions

@Wolfgang said:

@GaoLu said:
Why not just read what it says and believe it?

Indeed ... why make "soon" to supposedly mean 2000 years plus an unknown time period into the future?

There might be some details we don't fully understand yet, but the solution is not to trounce on one and mangle another.

Well, I would think that you know rather well that there are matters which are exclusive of each other? For example, to be "married" and to be "single" are exclusive of each other in that a person at a given time can NOT be both. A short time frame such as "soon" or "shortly" can NOT be a long time frame such as "not for a long time".

Dave,
The role of the Old Testament. Revelation is filled with the incidents, the thought, and the language of the Old Testament, not in major quotations, but in allusions: a word here, a phrase there, a name, or a place. Determining the Old Testament background texts is crucial to understanding the message of the book.

1:1 "of Jesus Christ". Can mean the message comes from Jesus, is about Him, or both. "must shortly take place".

The Bible always presents the end as near (Matt. 16:28; 1 Thess. 4:16–17).

An allusion to Dan. 2:28, 45. Revelation is modeled on the style and content of Dan. 2: sequences of history in symbolic format. signified it. Using symbolic language about the future (John 21:19; Acts 11:28)

Sir. Wolfgang, please note the texts below. It may help explain Rev 1:1, "soon" or "shortly", and yet the 2000 plus years. I think this view is sensible and reasonable. After all, you nor I am God.

• The Revelation of Jesus Christ, [John 3:32] which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must ["quickly" or "swiftly"] shortly take place. And [Rev 22:6] He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John. (Re 1:3).

• Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for [James 5:8; Rev. 22:10] the time is near. (Re 1:3).

• "And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony" (Jn 3:32).

• “For yet a little while, And He [Luke 18:8] who [Or that which] is coming will come and will not tarry. (Heb 10:37).

I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8).

• "Speedily". May refer to His diligent work to bring all things to completion, or to the sudden nature of His coming, when complete justice will be accomplished (2 Pet. 3:9).

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Pe 3:8).

• Peter explains two reasons for the delay:

  • (1)God and humans experience time differently (2 Pe 3:8) and
  • (2) God is patient with us, waiting for us to repent (2 Pe 3:9).
    ** to the sudden nature of His coming, when complete justice will be accomplished

• 4 For a thousand years in Your sight
  Are like yesterday when it is past,
  And like a watch in the night. (Ps 90:4).

In short, God's "quickly", "swiftly", or shortly to take place is not man's. Let's keep the faith and be patient. CM

@Dave_L said:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19–21)

John 2:19-21 does nowhere say that Jesus is the temple ...
Also, to which temple are you referring? Also, which body was raised up in three days? Was Jesus speaking about his resurrection 3 days and 3 nights after his death and burial?

"But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19–21)

You know, I can read .... you seem to be unable to answer the most simple question

@GaoLu said:
How can you argue with logic like that?

You don't. Explain the passage in its context. CM

@GaoLu said:

@C_M_ said:

You don't. Explain the passage in its context. CM

Sometimes you really do make sense. There is a side to you I respect, even like. I will have you drinking coffee yet, at at least vegan tea.

I make sense all the time! You are a bit anemic in your affirmation, but the truth stands true, even if not recognized. I share for the glory of God and not for man's praise.

Just because we don't agree on points or approaches, it doesn't mean I am speaking nonsense.

Which one of these texts are you going to unpack for the gentleman and the glory of God? CM

• PS. The "Physical Kingdom Problems" are not with the Kingdom, but with a teachable spirit, priority, and biblical interpretations. Thinking out loud. CM

In regards to Roman 11:28:
With respect to the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but with respect to election, they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (LEB Romans 11:28-29)

I found the following points of view represented in my Logos Library:

F.F. Bruce

At present the mass of unbelieving Jews have a dual character in God’s eyes. They are the temporary objects of His displeasure, having opposed and rejected the gospel. This was intended for the benefit of the Gentiles so that they might have the opportunity of receiving it (cf. v. 11). But simultaneously they are the objects of His election-love as heirs of the glorious Israel of old (cf. v. 16 n.), since the never-changing God does not take back a gift or cancel a summons. 30 f. Now the Gentile Christian had passed from rebellion to pardon; so would the Jew one day. As for the Gentile the present is a reversal of the past, so for the Jew the future will be a reversal of the present. Now the Jew is serving the Gentile as the means of God’s pardoning the latter; the Gentile is to serve the Jew as the means of pardoning the Jew. 32. God gave up one class of man, the Gentiles, to rebellion as a preliminary to pardoning him now; so God is now treating the other class, the Jews, in preparation for granting them pardon later on.

Bruce, F. F. New International Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979. Print.

R.C. Sproul:

Today, Israel and the church are not on friendly terms: As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable (verses 28, 29). God made a covenant with his people and he made promises to save them as a nation. In his electing grace, he will keep that covenant and will bring about the restoration of the Jewish people. God chose the Jews as his people, and the purpose which he had in view can never be altered. It was his purpose that they should be his people for ever, and for that to take place there must be a future restoration and their inclusion in his kingdom. This covenant of God will be fully and finally accomplished.

See how God’s plan works out? The Jews are given the blessing; they reject the blessing and the blessing is given to the Gentiles; the Gentiles are brought in, but then after that the Jews are brought back

Sproul, R. C. The Gospel of God: An Exposition of Romans. Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1994. Print.

Tom Constable:

Under the present economy God views Israel’s physical descendants as a whole as His enemies because of their unbelief. They are “enemies” of His, however, for the sake of the Gentiles to whom He extends grace in this period of Jewish unbelief. However from the standpoint of their national election for a special purpose, they are the objects of His love because of the patriarchs.

Constable, Tom. Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible. Galaxie Software, 2003. Print.

The Apologetics Study Bible:

11:25–26 Paul showed here that hardening is not a permanent sentence against Israel, even though it resulted from their rejection of the message about Christ. First, he reaffirmed that only a part of Israel was hardened. That is, many Jews of Paul’s day did acknowledge Jesus as Lord and were saved. Nevertheless, at the end of the age, the Jews will turn en masse to Christ (or some believe that Jews throughout the church age will respond to the gospel). When Paul stated that all Israel will be saved, he did not intend “all” without exception but “all” as in a very large number (see 1 Sm 25:1; 1 Kg 12:1; 2 Ch 12:1; Is 45:25; Dn 9:11; Mk 1:5; Lk 3:21; Acts 13:24). Paul used similar connotations for “all” and “many” in Rm 5:18–19 (cp. a similar usage of “all” in 11:32).

Cabal, Ted et al. The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007. Print.

Holman Bible Handbook:

11:25–36 Israel in His Purpose

Israel’s alienation is not necessarily final. God still has a future and purpose for Israel (11:25–26). The Gentiles are saved by a temporary hardening of Israel, which will continue until the “full number of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25). Still, within God’s purposes “all Israel will be saved” (11:26–27). Paul concluded this section by praising the marvelous wisdom of God demonstrated in His purposes for both Jews and Gentiles (11:33–36).

Dockery, David S., ed. Holman Bible Handbook. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992. Print.

KJV Study Bible:

11:26–32. And so all Israel shall be saved: National salvation will come to Israel. This is the ultimate fulfillment of the new covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31–34) ... Paul weaves together Psalm 14:7, Isaiah 59:20, 21, and Jeremiah 31:31 to show that he understood the Old Testament literally and that the Old Testament prophesied Israel’s deliverance from sin. God cannot do otherwise because of His promises to the fathers and His unconditional covenants. God has set Israel aside temporarily for the sake of the Gentiles, but He has not forgotten them because of His promise to the fathers.

King James Version Study Bible . electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997. Print.

@Dave_L said:
I'm interested in your understanding of Romans 11. The way I see it, the broken off unbelievers are reattached through faith. Wouldn't this make Jesus Israel, as Paul and Matthew affirm?

Logic? how would the fact that Gentiles are grafted in to the body of believers make Jesus to be Israel ? and where do Paul or Matthew affirm that Jesus is Israel ? (Note: your supposed proof from mixing Mat 2 and Hos 11 is plain incorrect, as Hos 11:1 is NOT speaking about the Messiah, but about the children of Israel in their history as a people coming out of Egypt and entering the land under Joshua)

As for Rom 11, it seems rather clear to me that the "ALL Israel ... saved" is not about "all natural descendants of the Biblical tribes of Israel without exception will be saved", but teaches that even though the large majority of national Israel rejected the Messiah and was broken off, the door now open in Christ even to all Gentiles to be saved remained also open to all of natural Israel ... and for both the way to salvation was to believe in Messiah Jesus and his accomplished work of redemption and salvation.