Covenant Relationships & the Bible as Literature

[Wormwood]

In this thread we are going to focus on two overlapping concepts: the covenant relationships in the Bible and how to understand the message of various books in the Bible as literary works. First, the latter needs to be flushed out in my opinion before a proper understanding of the former can be reached.

The Bible is literature. It consists of different genres of writing and each book of the Bible has a different literary function. This is not to say that the Bible is not historically true. However, the Biblical authors were not 21st century Westerners. The Bible consists of different genres such as poetry, wisdom literature, apocalyptic literature, narratives, parables, epistles and so forth. Anyone reading the Psalms and trying to understand them as one would understand an investigative report will walk away scratching their head. This is even true of the Gospels which are predominately narrative. Here is a synopsis of each Gospel to give an idea of what I am getting at.

Matthew: Matthew's Gospel was written in a way so that the Jewish community would understand and believe Jesus to be the promised Messiah. Matthew's genealogy is very different from Luke's because his focus is to not give scientific account of Jesus' birth record but to show how Jesus is tied to David (which makes him in the proper lineage to be qualified as a king of Israel). Matthew employs the term "kingdom of heaven" over 50x in his Gospel. His focus is on the kingdom and why Jesus is the rightful king. For the Jews in the first century, a crucified peasant was the last thing they would expect as their Messiah. Yet Matthew seeks to show why the cross is the grandest display of Christ's claim as the king. Matthew could tell thousands of stories of what Jesus said and did, but he focuses on those things which pertain to him as the Messiah, the Son of God. Matthew spends a great deal of time focusing on Jesus' confrontations with the religious leaders to show how the life of Jesus properly displays the heart of God in contrast to those who are consumed with superficiality.

Mark: Mark's Gospel has a different aim. In my opinion, this Gospel is geared toward persecuted followers. How does one rightly follow Jesus? Mark begins with a clear declaration that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. However, what proceeds in his Gospel is absolute confusion and chaos. The religious leaders think Jesus is possessed by a demon, the disciples are continually confounded by Jesus and ask, "Who is this man?" The family of Jesus think he is crazy. Yet those who are not supposed to understand him see clearly. The demons proclaim him to be the Son of God. The unclean approach him with reverence and awe. The Roman soldier proclaims at the cross, "Surely this man was the Son of God!' The climax of the book occurs at the very end. If we go with the more likely ending of the book based on textual evidence, it should conclude with the women fleeing the tomb with the statement, "And they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid." Mark's gospel makes the reader frustrated by these people who should know by the power and working of Christ that he is the Son of God who should be followed. The reader cannot help but examine their own life of obedience as they reflect on the dullness of those who should have understood and responded better.

Luke: Luke's Gospel is directed at Gentiles. Luke could have employed a ton of different stories, but he focuses on those that are inclusive of all people. Luke's genealogy display Jesus to be the "Son of God." Thus the aim is far grander than mere Israel and includes all people. Luke's gospel includes parables such as the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and Lost Son and regularly highlights Gentiles, widows, tax collectors and outcasts as those who, by their faith in Jesus have a place at Abraham's table. Luke focuses on not merely Jesus comments to the "poor in Spirit" but to the weak and poor in society. Luke focuses on what true greatness looks like...not power and lordship, but service and humility. Even on the cross, Luke includes a dying thief as one who is welcomed and received by Jesus. Luke is just the first part of a two part series of how the Gospel of Jesus embraces all people everywhere (Part 2 is Acts).

John: John's gospel has a later date and is focused on core doctrinal truths of who Jesus is. By this time, heresies have begun to creep into the church about the person and work of Jesus. John's letter highlights core truths about who Jesus is that must be believed in order to "have life" in his name. John highlights 7 miracles of Jesus. Each miracle displays a core truth about Jesus' identity. For instance, when Jesus raises Lazarus, he proclaims himself to be "the resurrection and the life." When he heals the blind man he proclaims himself as the "light of the world." When he feeds the 5,000 he proclaims that he is the "bread of life." He also focuses on the reality of the bodily death and resurrection by including scenes of the disciples touching Jesus and watching him eat fish.

Each book in the Bible has a purpose. When you understand that purpose, you can understand the author's intent and what it communicates about Jesus and the Gospel. Don't get me wrong. I am not by any means saying that the stories of Jesus are made up! Certainly not! What I am saying is that these disciples had 3.5 years of material to choose from regarding the life and ministry of Jesus (not to mention the birth narratives) and they selected specific stories, encounters, miracles and details for a purpose. These are not mere historical records, but are works of literature that seek to communicate very specific messages (which are very true by the way!).

As we understand the New Testament and its teachings, it will help us gain an understanding of how these authors understood Jesus' relationship to the Old Testament and how these two work together in God's grand plan for humanity. I look forward to the ensuing discussions.

 

[veteran]

I would warn brethren about the above approach, which is a type of secular approach, because it is a very limited 'milk' view of The Four Gospel Books and Bible in general.

In the Book of Matthew, the geneaological list of Matt.1 is real and historical, but it is NOT Christ's bloodline lineage from Mary. It is instead Joseph's lineage, Mary's husband. In Luke 3 Christ's bloodline lineage is given from Mary. This is very important, because the dividing point from the lineage of David is that Joesph descended from David's son Solomon, while Mary and thus our Lord Jesus descended from David's other son Nathan per Luke 3. Thus both lineages are indeed... scientific, according to birth record.

Even early in Matthew 4, we see Jesus going to Galilee of the Gentiles to preach the Gospel, proclaiming the Kingdom, fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 9. It is grossly wrong to think that was meant only for Jews. Even the servant of a Roman centurion Jesus healed per Matt.8. The northern parts of the holy lands which were the inheritances of the ten tribes like that of Zebulon and Naphtali and the areas of Samaria and Galilee where Jesus preached were mostly inhabited by Gentiles by that time of His first coming. The kings of Assyria had already removed the majority of the ten tribes by then, and had transplanted in their place foreign peoples from Babylon, which later became the Samaritans (2 Kings 17:18-24).

All... Four Gospel Books are for Christ's Church, and apply to Christ's Church equally.

God's Word from Genesis through Revelation is about a progressive Plan of God's Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ for ALL nations and peoples. The seed of Israel simply were to be the caretakers of that Plan and Gospel. This is why all Four Gospel Books have teachings from our Lord Jesus equally applicable to all... believers on Him, of both Israelites and Gentiles.

And furthermore, how would those approaching God's Holy Writ with a secularist view of literature ever understand how God's Word is laid out UNLIKE any other literature of the world? God's Word has an order given by The Holy Spirit that no other literature on earth can be compared to, further showing that It is not to be compared to the simple written works of man.

 

[Wormwood]

Veteran,

I do not think you understood at all what I wrote. I am not at all secularist...quite the opposite. Personally, I think there is no such thing as secularism from a Biblical point of view. Anyways, I thought I was very specific that the contents of the Bible are true. I never said the geneologies were not true nor did I say they conflict with one another. However, what I am saying is that the geneologies focus on specific individuals for a specific purpose. I didnt say Matthew was ONLY for Jews. I said it was focused on revealing Jesus as the promised Messiah to the Jewish people. Of course it is for the whole church (and the whole world for that matter).

However, what you fail to realize is that the literature of the Bible is, in fact, written using human language with grammatical rules that communicate ideas is specific ways. Thus, it follows the rules of linguistic communication. You are the one trying to impose a certain parameter for that communication based on a modern Western scientific mindset where the message of the authors is completely ignored for the sake of harmonizing historical data. Sure the Bible is historical, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not giving us mere historical facts. They were presenting the details of Jesus life in such a way as to communicate something specific about the identity of Jesus, or what needs to be believed about Jesus in order to have life (in John's case). John even tells us this is why he is writing. He didnt say, "I write these things to you so you will know the exact facts of everything Jesus said and did in proper chronological order." No, he wrote these things so people would believe. Believe what? Believe Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Believe Jesus is the light of the world. Believe Jesus is the bread of life, etc. The miracles of Jesus are in John are not mere historical records, but are windows to see the true identity of Jesus.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a raging liberal secularist who is seeking to destroy the faith.

 

[Pilgrimer]

I would certainly agree that the authors of the Gospels intended for those who read the Gospels to be convinced by those things which they reported that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. But where I have a problem is that on the one hand you concede that there is historical context to the Scriptures but then ignore the historical context in preference for a literary context that allows you to take verses completely out of context. Such as this:

Jesus is making two points in those verses...not one. Jesus coming in the glory of the Father with angels refers to the 2nd coming. Also, some will not taste death until they see the kingdom come in power, which refers to the establishment of the church. These are not talking about the same thing.

That was your observation on this passage:

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, These be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Now this is one teaching, one passage, all spoken in one breath, as it were. But while giving a nod to the immediate context of the passage, you instead appeal to a perceived literary context which allows you to lift the very middle of this teaching out of context:

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

The context here is definitely about events that would occur in the lifetime of the disciples.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

Now according to you this sentence which follows the previous and is connected to it with "for" is jumping 2000+ years into the future and talking about something totally unrelated to the previous sentence.

And you would have us believe that Jesus then suddenly and completely changes subjects again with the very next words:

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Again, this is obviously talking about events in the lifetime of the disciples.

So bottom line, brother, this is a classic example of taking something completely out of context and giving it meaning that actually contradicts the context in which it was spoken.

That is the objection that I have to your "literary context" argument you offer, simply the fact that you are using it to justify taking words out of context to maintain a particular eschatololgical view.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Wormwood]

Pilgrimer,

Thanks for responding. I think you are discounting the fact that there are two historical contexts at play here. First, there is the historical context of Jesus speaking to his disciples. Then, there is the historical context of Matthew writing to his listeners and their situation. For instance, when Jesus spoke of himself as the "bread of life" and discoursed on people eating his flesh and drinking his blood....clearly in their immediate context they were confused. However, John does not have to point to things like communion in his Gospel, because he was writing to a people who would have heard the words of Jesus and understood a fuller meaning because of their particular context as Christians.

I think you limit Jesus and the authors of Scripture unnessarily. Cannot Jesus have deeper meanings in his words than that which is only intended for his immediate audience? Does not the author of the Gospels have a point for his audience that goes beyond merely a one-to-one historical conversation between Jesus and his immediate listeners?

Regardless, I dont think any of this impacts the text we are discussing and I dont think I am taking it out of context. I already pointed out how Jesus often spoke beyond what his immediate hearers could understand...and why is it that Jesus cannot be making subsequent points in two different statements? Lets look at this passage...

Jesus speaks of someone following him...to the point of forsaking their own lives. This could be metaphorical or literal....probably both. We give our lives away to Jesus and that is how we find true meaning and fulfillment in life. However, a secondary meaning can be that if we die in obedience to Christ, death does not have the last word. For whats the point in obtaining everything in the world but losing one's very soul? So this passage is both about finding purpose and meaning in surrendering to Jesus as well as points to the resurrection and how the faithful will truly find life. Make sense?

So here we see that Jesus is making one statement with two layers of meanings that I think he intends.

The same is true for the next statment regarding Jesus judging every person according to their works at the coming Kingdom. Clearly this is a point to final judgment since contextually it is dealing with people who follow Jesus even to death. They are willing to lose the world to save their souls. Jesus will reward such individuals when he comes with the angels.

(I really cannot for the life of me see how this kind of statement can be pointing to 70AD. How can this previous context about sacrificing ones life have anything to do with the Romans crushing Jerusalem? Seems like a major stretch and very foreign to both the literary and historical context...why would these individuals Jesus is speaking to care about 70AD when what they are seeking is life and purpose from the Messiah???)

Then Jesus points to the fact that this Kingdom is not merely just a far off thing after people die, but is something they will experience! I think if you follow the statements and teachings about the Kingdom of heaven in the book of Matthew you will understand that it is both a "now and not yet" type of Kingdom. The kingdom is "at hand" but it is also not until the end of the age. It is a kingdom that is present and hidden like a treasure in a field, but it is also final and ultimate like fishers keeping good fish and tossing out the bad. So yes, Jesus is speaking both about final judgment and the present reality of the Kingdom here as he does throughout Matthew. Ultimately, this passage has a chiastic look to it.

You can save your life now, but you will not know true life.
You can gain the whole world, but forfiet your very soul.
Christ will reward the faithful on that final day.
Even now many of you will experience the kingdom.

Again, this seems very contextual and speaks both to Jesus' audience and Matthew's about the very point of the book of Matthew...the kingdom of heaven. Inserting 70AD here does not really make sense for Matthew's purpose and audience (decades before 70AD) and certainly does not make sense for Jesus' audience (a half a century away from 70AD).

 

[veteran]

Veteran,

I do not think you understood at all what I wrote. I am not at all secularist...quite the opposite. Personally, I think there is no such thing as secularism from a Biblical point of view. Anyways, I thought I was very specific that the contents of the Bible are true. I never said the geneologies were not true nor did I say they conflict with one another. However, what I am saying is that the geneologies focus on specific individuals for a specific purpose. I didnt say Matthew was ONLY for Jews. I said it was focused on revealing Jesus as the promised Messiah to the Jewish people. Of course it is for the whole church (and the whole world for that matter).

I never said you were a 'secularist'. Yet that's what a 'milk' teaching of God's Word today basically amounts to. The only proper way to cover what the Book of Matthew is really about is by doing it line upon line. The LORD knows there's already enough individualist study Bibles on today's market that try to give a summary of each Bible Book, when in reality many such summaries just impart the publisher's opinions.

However, what you fail to realize is that the literature of the Bible is, in fact, written using human language with grammatical rules that communicate ideas is specific ways. Thus, it follows the rules of linguistic communication. You are the one trying to impose a certain parameter for that communication based on a modern Western scientific mindset where the message of the authors is completely ignored for the sake of harmonizing historical data.

Well, that's where you are wrong, and you don't know me well enough to make that kind of judgment anyway.

I'm well aware of how the rules of grammar apply to lanaguage, including expressions, idioms, figures of speech, allegory, metaphor, parable, axiom, proverb, etc. Those things are used by God in His Word in order to actually make understanding easier, NOT more difficult.

I don't impose anything on God's Word. I'm more interested in the 'sense' of God's Messages in His Word than scientific data. But does God's Word contain science? You bet it does; if It didn't it would not be the Truth, nor would it align with His creation of this world.

There is such an idea of religious secularism, and that's actually what you're spouting. How do I mean that? Simply this; God's Word and His Way is not a 'religion'. His Truth is not... a religion. Religion is man's doing with thinking to attain His attributes; when we are compared to Him we are as filthy rags (Isa.64:6).

Sure the Bible is historical, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not giving us mere historical facts. They were presenting the details of Jesus life in such a way as to communicate something specific about the identity of Jesus, or what needs to be believed about Jesus in order to have life (in John's case). John even tells us this is why he is writing. He didnt say, "I write these things to you so you will know the exact facts of everything Jesus said and did in proper chronological order." No, he wrote these things so people would believe. Believe what? Believe Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Believe Jesus is the light of the world. Believe Jesus is the bread of life, etc. The miracles of Jesus are in John are not mere historical records, but are windows to see the true identity of Jesus.

Well now that actually is... the 'sense' of all Four Gospel Books, to provide a Witness of Christ's Mission and work of The Gospel according to those who were chosen by Him and that were with Him. But was that a NEW witness? No, because He had already foretold many of those events in the Gospel Books earlier through His Old Testament prophets. And our Lord Jesus continually quoted from the OT prophets to show just that. The Gospel Books provide a Witness of what God had promised coming to pass as written. That is actually what the whole of the New Testament Books are about, with the Four Gospels being the direct Witness concerning Christ's work at His first coming and His death and resurrection.

So what does it do to God's Purpose for those Four Gospel Books when man tries to categorize each one as if it were specifically addressed only to a certain people 'among' believers or unbelievers? Trying to do such categorizations like that is where the religious secularism shows up, which is part of the 'old bottles' stuff our Lord Jesus warned His about.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a raging liberal secularist who is seeking to destroy the faith.

Oh, I well realize that. The raging liberal secularist is easy to spot anyway. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing that are difficult for many to spot, and there are a couple of those here, but you're not one of them.

 

[Wormwood]

Well its nice to hear that at least there is some agreement and that you haven't assigned me to the pit of burning sulpher.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the only way to study God's Word is "line upon line." You should elaborate on that.

What do you mean I am spouting "religious secularism"? You should elaborate on your comments, especially if you are going to slap labels on people. Where did I ever say anything about religion or try to separate religion from other spheres of life (which is what secularism amounts to)??? I wouild appreciate it if you would cite quotes i have given on such matters. Otherwise, it only comes across as name-calling. I am more than eager to accept correction if I have misspoke or if you can show me to be in error on an issue. But if you just want to name-call as a means of boilstering your comments...then Im afraid it has the reverse effect.

I dont understand how the Gospels do not provide "new" witness. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ is wholly unique and new. He was an entirely new means of God revealing himself, he spoke of things that those in the past longed to hear but couldnt, and he instituted a new covenant.

 

[sanhedrin]

I dont understand how the Gospels do not provide "new" witness. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ is wholly unique and new. He was an entirely new means of God revealing himself, he spoke of things that those in the past longed to hear but couldnt, and he instituted a new covenant.

The gospels are records of events and utterances of the Lord God and Jesus Christ in the past and it in itself cannot provide to us today new witnesses to testify on its own to be true or not true. However, there is only one living witness today who happened to see all those things and phenomena that transpired during those times where all biblical accounts came to pass, him only is the one who can testify to us today for all the genuine facts and meaning of the passages that the gospels contain and He is no other but the Lord God Jesus Christ, alive and real and is just beside all of us in this world. We who desire to know the truth behind the gospels can come to the Lord Jesus in His own way of living and ask Him to teach us the right way in knowing the true meaning of the things that He said then in the gospels.

If we will try to understand the gospels via our own understanding using the rules of the 21st century grammar, the result will be what the world has today - proliferation of various religious denominations, teachings, doctrines, etc. and people will be continuously divided and chaos will prevail all around the globe.

 

[Wormwood]

Sanhedrin,

I believe the Scriptures are inspired and therefore are powerful in themselves because they are the Words of God. I do not believe we need Jesus to unlock them for us as that renders inspiration meaningless. They are powerful because they are true and inspired and therefore should be approached with great study and awe. Approaching them as something you get through your gut depending on whether Jesus is willing to enlighten the reader that moment is an unfortunate approach in my opinion which leads to all kinds of pride and error.

 

[sanhedrin]

Sanhedrin,

I believe the Scriptures are inspired and therefore are powerful in themselves because they are the Words of God. I do not believe we need Jesus to unlock them for us as that renders inspiration meaningless. They are powerful because they are true and inspired and therefore should be approached with great study and awe. Approaching them as something you get through your gut depending on whether Jesus is willing to enlighten the reader that moment is an unfortunate approach in my opinion which leads to all kinds of pride and error.

What??? Why do you consider coming today to Jesus will lead us to all kinds of pride and error, how true is that when the Lord himself said then the following, as recorded in the bible?


John 5;39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Matt. 11:28. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Matt. 11:29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls

 

[Wormwood]

What??? Why do you consider coming today to Jesus will lead us to all kinds of pride and error, how true is that when the Lord himself said then the following, as recorded in the bible?


John 5;39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Matt. 11:28. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Matt. 11:29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls

Yes I agree the Scriptures testify to Jesus and that Jesus alone gives life and salvation. The Scriptures are inspired and testify to this fact. That is altogether different than saying that the Scriptures are a puzzle that God keeps locked from people unless Jesus decides to unlock them so the individual can understand them.

John wrote, "I have written these things that you might believe and that by believing you might have life in his name." Notice he didn't say, "I have written these things so that if Jesus chooses to allow you to see it, you will understand because God has chosen to give you life." John assumes that every person could understand his Gospel and people would have the ability to understand and choose to believe and "come to Jesus" or reject him.

 

[sanhedrin]

Yes I agree the Scriptures testify to Jesus and that Jesus alone gives life and salvation. The Scriptures are inspired and testify to this fact. That is altogether different than saying that the Scriptures are a puzzle that God keeps locked from people unless Jesus decides to unlock them so the individual can understand them.

John wrote, "I have written these things that you might believe and that by believing you might have life in his name." Notice he didn't say, "I have written these things so that if Jesus chooses to allow you to see it, you will understand because God has chosen to give you life." John assumes that every person could understand his Gospel and people would have the ability to understand and choose to believe and "come to Jesus" or reject him.

We are of one accord in saying Jesus alone gives life and salvation. I am not saying that scriptures are puzzles that God keeps locked from people unless Jesus decides to unlock them so the individual can understand them, this is your own opinion. What I am saying is that we have to come to Jesus today and ask Him to teach us the meaning of the passages in the gospels, as literature, which come vague to our mind or to clarify to us an event or phenomenon as recorded in the gospels is to be true or not true at all.

Why do you have to be focused on John's writings when the Lord Jesus is vocal in telling us "to come to Him and learn of Him" or "to enter into Him" considering that we are not the one to whom John was referring to with his "you" in your above quote, why don't we focus ourselves to Jesus himself? John is long time dead and how do you know John assumed that every person could understand his gospels, don't you see that people today have different notions of salvation and ways of knowing God? Where is the assumption that people could understand or come to right understanding in that case?

If we people would come to Jesus in His own way of existence or living and ask Him to teach us the truth about our salvation and the covenant that God has for all of us today, different notions and teachings about salvation and God will be avoided and the covenant that we have to live this day would be coming from the Lord God Jesus Christ and same should not be just an opinion or notion taken from the scriptures and put into practice.

 

[veteran]

Well its nice to hear that at least there is some agreement and that you haven't assigned me to the pit of burning sulpher.

None of us have authority to do that, only Christ Jesus has.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the only way to study God's Word is "line upon line." You should elaborate on that.

See the matter in Isaiah 28 & 29 where God shows us how.

What do you mean I am spouting "religious secularism"? You should elaborate on your comments, especially if you are going to slap labels on people. Where did I ever say anything about religion or try to separate religion from other spheres of life (which is what secularism amounts to)??? I wouild appreciate it if you would cite quotes i have given on such matters. Otherwise, it only comes across as name-calling. I am more than eager to accept correction if I have misspoke or if you can show me to be in error on an issue. But if you just want to name-call as a means of boilstering your comments...then Im afraid it has the reverse effect.

Man's 'old bottle' traditions per Christ's parable of the new wine and old bottles. You don't put the 'new wine' into 'old bottles' lest they break. It's because those 'old bottles' cannot expand with the 'new wine', so they break. The 'new wine' represents the "strong meat" understanding in God's Word instead of the 'milk' (Heb.5). Many play religion using the 'milk' teaching of God's Word never maturing to the "strong meat". Many that have been attending Church for most of their life are still in that 'milk' situation. That's the same thing our Lord Jesus was showing with the 'new wine' and 'old bottles' parable.

I dont understand how the Gospels do not provide "new" witness. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ is wholly unique and new. He was an entirely new means of God revealing himself, he spoke of things that those in the past longed to hear but couldnt, and he instituted a new covenant.

Only one who had not first studied God's Old Testament Books thoroughly would not understand how The Four Gospels are a Witness of what was already prophesied by God through His OT prophets. It is in that sense that the first witness was given through God's OT prophets, and they looked for it to come to pass. Fulfillment of Christ's coming just didn't happen in their days. In that respect we keep the whole Bible in Its proper perspective, instead of isolating the OT Books from the NT Books like many try to do.

I am able to teach The Gospel of Jesus Christ from just about every Book of The Bible, starting with the Book of Genesis. It is because The Gospel was first prophesied in the Old Testament Books. Just because the word 'gospel' is not found in the OT Books does not mean it wasn't known or prophesied of by God through His OT saints. Hebrews 11 has only a light touching on that matter. It's important to know how to do that to make witnessing The Gospel to Jews more effective. Since Christ came and fulfilled what was prophesied of Him in the Old Testament Books, it's easier for us today to go back into the OT Books and see how The Gospel was there all the time, many just didn't understand until the events came to pass as written.

 

[Pilgrimer]

I am not saying that scriptures are puzzles that God keeps locked from people unless Jesus decides to unlock them so the individual can understand them …

Actually Sanhedrin, I think that’s pretty accurate. It’s certainly what Paul taught:

“Howbeit, we speak wisdom among them that are [mature]: yet not the wisdom of the world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought; But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has any man ever imagined, the things which God has prepared for them that love him. But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God … so the things of God knoweth no man, only the Spirit of God. Now we have received the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things we also speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches (the “common sense” meaning of the Scriptures), but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man (man in his unregenerate state who has not been born again and raised to spiritual life) receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

The truth is there are two levels of understanding when we read the Scriptures. There is the plain, “common sense” meaning of the words, the “literal” meaning, which is all the natural man is capable of understanding.

But then there is the deeper, mystical, mysterious meaning which only those who have the indwelling Spirit of God can comprehend, and then only because the Spirit of God opens the eyes and ears and hearts and minds that we might see the things which God has prepared, which the Law and the Prophets foretold.

So actually it’s quite true that one must come to Jesus to be given spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear and a heart and mind to understand the spiritual message that underlies the words of the Scriptures, and even to really grasp the manifold blessings we have been given as members of the New Covenant Church.

Unfortunately, much of what is popularly taught today derives from a very natural, humanistic reading of the Scriptures which derives from reason and scientific methods rather than inspiration. Which is understandable … those who have not been born again only have human reason and scientific methods to rely on. But it’s like a blind man trying to describe a sunset. He might be able to recite the mechanics that create the layers and hues of color, but he can never experience what it is to be inspired by the beauty.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Just because the word 'gospel' is not found in the OT Books does not mean it wasn't known or prophesied of by God through His OT saints. Hebrews 11 has only a light touching on that matter. It's important to know how to do that to make witnessing The Gospel to Jews more effective. Since Christ came and fulfilled what was prophesied of Him in the Old Testament Books, it's easier for us today to go back into the OT Books and see how The Gospel was there all the time, many just didn't understand until the events came to pass as written.

Well said Veteran! I have been studying the Mosaic Law for over 30 years and I must say I have found that it consistently preaches the Gospel of Jesus through its many beautiful types and figures. Indeed, that was the goal of the Law, to bring us to and teach us about Jesus, about his person and his work, about the church which is redeemed by his blood, and about the mystical and often mysterious blessings which the church now enjoys.

But I’m afraid not all students understand that about the Law. They tend to see the Law as a roadmap to righteousness rather than what it was intended to be … the blueprint for a finished building.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pilgrimer,
I think you limit Jesus and the authors of Scripture unnessarily. Cannot Jesus have deeper meanings in his words than that which is only intended for his immediate audience?

Of course there is “deeper meaning” to Jesus’ words. There is the moral or spiritual lessons that we can learn from these historical events. We all have learned the lesson of keeping our eyes on Jesus when we are walking through the storms of life and are buffeted by the winds and waves. And that when we take our eyes off him and focus on the turbulence we begin to sink under the pounding we’re taking. Now the fact that Jesus walked on water … pshaw, Jesus is God! BUT, the fact that Peter climbed out of the boat and walked on water is what proves to us mere mortals that the moral lesson is absolutely true, we can rise above the storms in our lives and we too can overcome and “walk on water.”

But this isn’t about whether or not these teachings of Jesus have a “deeper meaning” that can apply to people living 2000+ years in the future, of course they do. The problem here is that you are insisting that what Jesus said only has application for people living 2000+ years in the future, and that these things he spoke were not even meant for those to whom the words were spoken. And that’s in spite of the fact that the context in which Jesus spoke those words was the martyrdom of the disciples to whom he spoke and that some of them would not die until they had seen the presence of God’s kingdom.

So that’s what I mean about taking this teaching about the coming of Jesus out of context and limiting these words to be only for an audience 2000+ years away.

Jesus speaks of someone following him...to the point of forsaking their own lives. This could be metaphorical or literal....probably both. We give our lives away to Jesus and that is how we find true meaning and fulfillment in life. However, a secondary meaning can be that if we die in obedience to Christ, death does not have the last word. For whats the point in obtaining everything in the world but losing one's very soul? So this passage is both about finding purpose and meaning in surrendering to Jesus as well as points to the resurrection and how the faithful will truly find life. Make sense?

Yes, it makes sense as a moral lesson to be learned and encouragement to all those who came after who might suffer persecution and martyrdom. But again, you are trying to suggest that is all it means. That it had no application to the disciples to whom Jesus spoke. But you completely ignore the fact that 1) on other occasions, when Jesus was speaking of eschatological matters, he foretold that these men would be persecuted and martyred, in Matthew 24:9 for example, and 2) these disciples did in fact endure persecution and death for the sake of the Gospel, all except John, the only one who lived to see the end of the Jewish state and the Mosaic economy, John 21:19-23.

So here we see that Jesus is making one statement with two layers of meanings that I think he intends.

Actually, that’s not what you’re saying at all. While you concede that Jesus’ words about the martyrdom of those who follow him might have application to the disciples, you are insisting that his very next words, which are in fact connected with the previous words with “for,” did not have application to the disciples, but jumped to a subject totally unrelated to them or anything he was talking about. But then the very next words, again have application to the disciples. That’s what I mean about taking the sentence in the middle of this passage out of context.

The same is true for the next statement regarding Jesus judging every person according to their works at the coming Kingdom. Clearly this is a point to final judgment since contextually it is dealing with people who follow Jesus even to death. They are willing to lose the world to save their souls. Jesus will reward such individuals when he comes with the angels.

(I really cannot for the life of me see how this kind of statement can be pointing to 70AD. How can this previous context about sacrificing ones life have anything to do with the Romans crushing Jerusalem? Seems like a major stretch and very foreign to both the literary and historical context...why would these individuals Jesus is speaking to care about 70AD when what they are seeking is life and purpose from the Messiah???)

Well then brother, let me show you, because I think this is where you are missing a very big part of the picture. You don’t think the 7-year Roman/Jewish war that totally desolated the Jewish nation and wiped out everything that pertained to Old Covenant worship was some kind of fluke do you? Some meaningless event in history that had nothing at all to do with Scripture or with prophecy, let alone with the coming of Jesus?

What the disciples being persecuted and martyred had to do with the Romans crushing Jerusalem was that the Romans crushing Jerusalem was God’s wrath poured out on those whom Jesus said would be held accountable for the blood of those very same disciples Jesus was talking to. And not only their blood, but the blood of the prophets and the righteous shed on earth from the beginning of time, from the blood of Abel (the first martyr in the first book of the Jewish canon) to the blood of Zacharias (the last martyr in the last book of the Jewish canon) and right on up into the New Testament with the blood of the Lord Himself, and those whom He would send to preach to them the Gospel:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of Gehenna? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel (the first martyrdom in the Jewish canon) unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar (the last martyrdom in the Jewish canon, ergo, from the beginning to the end of what was at the time the “Bible”). Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee …” Matthew 23:29-37

That’s what the Romans crushing Jerusalem had to do with God’s people sacrificing their lives for the Truth, it was God’s judgment upon that generation for the shedding of all the blood of God’s people, Old Testament/New Testament! What else do you think that horrific war was about?

Then Jesus points to the fact that this Kingdom is not merely just a far off thing after people die, but is something they will experience! I think if you follow the statements and teachings about the Kingdom of heaven in the book of Matthew you will understand that it is both a "now and not yet" type of Kingdom. The kingdom is "at hand" but it is also not until the end of the age.

The Kingdom isn’t a “now and not yet” thing.

First, the Kingdom of God, like God Himself, is omni-present, that is, it exists everywhere. So it has always been “present” in the sense that it is near, as close as our own breath. But it’s a spiritual kingdom and men are cut off from it because they are spiritually dead.

Second, the “Way,” the “door,” the “gate” into heaven is Jesus, and when his flesh was torn the veil that separated heaven and earth was opened. But the first people to pass beyond that veil and enter the Kingdom of Heaven was that 120 in the upper room on the day of Pentecost, when the windows of heaven were opened and the Holy Spirit was poured out and that 120 were the first living to experience being raised from spiritual death to spiritual life and become citizens of God’s heavenly kingdom.

What happened in 66-73 A.D. wasn’t the “coming” of God’s Kingdom, it was already present. That horrific 7-year war was the proof of the presence of God’s Kingdom in the guests at the marriage supper that didn’t have a wedding garment being cast out, it was the vineyard being taken away from the previous tenants and their city being miserably destroyed who refused to give the Lord of the Vineyard his fruits and even killed those whom the Lord had sent to collect those fruits, it was the unwise virgins who didn’t have any oil in their lamps being shut out of God’s kingdom, it was the generation who had no faith being led out into the wilderness and left to die never having set foot in the promised land, it was the scapegoat who bore their sins upon their own heads and were led out of the Temple and out of God’s Holy City and led out into the wilderness to die and never entered God's rest, it was the last jots and tittles of the Law and the Prophets being fulfilled so everything that pertained to Old Covenant worship could be removed, it was the curse of the Law against all those who were under the Law who refused the atoning blood of Jesus and bore their sins upon their own heads, it was the tares being bundled up and burned, it was the goats being cast into outer darkness, it was a lesson to all the world that God is Love, but God is also justice, and there is a judgment day waiting for all men, and just as surely as the Jewish nation was judged and destroyed for their sins, on that day of judgment yet to come those whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life will perish.

Again, this seems very contextual and speaks both to Jesus' audience and Matthew's about the very point of the book of Matthew...the kingdom of heaven. Inserting 70AD here does not really make sense for Matthew's purpose and audience (decades before 70AD) ...

I think it’s the only thing that does make sense, especially to a Jewish audience most of whom lived to see the total destruction of everything they had always been taught would be the very stuff that God's kingdom would be made of.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Wormwood]

None of us have authority to do that, only Christ Jesus has.

Thank you Lord!

See the matter in Isaiah 28 & 29 where God shows us how.

Yeah, well based on how we have differed thus far on interpretation... I don't think that's very helpful.

Man's 'old bottle' traditions per Christ's parable of the new wine and old bottles. You don't put the 'new wine' into 'old bottles' lest they break. It's because those 'old bottles' cannot expand with the 'new wine', so they break. It's because those 'old bottles' cannot expand with the 'new wine', so they break. The 'new wine' represents the "strong meat" understanding in God's Word instead of the 'milk' (Heb.5). Many play religion using the 'milk' teaching of God's Word never maturing to the "strong meat". Many that have been attending Church for most of their life are still in that 'milk' situation. That's the same thing our Lord Jesus was showing with the 'new wine' and 'old bottles' parable.

Sigh... yes, yes...once again you're the spiritual one and I'm the infant spouting religious secularism.... I think you have established that already.

Only one who had not first studied God's Old Testament Books thoroughly would not understand how The Four Gospels are a Witness of what was already prophesied by God through His OT prophets. It is in that sense that the first witness was given through God's OT prophets, and they looked for it to come to pass. Fulfillment of Christ's coming just didn't happen in their days. In that respect we keep the whole Bible in Its proper perspective, instead of isolating the OT Books from the NT Books like many try to do.

I am able to teach The Gospel of Jesus Christ from just about every Book of The Bible, starting with the Book of Genesis.

Yes, so can I. Hindsight is 20/20. My point was that the New Testament is new. You wouldn't be teaching the Gospel of Christ from the Old Testament before Christ. That's why Paul says,

“I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.” (Colossians 1:25–26, NIV84)

Pilgrimer,

Howbeit, we speak wisdom among them that are [mature]: yet not the wisdom of the world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought; But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Who is the "we" in this context? See 4:1.

Indeed, that was the goal of the Law, to bring us to and teach us about Jesus, about his person and his work, about the church which is redeemed by his blood, and about the mystical and often mysterious blessings which the church now enjoys.

I would not disagree with this statement.

The problem here is that you are insisting that what Jesus said only has application for people living 2000+ years in the future, and that these things he spoke were not even meant for those to whom the words were spoken.

Where in the world did I ever say that? I believe what I said was (pertaining to the first part of the verses we were discussing)

Jesus speaks of someone following him...to the point of forsaking their own lives. This could be metaphorical or literal....probably both. We give our lives away to Jesus and that is how we find true meaning and fulfillment in life. However, a secondary meaning can be that if we die in obedience to Christ, death does not have the last word. For whats the point in obtaining everything in the world but losing one's very soul? So this passage is both about finding purpose and meaning in surrendering to Jesus as well as points to the resurrection and how the faithful will truly find life. Make sense?

So...Jesus is speaking about someone following him...in his present day (and to all who follow him) to the point of forsaking their own lives. And it points to the resurrection (which I believe was not 2000+ years away at the time..but something Matthews audience would have understood). I think you are too quick to jump to conclusions about what you think I am saying rather than slowly reading what I have actually written. It is a NOW and not yet Kingdom.

While you concede that Jesus’ words about the martyrdom of those who follow him might have application to the disciples, you are insisting that his very next words, which are in fact connected with the previous words with “for,” did not have application to the disciples, but jumped to a subject totally unrelated to them or anything he was talking about.

How is the Church and the ultimate judgment of the living and the dead unrelated to the disciples? Are you suggesting they were not part of the Kingdom Jesus was establishing or that they will be absent on the Day of Judgment? Of course these things have application to the disciples. 70AD would likely not have application to the Twelve though as likely all but one or two of them were dead by that time. I don't know how you can take a verse of hope where people save their very souls and get to taste the Kingdom of God as pointing to one of the most horrific massacres in Jewish history.

First, the Kingdom of God, like God Himself, is omni-present, that is, it exists everywhere. So it has always been “present” in the sense that it is near, as close as our own breath. But it’s a spiritual kingdom and men are cut off from it because they are spiritually dead.

Yes but clearly Jesus is speaking about human participation in that Kingdom. That is why Jesus says we should pray "Thy Kingdom come." If its omnipresent, then that's a meaningless prayer. Take a visit to North Korea and tell the persecuted Christians there that the Kingdom is already fully present.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Pilgrimer,


Who is the "we" in this context? See 4:1.

The “we” is those who are spiritually mature in Christ, as opposed to those who are “babes” who are not yet able to bear the strong meat of the spiritual aspect of the coming of Jesus and God’s Kingdom. The popular interpretation of the feasts is an example of that difference.

Where in the world did I ever say that? … This could be metaphorical or literal.... probably both … However, a secondary meaning can be …

Wormwood, it seems to me that you are going to great lengths to ignore the obvious because it doesn’t agree with a particular eschatological view. Your explanation is all about “this could be” and “probably” and “secondary meaning” that “can be” and what you think it “points to.” The obvious explanation is contained in the passage itself. Again, look at the same teaching the way Mark expressed it:

“Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father and the holy angels. Verily I say unto you, That there be some that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”

Wormwood, the objection I have to your explanation of this passage isn’t that it has a secondary application for every believer who has followed Jesus, the problem is that you are ignoring any immediate application to those to whom these words were spoken, as if their martyrdom by the Jewish state and the judgment upon that nation for shedding their blood has nothing to do with this passage, that it is somehow totally unrelated and could not possibly have been what Jesus meant. Instead you opt for what “could be” and what you think it “probably” means. And only because you refuse to allow that some of the references to the coming and presence of Jesus and God’s kingdom and the resulting judgment were speaking of the first coming of Jesus and the advent of God’s Kingdom and the resulting judgment upon Israel in that very same generation.

You know, the fact that some of these verses are speaking of events that accompanied Jesus’ first coming does not in any way change the truth and power of the Gospel, nor does it destroy the blessed hope of the 2nd Coming and the resurrection and the new heaven and earth.

How is the Church and the ultimate judgment of the living and the dead unrelated to the disciples? Are you suggesting they were not part of the Kingdom Jesus was establishing or that they will be absent on the Day of Judgment? Of course these things have application to the disciples. 70AD would likely not have application to the Twelve though as likely all but one or two of them were dead by that time. I don't know how you can take a verse of hope where people save their very souls and get to taste the Kingdom of God as pointing to one of the most horrific massacres in Jewish history.

Those are your words, Wormwood, not mine. But you cannot ignore that those words of hope were spoken in the context of judgment. I just see in the New Testament words about both a soon-to-come judgment as well as a distant-future judgment.

Yes but clearly Jesus is speaking about human participation in that Kingdom. That is why Jesus says we should pray "Thy Kingdom come." If its omnipresent, then that's a meaningless prayer.

When Jesus instructed the people to pray for the Kingdom of God to come, that was before his death and resurrection which brought to pass the promise of the Kingdom. What are we Christians doing when we witness the love of God to a lost world so they might be liberated from the shackles of sin and become children of heaven if that’s not “human participation in God’s Kingdom?”

Take a visit to North Korea and tell the persecuted Christians there that the Kingdom is already fully present.

What do mean by God’s Kingdom being “already fully present?” Because if you mean a world where there is no more persecution, no more sin, no more death, no more suffering, or weeping, then you have confused God’s Kingdom (which is spiritual) with the new earth that is yet to come (which is physical). It will not be until the new heaven and earth that the world will be “fully” at peace and righteous, after the judgment day and the wicked are destroyed and the church is “fully” redeemed, meaning not just our souls redeemed from hell (which we already have) but our body redeemed from death and the grave. It seems a lot of the popular ideas about eschatology have confused God’s Kingdom with the new earth and deny the presence of the Kingdom because they don’t see the physical conditions that rightly belong to the new earth. It’s the new earth that is still future, God’s Kingdom is already present, but only those who have been born again can experience it, and participate in it, or to use the Biblical term, “partake” of it.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
P.S.
I'm off to Dallas for the holiday weekend, I'll check in when I get back.

Blessings in Jesus' name,
Pilgrimer

 

[Wormwood]

Pilgrimer,

Thanks for your response and I hope you have safe travels to Dallas and back.

The "we" in this context is talking about the Apostles. Look at 4:1ff

"So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself."

So, the "secret things" God has "revealed" is not at all talking about a person having meaning unlocked for them by the Spirit when they read the Bible. It is talking about the "mystery" of the Gospel that God had given to the Apostles. Using these verses to support the doctrine of illumination is contextually inaccurate. This has nothing to do with the meaning of the BIble being unlocked to some and kept from others when they read it. It has to do with hidden things that had been revealed to these select messengers that they were then proclaiming to the world.

Lets deal with that text in Matthew a little more directly....

First, Jesus says, "whosoever." This is not referring ONLY to those who were standing there were Jesus in that present moment, but "whosoever" follows him. Thus, this seems to indicate that this deals with more than the immediate audience.

Second, the only phrase referring to judgment here discusses Jesus coming in the "glory of the Father with his holy angels." I dont know how you can read this and say I am the one skirting the literal meaning of this text. To suggest that 70AD is the time when Jesus came with the glory of the Father with his holy angels is to open Pandora's box on all eschatology. So let me be very clear about how I interpret these verses so you know I am not ignoring any immediate application.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

This verse is directed at "anyone" who follows after Jesus. The cost of following Jesus is self-denial. This means a denial of personal focus to serve Christ which can also mean martyrdom for some. This applies to all disciples of Jesus that they should be willing to surrender everything to him, even their lives. Yes, this includes those Jesus was speaking to that day who were martyred, but ALSO includes those who are killed for their faith today. Its not one or the other.

25 For whoever wants to save his lifea will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

Those who want to live for themselves and please themselves will lose everything. This is not limited to those who wanted their own kingdom in 70AD but applies to all people who want to establish their own littlle kingdoms rather than submit to Christ's. Christ determines our ultimate fate. This includes the people in the crowd he was speaking to as well as to us. Matthew's gospel is not a mere history book of recorded events. It is a declaration of the rule and reign of Christ and the words of Christ here did not quit having meaning after 70AD.

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

This is a clear reference to the Second Coming. Jesus speaks of immediate judgment regularly, but he also speaks of ultimate judgment. This discussion of the glory of the Father and coming angels means just that. Its an image of what we see in Revelation with the sky fleeing from his presence and the angelic host around Jesus as he establishes the ultimate rule and reign of God on earth. Each person is "rewarded" for what they have done. According to you, this "reward" is simply to escape Jerusalem with your life. Not very rewarding in my book.

28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus here is likely talking about that which directly follows this verse, the transfiguration. The disciples catch a glimpse of the glory of Jesus that will be displayed at the Second Coming. Moreover, the kingdom of God is present in the Church. However, my point that the kingdom is not fully realized is because there is still evil in the world. Jesus displays the power of the kingdom by his miracles, resurrections, and casting out of demons. This displays the power and nature of the kingdom of God. A place without death, pain, or demonic oppression. A deposit of this is seen in the Church through the presence of the Holy Spirit and the sanctification that takes place in the people of God. However, to say that the Kingdom is already fully present is to miss the heart of Matthew's Gospel in my mind.

OUt of time, gotta run

 

[veteran]

Yeah, well based on how we have differed thus far on interpretation... I don't think that's very helpful.

Yeah, then stay illiterate of Old Testament prophecy then like you are.

Sigh... yes, yes...once again you're the spiritual one and I'm the infant spouting religious secularism.... I think you have established that already.

No, the difference is that your are NOT... LISTENING to our Lord Jesus about that new wine and old bottles parable, for you have yet... to recognize it's about following the doctrines of men instead that harden your mind away from being able to grasp The Living Word of God. An example in your case is man's false doctrine of Amilennialism. Of course you don't like being told that's what you're doing. This is no political debate going on here. It's a very serious matter, your 'blindness' away from conflicting Scripture that is against man's doctrines of Amilennialism is because of those very doctrines by men you instead misplace your trust in.

Yes, so can I. Hindsight is 20/20. My point was that the New Testament is new. You wouldn't be teaching the Gospel of Christ from the Old Testament before Christ. That's why Paul says,

What Apostle Paul said in Col.1 didn't apply to all the Old Testament saints that were given to write down the prophecies involving The Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is easily discovered by what Paul said about Abraham in relation to the Promise by Faith with those like faithful Abraham having become... "the children of Abraham" (Galatians 3).

So, there you go with your blanket generalizations again of what men's doctrines believe the OT saints knew and didn't know.

1 Pet 1:10-12
10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
(KJV)

Even right there Apostle Peter declares how God's OT prophets PROPHESIED The Gospel of Jesus Christ back then. It's revealing, i.e., fulfillment, did not happen in their days, for Christ did not come to die on the cross in their days, but some knew it was to occur, even king David who also was a prophet, whom God foretold the very events of Christ's crucifixion about a thousand years before it happened, even down to the soldiers casting lots on Jesus' clothes (Psalms 22).


Because of this Peter would also say...

2 Pet 3:2
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
(KJV)


This is WHY Apostle Paul also said in Ephesians 2 that Christ's Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles AND PROPHETS, Jesus Christ being The Chief Cornerstone.


But by the doctrines of me you choose to follow instead, you disregard much of what God's OT prophesied have foretold, and thus much of what GOD Himself has said.

So thank The LORD indeed! For the times and events are going to happen the way HE SAID in His Word, and NOT how the men you follow say. He did not send those men.

 

[Wormwood]

Yeah, then stay illiterate of Old Testament prophecy then like you are.


No, the difference is that your are NOT... LISTENING to our Lord Jesus about that new wine and old bottles parable, for you have yet... to recognize it's about following the doctrines of men instead that harden your mind away from being able to grasp The Living Word of God. An example in your case is man's false doctrine of Amilennialism. Of course you don't like being told that's what you're doing. This is no political debate going on here. It's a very serious matter, your 'blindness' away from conflicting Scripture that is against man's doctrines of Amilennialism is because of those very doctrines by men you instead misplace your trust in.


What Apostle Paul said in Col.1 didn't apply to all the Old Testament saints that were given to write down the prophecies involving The Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is easily discovered by what Paul said about Abraham in relation to the Promise by Faith with those like faithful Abraham having become... "the children of Abraham" (Galatians 3).

So, there you go with your blanket generalizations again of what men's doctrines believe the OT saints knew and didn't know.

1 Pet 1:10-12
10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
(KJV)

Even right there Apostle Peter declares how God's OT prophets PROPHESIED The Gospel of Jesus Christ back then. It's revealing, i.e., fulfillment, did not happen in their days, for Christ did not come to die on the cross in their days, but some knew it was to occur, even king David who also was a prophet, whom God foretold the very events of Christ's crucifixion about a thousand years before it happened, even down to the soldiers casting lots on Jesus' clothes (Psalms 22).


Because of this Peter would also say...

2 Pet 3:2
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
(KJV)


This is WHY Apostle Paul also said in Ephesians 2 that Christ's Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles AND PROPHETS, Jesus Christ being The Chief Cornerstone.


But by the doctrines of me you choose to follow instead, you disregard much of what God's OT prophesied have foretold, and thus much of what GOD Himself has said.

So thank The LORD indeed! For the times and events are going to happen the way HE SAID in His Word, and NOT how the men you follow say. He did not send those men.

As I have told you before, what I believe is far closer to what the church has believed throughout history regarding the end times. What you are claiming has never been something the church taught until the 1800's. So if I am spouting "man's doctrines" as a old wineskin, then the entire church has been steeped in "man's doctrines" for 1800 years before the one with the holy interpretation of the end times, John Nelson Darby jumped on the scene...inspired by the fever dream of a sick girl. You are so numb to your own assumptions that it causes you to be mean-spirited and judgmental to everyone on this site who disagrees with you. Why don't you embrace some Christ-like humility and recognize that what you "think" about the Bible and what it actually teaches may be two entirely different things.

I have no idea what you are trying to say about the prophets. When did I say they did not foretell the things of Christ? smh

 

[Pilgrimer]

Pilgrimer,

… the "secret things" God has "revealed" is not at all talking about a person having meaning unlocked for them by the Spirit when they read the Bible. It is talking about the "mystery" of the Gospel that God had given to the Apostles.

I disagree. I think spiritual discernment is precisely what Paul was talking about, as he points out, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned …” and Paul goes on to say to the Christians at Corinth, “… but I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual (clearly this shows that Paul would have spoken to them as unto spiritual, feeding them on the meat of God’s word, but could not, not because only the Apostles were given such spiritual insight, but because the Christians at Corinth were still too carnal-minded, Paul even calls them “babes in Christ,” meaning they had much to learn and needed to mature in the faith). Paul goes on to say, “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” So again, clearly Paul would have shared with them the deeper, spiritual things of God had they been more mature in the faith and able to bear it. So the problem wasn’t that knowledge of the things of the Spirit of God was only given to the Apostles, it is as I said, that it requires a degree of spiritual maturity to be able to grasp them and not everyone has achieved that maturity, far too many are still babes when it comes to spiritual matters.

First, Jesus says, "whosoever." This is not referring ONLY to those who were standing there were Jesus in that present moment, but "whosoever" follows him.

Agreed, and that’s not at issue.

Second, the only phrase referring to judgment here discusses Jesus coming in the "glory of the Father with his holy angels."

And that’s where I think you are making a foregone eschatological conclusion that limits every reference to Jesus returning in any way, shape, or form to only one particular eschatological event, the 2nd physical advent at the end of the world and the final judgment, and completely ignoring another eschatological event which was the end of the Old Covenant dispensation and the judgment on national Israel which also had eschatological implications.

To suggest that 70AD is the time when Jesus came with the glory of the Father with his holy angels is to open Pandora's box on all eschatology.

But not all eschatology is about the end of the Gospel age, there are many eschatological references to the end of the Old Covenant age, which occurred in the generation of Jesus’ first Advent, which is why there is such an obvious expectation of immediacy in the New Testament itself.

… the words of Christ here did not quit having meaning after 70AD.

I’m afraid I don’t know where that came from, certainly I have never suggested that Jesus’ words quit having meaning after 70 A.D., nor would I. The question is what meaning did they have? My position is that they had far deeper meaning than just a far, far distant warning of judgment, but rather a much more immediate warning of judgment the fulfillment of which is stark proof of two things, that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, and to him has been given the power to save and to judge.

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

This is a clear reference to the Second Coming.

Only according to the limits you’re placing on eschatology, which only has room for “last things” that deal with the end of this Gospel age, but completely ignore any prophetic language about “last things” that deal with the end of the Old Covenant age.

Jesus speaks of immediate judgment regularly

He does? Where?

This discussion of the glory of the Father and coming angels means just that. Its an image of what we see in Revelation with the sky fleeing from his presence and the angelic host around Jesus as he establishes the ultimate rule and reign of God on earth. Each person is "rewarded" for what they have done. According to you, this "reward" is simply to escape Jerusalem with your life. Not very rewarding in my book.

Again, those are your words, not mine. What the Jews who believed in Jesus escaped (were saved from) was the judgment and wrath of God that was poured out on that generation. That may not seem very rewarding in your book, but it certainly seemed to be a rather big deal in both the Old and the New Testaments, to John the Baptist who warned of the coming wrath, Jesus also who warned that generation of it as well, and the Apostles certainly wrote of it often enough, and they were all undeniably speaking to that generation. Again, that’s the “imminent” return and judgment they were speaking of.

28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus here is likely talking about that which directly follows this verse, the transfiguration.

Are you suggesting that “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” was a reference to the transfiguration? Are you consistent in that?

Moreover, the kingdom of God is present in the Church.

Agreed, but the presence of God’s kingdom in the earth is not limited to the church, and that is proven by the fact that repentance that leads to salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit in a man’s heart before he is joined with the body of Christ. So God’s Kingdom is near to any who humble themselves and seek forgiveness, even before they become part of the church.

However, my point that the kingdom is not fully realized is because there is still evil in the world.

That was my point exactly. There will always be evil in the world until the day of judgment, when the wicked are cast into the lake of fire and there is a new heaven and earth. Only then will there will be no more evil, because there will be no more evildoers. You see, you are confusing conditions on earth during the triumph of the Word of God with conditions on the new earth when there will be no more enemies to triumph over.

Jesus displays the power of the kingdom by his miracles, resurrections, and casting out of demons. This displays the power and nature of the kingdom of God. A place without death, pain, or demonic oppression.

There has never been death, pain, or demonic oppression in God’s Kingdom of Heaven. Those are conditions that describe the fallen world we live in, this present earth, and those conditions will continue to exist until the day Jesus returns and redeems the earth he has purchased, casts Satan, death and hell, and all the wicked in to the lake of fire, and brings the new heaven and earth to pass. It will be the new heaven and earth where there will be no more death or pain or demonic oppression.

A deposit of this is seen in the Church through the presence of the Holy Spirit and the sanctification that takes place in the people of God. However, to say that the Kingdom is already fully present is to miss the heart of Matthew's Gospel in my mind.

I believe what you are trying to say is that the Kingdom of God is not yet fully “manifest.” But the full manifestation of the Kingdom of God will not occur until the return of Jesus, when the dead in Christ are raised incorruptible and those who are alive and remain are instantly changed, what is commonly called the “rapture.” Paul teaches us that the whole creation groans in pain waiting to be delivered from the bondage of corruption that the whole cosmos became subject to when Adam sinned. But that won’t occur until the end of this old world, when Jesus returns and this present heavens and earth are burned up and all the corruption and decay along with it. The Kingdom of God will never be “fully manifested” in this old fallen earth, or in these old mortal bodies, but in the new heaven and earth, and in our glorified bodies. Romans 8:18-23

But this goes to precisely what I was saying, that the popular teaching on eschatology confuses conditions on the new earth when there will be no sin or death or demonic oppression with conditions on earth during the conquest and victory of Jesus over sin and death and demonic oppression.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer