What is the House of God?

[jaiotu]

Here 'tis, as promised.

As I've mentioned in other posts, in order to understand concepts that form the basis of many prophecies, we need to attack the problem through the lens of "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10). In other words, if we want to understand things concerning "the end" - or any other prophetic concepts - we should go back to the beginning and see what we can discover there.

So, here's an interesting question for you. Was there a "house of God" at the time of the Creation?

We know there was one later in Genesis: Jacob's pillar stone. It was called "Beth-El", the "house of God." It was also known as the "gate of heaven." (I'll have to cover this second aspect in another post, if you're interested.)

We know there was one in Exodus: the Tabernacle.

We know there was one in Solomon's time: the Temple.

Did you know there was also one in David's time? David's royal dynasty! God declared that He would build a "house" - literally a family household - for David in II Samuel 7.

And naturally, you're familiar with the spiritual House of God, the Church. It's both a dwelling place for God's Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16) as well as being a family household (Eph. 2:19 and 3:14-15).

Before I answer my original question about whether there was a House of God at Creation, I'd like to mention a few things about these other Houses of God, and what a House of God represents.

First of all, the Hebrew term translated "House of God", "Beth-El", isn't specifically talking about a "dwelling place" of some sort, although that's the most common way of understanding it. It can also refer to a family. Today, we might speak of the Royal "House of Windsor". This isn't referring to a building, but to a family. A good example of this is the House of David.

We also see a stone being called the House of God. This is sort of the 'odd one out' of the bunch. Why is this a house of God? What's the connection?

The connection is as follows. What does the "foundation" of a building consist of? What's the first thing that goes in place, before anything else? The corner stone. What's the "foundation" of a family? The progenitor or patriarch - like David was to his family, or like Jacob was to his. The whole "house" is represented in potential form by the single stone, or by the single patriarch or progenitor. (See Isa. 51:1-2.)

Now I'll answer whether or not there was a "House of God" at Creation. You can probably already guess the answer. Of course there was! ADAM AND HIS FAMILY!

But in reality, there was still another "house" of God, where God dwelt, at Creation: the Garden of Eden.

There's a book called "The Coming Last Days Temple" by Randall Price that has some excellent information on the "Temple" symbolism in the Garden of Eden. The rest of the book isn't quite as valuable, but I would strongly recommend that you get it just for that one chapter.

As an aside, did you know that the Garden of Eden even had a "high priest" who was called to minister in service to God? The symbolism of Eden gives us many clues that there was such an office:

1. Adam and Eve were clothed with "tunics" - Hebrew kethoneth - when they sinned. These tunics were given to them to cover their nakedness. In the bible, nakedness is symbolic of being exposed for just who we are (Heb. 4:13). Adam and Eve were sinners, and sin cannot dwell in God's presence, so in order to minister to God, Adam and Eve had to cover their nakedness. In the exact same way, linen tunics (same Hebrew word) were likewise given to the Levites who ministered at the Tabernacle and later the Temple (Ex. 28:1-2, 39-43; also Lev. 16).

2. Adam and Eve were commanded to "dress and keep" the Garden of Eden. These two Hebrew words ('avodah and shemirah) only appear in the Creation account and in connection with priestly service in the Tabernacle (Num. 3:7-8, 8:26, 18:5-6).

3. Cherubim only occur in the bible in connection with the Garden of Eden and the Tabernacle, and later the Temple. The word "cherub" literally means "intercessor". Now why would the Garden of Eden need two intercessors guarding it? (By the way, notice that there were two pillars which guarded the entrance to the Temple. See 1 Ki. 7:15-22.)

I'd also like to connect something interesting. What is a priest, but one who serves in the House of God? What is a patriarch, but one who serves his own house?

Now, let's tie all of this together and answer your question about whether there will be a physical Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns. We have the following:

1. Adam was a physical patriarch who served his own house, and also a priest who served the "house" of God, the Garden of Eden. But the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Flood. Christ is a spiritual patriarch (after all, He created or "fathered" Adam, didn't He?) over His own physical family consisting of Adam's descendants as well as a high priest over the House of God. But Jesus prophesied that the House of God (the Temple) would be destroyed so that "not one stone would be left upon another."

2. Adam and Eve's sin resulted in the undermining of the love and trust between the two of them (and later, their children) as well as between them and God. Furthermore, their descendants had filled the earth with "violence" by the time of the Flood, and violence is just the manifestation of total insensitivity - total lack of love - toward one another. The greatest commandment Christ ever gave us was to love one another as He loved us.

3. David's dynasty began in glory and with a right heart (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22), but ended in ruin with the capture of King Zedekiah and the execution of his sons because of his wickedness and the wickedness of Israel. We are told in Acts 15:15-17 that the household of David lay in ruins, but that it was being raised up in the person of Jesus for the express purpose that the Gentiles might seek after the Lord (by implication, with a right heart).

What we're seeing here is a cycle of RUIN versus RESTORATION. Right?

Now for the grand finale. According to Acts 3:19-21, all of God's prophets since the time of Adam have spoken of something called the "RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS." So what exactly does that involve?

Christ does indeed fulfill the cycle of restoration, which is why all prophecy points to Him because it all speaks of the restoration of all things. But does Christ alone fulfill this cycle?

Let me explain what I mean. Because Christ came to tell us that we are to love one another, does that mean that Adam is "outdated"? In other words, if Adam repented and learned the lesson, would he be saved? Or, would Christ "replace" Adam as the one to whom we would always look to learn how to love one another?

The answer, of course, is no. Christ did NOT replace Adam. Christ stands in addition to Adam.

As another example, because David's royal dynasty ended in ruin, will Christ replace David in the Kingdom? Again, the answer is no. King David will also reign forever (Eze. 37:24-25).

I think you're getting the point by this time. Although the Temple ended in ruin (twice!), does that mean that Christ, or even the Church, have replaced the Temple?

THE ANSWER IS NO! Why? BECAUSE THERE IS TO BE A RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS!!!

Whether we're talking about the House of God as Eden, Jacob's pillar stone, the Temple, Adam's family, King David's family, Jacob's family, national Israel, or spiritual Israel (the Church), the answer is always the same. They have NOT been replaced. They will ALL be restored - except for those who are lost because they commit the unpardonable sin.

Christ is the catalyst for that restoration, but Christ is not the final goal of that restoration. That's why there will be - and in fact must be - a physical Temple rebuilt in Jerusalem prior to the return of Christ. Even the Garden of Eden, the original "house" of God, will be restored as it once was - see Revelation 22.

Damon

[_Steve]

Hi Damon,

The reason you and I differ on so many points is because we have separate focal points. I believe that Christianity is, in all repects, christocentric (Col.1:15-20/ Mark 9:4-8). Your theology, on the other hand, seems to be, in every case, Judeocentric. I see Christ as God's final word (Heb.1:1-3) and His eternal purpose (Eph.1:9-10), wheras you seem to give this dignity to the system of Jewish ritualism. New Testament Christianity views Old Testament Judaism as the temporary type and shadow that pointed forward to Christ until He actually arrived (Col.2:16-17). In this last post, you seem to see Christ, not as the end, but as a means to an end more ultimate than Himself, namely, restored Jewish religion!

So long as we have different centers of fascination, we will organize all of our peripheral theological ideas, like spokes from a hub, around our respective focal points. Thus we will always be talking past each other. My interest is in exalting Christ. You spend a great number of words, here and in other posts, taking Christ a few notches down from the pedestal and placing Judaism in His place at the top.

I cannot forbid you from doing this, but I think it would be best if you acknowledge that you are of a different religion than that of Paul and the other apostles. In their religion, the rituals of the temple pointed ultimately to Christ. In yours, Christ points ultimately to the rituals of the temple.

By your own admission, you base almost all of your interpretations on your assumption that the expression "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10) means "if we want to understand things concerning "the end" - or any other prophetic concepts - we should go back to the beginning and see what we can discover there."

Whether this is a good approach to understanding theological matters or not will have to be discussed as a separate concern, but this is not the natural meaning of Isaiah's phrase. In the Hebrew parallelism of the verse, the following phrase illuminates the meaning of the expression that you are misunderstanding. The couplet reads:

Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done...

The second line means the same thing as does the first, and confirms that "declaring the end from the beginning" means just what we would expect the words to mean, namely, that from the very beginning, God has declared the end result of His dealings (that is, He predicted the future long ago).

He does not add or imply that His earliest statements on a topic provide the best key to understanding that topic. Some things that He spoke long ago (e.g., the sufferings of Christ) come into view much more clearly in the later event than in the early predictions (i.e. the system of animal sacrifices, Passover, and the few prophetic references on this subject).

Peter tells us that the sufferings of Christ, the ensuing glory and our salvation were all predicted by Old Testament prophets who did not understand their own predictions...because their meaning was not to be known until the coming of the Gospel (1 Pet.1:10-12).

Paul repeatedly indicates the same thing as does Peter, when he emphasizes the obscurity of these truths to former generations, and their special revelation made to the apostles through the Spirit (Eph.3:3-6/ Col.1:26/ Rom.16:25-26/ 1 Cor.2:7-10).

The correct understanding of these things does not come from the Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament, but from Christ and His apostles, whose understanding He opened "that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45).

Thus it is only in Christ that "the veil is taken away" which obscured the true meanings of the Old Testament law and prophets (2 Cor.3:14-16). Contrary to your statement, Paul tells us that "Christ is the end (goal) of the law to all who believe" (Rom.10:4). There is nothing greater to anticipate, other than the expansion of His reign to the uttermost parts of the earth. "Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end" (Isa.9:7).

You asked whether Christ replaced Adam. As the house of God, the family of Christ certainly has replaced the family of Adam. He has also replaced David, because He took David's throne after David slept with his fathers (2 Sam.7:12/ Acts 2:30-32), and there is no prediction that Christ will vacate it in order to place David there again. The references to "David" in Ezekiel (34:23f/ 37:24) and in Hosea (3:5) are best understood as references to the Messiah by His dynastic name, just as David's grandson Rehoboam was called "David" (1 Kings 12:16). The David mentioned in the Ezekiel passages is Yahweh's ideal Shepherd, which Christ identified as Himself (John 10:16).

You place an arbitrary meaning on the phrase "the restoration of all things." Nobody (except the universalists, who believe that even the devil will someday be saved) actually takes "all things" in the absolute sense. Thus we must decide what things are and what things are not included in the "all things" that are to be restored. This can be an interesting speculation, but it is arbitrary to include the Jewish order of sacrifices, etc. in that category.

In fact, it is impossible to include them, since the writer of Hebrews tells us that God took away the first covenant in order that He might establish the New (Heb.10:9). This would suggest that, in order to restore the Old, God would need to take away the New, which cannot be done, since it is eternal (Heb.13:20). The Old order is declared to be ineffective (Heb.10:4) and "obsolete" (Heb.8:13). It is a system in which God never, even at its best, had any pleasure in (Heb.10:5-6). Why would He restore for eternity a bloody system that has fulfilled its purpose, was ineffectual, is obsolete, and which God never really liked?

Though much of your survey about the biblical use of the term "house of God" contains nothing to object to, there is no biblical prediction of a third temple in the end times. It is your fascination with Jewish religion and your desire that this may be one of the "all things" that must be restored that makes you insist upon this. It is, however, entirely lacking in biblical support.

[jaiotu]

Hi Damon,

The reason you and I differ on so many points is because we have separate focal points. I believe that Christianity is, in all repects, christocentric (Col.1:15-20). Your theology seems, in every case, to be Judeocentric.

Well, that's not quite accurate. I consider Christianity to be Christocentric as well. However, I come at it from the perspective of Creation.

In that respect, I share a lot in common with the Apostle John.

I see Christ as God's final word (Heb.1:1-3) and His eternal purpose (Eph.1:9-10), wheras you seem to give this dignity to the system of Jewish ritualism.

Whatever gave you that idea?

New Testament Christianity views Old Testament Judaism as the temporary type and shadow that pointed forward to Christ until He actually arrived (Col.2:16-17). In this last post, you seem to see Christ, not as the end, but as a means to an end more ultimate than Himself, namely, restored Jewish religion!

Er, you're reading things into my perspective that aren't there. What I've written above has nothing to do with a restored Jewish religion, but a restoration from whence we have all fallen. As an example, I believe that there will be a Temple built prior to Christ's return, but that in the new heavens and the new earth, there will be no Temple. Instead, we'll have a new Eden. History will be reversing itself, as it were, but not in the manner of returning to "shadows". Rather, this has to do with restoring everything to what it was supposed to be.

Adam was supposed to be an obedient child of God. The Temple was supposed to be a place of worship and prayer, not a den of thieves. And so forth.

[snip]

My interest is in exalting Christ. You spend a great number of words, here and in other posts, taking Christ a few notches down from the pedestal and placing Judaism in His place at the top.

Not hardly. God will still end up "all in all." We just approach how that will come about differently.

By your own admission, you base almost all of your interpretations on your assumption that the expression "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10) means "if we want to understand things concerning "the end" - or any other prophetic concepts - we should go back to the beginning and see what we can discover there."

Whether this is a good approach to understanding theological matters or not will have to be discussed as a separate concern, but this is not the natural meaning of Isaiah's phrase. In the Hebrew parallelism of the verse, the following phrase illuminates the meaning of the expression that you are misunderstanding. The couplet reads:

Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done...

The second line means the same thing as does the first, and confirms that "declaring the end from the beginning" means just what we would expect the words to mean, namely, that from the very beginning, God has declared the end result of His dealings (that is, He predicted the future long ago).

But this interpretation naturally leads to what I've already said. HOW did God "declare the end from the beginning"? Did He just do it with words? Might He have used symbols? (Hos. 12:10) Historical types? (Gal. 4:22-24) Personally relevant examples? (Hos. 1:2)

I believe that God used all of these to "declare the end from the beginning".

He does not add or imply that His earliest statements on a topic provide the best key to understanding that topic. Some things that He spoke long ago (e.g., the sufferings of Christ) come into view much more clearly in the later event than in the early predictions (i.e. the system of animal sacrifices, Passover, and the few prophetic references on this subject).

Nevertheless, I believe that even Christ's sacrifice for our sins was typified even more clearly from the very beginning, not just from the Passover and the animal sacrifices. I can go into detail on that later, though.

Peter tells us that the sufferings of Christ, the ensuing glory and our salvation were all predicted by Old Testament prophets who did not understand their own predictions...because their meaning was not to be known until the coming of the Gospel (1 Pet.1:10-12).

Right. And because we now have the hindsight from our vantage point in history, we can do studies - like the one I did - which explore the meanings and relevance of the various aspects of the "House of God".

The correct understanding of these things does not come from the Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament, but from Christ and His apostles, whose understanding He opened "that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45).

Steve, this doesn't have to be an either-or. Understanding is revealed in and through Christ, that's true, but it doesn't mean that no one outside of Christ can preserve revealed understanding from long ago. I agree that the prophets did not have a complete understanding of our day and of Christ, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have at least a partial understanding. Just look through the book of Daniel, for example. Some of the things that Daniel was told, he understood (ex. Dan. 8:16). Other things that he was told, he didn't understand (ex. Dan. 12:8-9).

What's wrong with using proper discernment to understand what's true? (ex. the topic of Melchizedek; see Heb. 5:10-14) Or do we need to be spoon-fed every explanation?

Thus it is only in Christ that "the veil is taken away" which obscured the true meanings of the Old Testament law and prophets (2 Cor.3:14-16). Contrary to your statement, Paul tells us that "Christ is the end (goal) of the law to all who believe" (Rom.10:4). There is nothing greater to anticipate, other than the expansion of His reign to the uttermost parts of the earth. "Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end" (Isa.9:7).

"There is nothing greater to anticipate, other than the expansion of His reign to the uttermost parts of the earth"?

So there is something greater to anticipate. Thank you. You've just made my point for me.

Understand that I'm not devaluing Christ. Neither are you. But you're making the unfounded assumption that I am.

You asked whether Christ replaced Adam. As the house of God, the family of Christ certainly has replaced the family of Adam.

So what you're saying is that there's no longer a family of Adam at all.

Tell me, what do you make of Isaiah 29:22-23, concerning the physical family of Jacob?

I'm not saying that the family of Adam, and the family of Jacob, are not subsumed under the family of God. What I'm saying is that the family of Adam hasn't been replaced by the family of God.

To give you a little better idea of the distinction I'm drawing, look at Numbers 14:1-21. Israel had failed to enter the Promised Land. Furthermore, they were ready to stone Moses, God's appointed leader. In anger, God declared that He would wipe out Israel and make a greater and mightier nation through Moses. God would replace the family of Jacob, named Israel, with the family of Moses. But Moses pleaded with God not to do that!

The exact same thing holds true for Christ not replacing Adam.

He has also replaced David, because He took David's throne after David slept with his fathers (2 Sam.7:12/ Acts 2:30-32)...

No He didn't. CHRIST IS NOT YET SITTING ON THE THRONE OF DAVID, BECAUSE DAVID'S THRONE IS AN EARTHLY THRONE AND CHRIST IS PRESENTLY IN HEAVEN. This is a real pet peeve of mine that preachers and ministers constantly assume otherwise.

God promised King David a dynasty that would never end. Historically, we can point to Zedekiah as the last reigning king of Judah descended from David. The problem is that we have passages - even in Jeremiah, who ministered to the last reigning king of Judah (Jer. 33:17-26 springs to mind) - which promised that David's dynasty wouldn't end! And it didn't. As I said in another post, most of the House of David wasn't in Judea in the first century AD.

...and there is no prediction that Christ will vacate it in order to place David there again. The references to "David" in Ezekiel (34:23f/ 37:24) and in Hosea (3:5) are best understood as references to the Messiah by His dynastic name, just as David's grandson Rehoboam was called "David" (1 Kings 12:16). The David mentioned in the Ezekiel passages is Yahweh's ideal Shepherd, which Christ identified as Himself (John 10:16).

Well, you and I disagree on how those prophecies should be interpreted, then. IMO, if I were David and I were promised an eternal throne (meaning that he would have to be given eternal life), and then in the resurrection it didn't happen that way, I would feel deceived and cheated. No, I much prefer the way I've interpreted these passages up to now, thanks.

You place an arbitrary meaning on the phrase "the restoration of all things." Nobody, except the universalists, who believe that even the devil will someday be saved, actually takes "all things" in the absolute sense. Thus we must decide what things are and what things are not included in the "all things" that are to be restored. This can be an interesting speculation, but it is arbitrary to include the Jewish order of sacrifices, etc. in that category.

Where did I ever make claims like that?

Let me be specific, then. Everything will be restored to its ideal state, but with the caveat that the righteous will eternally remain righteous, and that the wicked will eternally remain wicked. (Rev. 22:11) The devil will not be saved, but will be doomed to eternal fire - the purifying, burning glory of the Holy Spirit which will fill all of Creation (Num. 14:21).

In fact, it is impossible to include them, since the writer of Hebrews tells us that God took away the first covenant in order that He might establish the New (Heb.10:9). This would suggest the need to take away the New in order to reestablish the Old. The Old order is declared "obsolete" (Heb.8:13) and it is a system in which God never, even at its best, had any pleasure in (Heb.10:5-6). Why would He restore for eternity a bloody system that has been fulfilled, is obsolete, and which God never really liked?

Again, you're reading things into my perspective which aren't there. First of all, did the Law go all the way back to Creation? No it didn't. In fact, it didn't even go back to Abraham. If all things are to be restored to the way they were at the beginning, then we have to at least go back to the way they were in the time of Abraham, don't we? And that's exactly the argument that Galatians 3:16-19 makes!

Even animal sacrifices were not ordained until after the fall of Adam. So again, if everything is to be restored to the way it was at the beginning, then animal sacrifices must also cease.

Though much of your survey about the biblical use of the term "house of God" contains nothing to object to, there is no biblical prediction of a third temple in the end times. It is your fascination with Jewish religion and your desire that this may be one of the "all things" that must be restored that makes you insist upon this. It is, however, entirely lacking in biblical support.

No, it's entirely lacking in biblical support as far as you can see. In my opinion, Malachi 3-4 is a perfectly good proof that a third Temple will be built. (And yes, I already know that you disagree and I know the reasons why.)

But you don't have to take my word for it. Why not wait and see if one is built? It's not exactly fruitful to argue about it at this juncture. Right?

Damon

[_Steve]

Damon,

On your last point first: No one is saying that no temple will ever again be built in Jerusalem. How could anyone know that before it happens or does not? What I said is that there is no biblical basis for believing such will be built (many things happen in history for which there was no biblical basis for anyone to predict), and that, if it is rebuilt, it will be in rebellion against the Christ whose death was the occasion for the destruction of its predecessor.

When God tore the veil, He demonstated that the system that made God so inaccessible (i.e., the temple system) was of no longer of any value. You did not answer my question as to why God would wish to restore that which He declared to be ineffective, obsolete, and unpleasant to Him.

It is strange that you would appeal to Malachi to establish a hope of a future temple, instead of one of the standard proof texts (like Ezekiel 40-48), since Malachi never so much as hints at any expectation of a third temple. Malachi 3:1ff talks about John the baptist coming (all the synoptic Gospels tell us this is what these verses are about, and no passage anywhere applies them to anything else) and then "the messenger of the covenant" comes to His temple.

The time-frame is the first century, since that is when John came, and it is also when Jesus came and the temple was judged, as predicted. In another thread at this forum, you mentioned that you believe "the messenger of the covenant" is some future person who will announce the rebuilding of the third temple. This is very strange. The messenger of the covenant is said to be "the Lord, " who suddenly comes to his temple. It is far more reasonable to associate the messenger with Christ or God Himself, since it is his temple to which He comes.

Malachi also calls the Messenger of the covenant the one "in whom you delight." The Jews delighted in the expectation of Messiah's coming, but where do we have any evidence that they delighted in some unnamed future character who will announce the new temple? Is there someplace, in Malachi, or elsewhere in scripture, where you can find any exegetical support for your interpretation? Where is such a messenger as you envisage mentioned elsewhere? Why not take the simplest interpretation, which is given by the New Testament writers?

When I said that you wish to include the Jewish sacrificial system among the things that must be restored, and that you see Christ, not as the end, but as a means to that end, you responded, "Where did I ever make claims like that?"

My evaluation of your doctrine on this was based upon statements in your original post (above), such as the following:

"Christ is the catalyst for that restoration, but Christ is not the final goal of that restoration. That's why there will be - and in fact must be - a physical Temple rebuilt in Jerusalem prior to the return of Christ."

I understand those words to mean that Christ is not the final goal. He is significant, of course, but another goal awaits, of which Christ is only the catalyst. Through Christ, the temple (presumably with its sacrifices-- else what would it be used for?) must be restored. It is hard to take these words to mean anything less than this. Do you foresee a temple without animal sacrifices? The Jews certainly don't. Why are you now denying that you feel there is a need for them to be restored. Isn't that what you said?

I see Christ as the end of all God's dealings, and only the increase of His kingdom (not additional trappings from another, defunct, religious system) is to be anticipated. He said that the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached to all the world (the continuation of the kingdom expansion as it has been going on these past two millennia) and "then the end will come" (Matt.24:14). Paul says we anticipate all of Christ's enemies being subdued around the time of the resurrection of the dead, "and then comes the end" (1 Cor.15:23-24). There is nowhere a suggestion that another temple must be built before the end comes. All that is predicted is the completion of Christ's program, not the re-establishment of the Jewish program.

In another post, you appealed to 2 Thess.2:4 as an example of a New Testament prediction of a third temple in Jerusalem. However, Paul mentions no temple in Jerusalem. He says that the "man of sin" sits in the temple of God, a term that Paul uses elsewhere only of the church (1 Cor.3:16/ 2 Cor.6:16). It is more reasonable, allowing Paul to interpret himself, to say that the "man of sin" sits in the church, which is the temple of God. There is no reason in the world (other than coming to the text with that presupposition) to make this a reference to a third Jewish temple.

Concerning the restoration of the throne of David, and David's future session upon it, you make the following statements:

1. "CHRIST IS NOT YET SITTING ON THE THRONE OF DAVID, BECAUSE DAVID'S THRONE IS AN EARTHLY THRONE AND CHRIST IS PRESENTLY IN HEAVEN."

You would be able to understand the Gospel more accurately if you paid better attention (and gave more respect) to the teachings of the New Testament apostles. They correctly understood, by the Spirit, the passages about which the rabbis could only conjecture. If you can exegete Acts 2:29-36 and Acts 13:32-34, verse-by-verse, to show that Peter's and Paul's statements can somehow NOT mean that Christ has risen and is seated on David's throne, I will definitely sit up and take notice.

Why should we feel compelled to believe that "David's throne" must refer to the earthly throne of David? Does that actual chair still exist? I doubt that it does. The best that even the Jews can hope for is not that anyone will ever again sit on the literal chair that David sat upon--unless it (now 3000years ancient) was indestructible. You can only claim, at best, that there will be another throne analogous to the one David sat upon. The apostles believed (as their words indicate) that the throne upon which Christ is now seated is analogous to David's throne. Why can't they be as right as you in their interpretation?

2. "IMO, if I were David and I were promised an eternal throne (meaning that he would have to be given eternal life), and then in the resurrection it didn't happen that way, I would feel deceived and cheated."

Yes, if you were David, and if such promises were made to you, and they didn't come true, you might very well feel cheated. However, David will not have occasion to feel this way, since no such promise was ever made to him. It was never said anywhere that David would himself sit on his own throne forever, as your words imply. What was said was that his offspring (Christ) would sit on his throne--that is, would assume David's position of rule over the true Israel forever (2 Sam.7:12-13/ Ps.132:11/ Isa.9:6-7/ Luke 1:32/ Acts 2:30).

According to the promise, this enthronement would occur, not after the resurrection of the last day, but while David was still dead, "sleeping with his fathers" (2 Sam.7:12f). This cannot be fulfilled after the second coming, since David and the rest of us will all be resurrected and alive at that time. Placing the fulfillment in a future millennium does violence to the wording of the promise. How much easier just to believe the inspired apostles on this!

In your last post, you continue to appeal for an understanding of Old Testament texts contrary to the apostolic interpretations.

You write: "Understanding is revealed in and through Christ, that's true, but it doesn't mean that no one outside of Christ can preserve revealed understanding from long ago."

This is true, but how do we know that the understanding passed down by those "outside of Christ" is indeed the "revealed understanding" from inspired men? If the inspired writers do not agree with these men outside of Christ, and, in fact, disagree with them, doesn't this cast serious doubt on the assumption that these non-christians are preserving any genuinely "revealed understanding"?

You write, "What's wrong with using proper discernment to understand what's true?... Or do we need to be spoon-fed every explanation?"

This is the very crux of where you and I differ. I am entirely in favor of using "proper discernment." I am not so self-confident as to label my own hunches, arbitrary constructions, and preconceived notions borrowed from the very teachers who authored blasphemous words against Christ (in the Talmud) as "discernment," on the same level with the insights given by Jesus and the apostles that He appointed to teach official Christian doctrine. I am not too proud to be "spoon-fed" by Jesus and those whom He charged with the feeding of His sheep. Would we all be wiser to be spoon-fed by the speculating rabbis?

"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14). Thie natural, unregenerated Jews obviously could not receive the spiritual nature of the Spirit's predictions, and made the natural mistake of taking them naturally. The spiritual men who wrote the New Testament, however, to a man, interpreted these things spiritually, not naturally.

There are, of course, many things that you say with which I agree. In fact, you frequently mention that you agree with my interpretation, but you are convinced that there are multiple interpretations, including your futuristic interpretation. The reason I am not acknowledging this point is that there is no support for these futuristic applications in scripture. When the scripture declares that "All the promises of God are (present tense) Yes, and in Him (Christ) Amen...through us (the church)" (2 Cor.1:20), I see no evidence that the apostle believes there are as yet unfulfilled promises, which are not complete in Christ, and which will be fulfilled through Israel, not the church.

What I perceive as your problem is that your eschatological paradigm is built, more than you know, upon Jewish ideas that were rejected by the New Testament, once the Spirit came and led the writers into "all truth." Those Jewish ideas insisted on a literal, ethnic and geographical interpretation of the words "Israel," "Jacob," "Levites," "Jerusalem," "Zion," "House of God," "temple," etc. whereas the New Testament writers applied such terms to the church, and applied the Old Testament prophecies that used these terms accordingly.

[jaiotu]

Damon,

On your last point first: No one is saying that no temple will ever again be built in Jerusalem. How could anyone know that before it happens or does not? What I said is that there is no biblical basis for believing such will be built (many things happen in history for which there was no biblical basis for anyone to predict), and that, if it is rebuilt, it will be in rebellion against the Christ whose death was the occasion for the destruction of its predecessor.

Well, we disagree on this last point, then.

When God tore the veil, He demonstated that the system that made God so inaccessible (i.e., the temple system) was of no longer of any value. You did not answer my question as to why God would wish to restore that which He declared to be ineffective, obsolete, and unpleasant to Him.

I didn't understand what you you were getting at before, but now I do.

God cannot dwell with sin, correct? When Adam and Eve dwelt with God in the Garden of Eden, it was as if they literally lived in the equivalent of the Holy of Holies. King David himself asked the question, what kind of person can dwell with God in His tabernacle? (Ps. 15). When Adam and Eve sinned, they were cast out of this "house". Jesus' death provided spiritual access back into the dwelling place of God, but the cycle of history will be complete when we have physical access back into the dwelling place of God.

Just because God now dwells in our hearts through the aegis of the Holy Spirit (something that was just as true of the prophets in the Old Testament, by the way) does not mean that God cannot also dwell in one specific location (which He did during the time of those same prophets).

It is strange that you would appeal to Malachi to establish a hope of a future temple, instead of one of the standard proof texts (like Ezekiel 40-48 ), since Malachi never so much as hints at any expectation of a third temple. Malachi 3:1ff talks about John the baptist coming (all four Gospels tell us this is what these verses are about, and no passage anywhere applies them to anything else) and then "the messenger of the covenant" comes to His temple.

But Malachi 3 also talks about purifying the sons of Levi to serve in the Temple that the Lord would suddenly come to, something that I showed before cannot apply to John the Baptist. Therefore, it demands a future fulfillment for purification for Temple service in regards to a future Temple.

Makes perfect sense to me.

The time-frame is the first century, since that is when John came, and it is also when Jesus came and the temple was judged, as predicted. In another thread at this forum, you mentioned that you believe "the messenger of the covenant" is some future person who will announce the rebuilding of the third temple. This is very strange. The messenger of the covenant suddenly comes to his temple. It is far more reasonable to associate the messenger with Christ or God Himself, since it is his temple to which He comes.

No, the Lord comes suddenly to His Temple. Go back and read the verse more carefully. The messenger of the covenant heralds the Lord. Look:

"Behold, I will send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. The Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in, behold! He will [also] come, says the LORD of hosts."

This passage simply explains what messenger is being talked about by going into more detail. 'The messenger will come...and I'm talking about the messenger of the covenant.' The Lord couldn't come to a Temple if there were no Levites performing the Temple service. The messenger of the covenant, in the latter fulfillment, is to be responsible for purifying them. Therefore, He must come before the Lord comes, so he cannot be equated with the Lord. A lot of interpreters do that, but they're incorrect.

[snip]

I understand those words to mean that Christ is not the final goal. He is significant, of course, but another goal awaits, of which Christ is only the catalyst. Through Christ, the temple (presumably with its sacrifices-- else what would it be used for?) must be restored. It is hard to take these words to mean anything less than this. Do you foresee a temple without animal sacrifices? The Jews certainly don't. Why are you now denying that you feel there is a need for them to be restored. Isn't that what you said?

I'm not entirely sure whether the future Temple will have animal sacrifices or not. It may temporarily, until they serve the purpose of teaching the Jews what they were meant to learn about them in the first place, in the process of bringing them to Christ. Or it may not at all, and the only "sacrifices" that will be offered would be prayer and a contrite heart. But I've never made a firm statement on whether animal sacrifices would be restored at this future Temple.

As far as the "final goal" being the restoration of a future Temple, no, you said yourself what the final goal is. It's the extending of Christ's rule throughout the whole earth. The rebuilding of the Temple is only one part of that goal, in connection with Isaiah 2:1-5.

In another post, you appealed to 2 Thess.2:4 as an example of a New Testament prediction of a third temple in Jerusalem. However, Paul mentions no temple in Jerusalem. He says that the "man of sin" sits in the temple of God, a term that Paul uses elsewhere only of the church (1 Cor.3:16/ 2 Cor.6:16). It is more reasonable, allowing Paul to interpret himself, to say that the "man of sin" sits in the church, which is the temple of God. There is no reason in the world (other than coming to the text with that presupposition) to make this a reference to a third Jewish temple.

Then let me ask you how you expect the "man of sin" to sit in a spiritual Temple and be suddenly paid attention to. To me, that makes no sense.

Think of it this way. What this "man of sin" is attempting to usurp is literally the throne of God inside the Temple. Remember, the Mercy Seat atop the Ark of the Covenant was understood to represent God's throne. Just like we have Satan making boasts that he'll take God's throne in Isaiah 14:13-14, this is the same idea all over again. (And yes, I know how you interpret Isaiah 14. The Wicked one is either the one being talked about or a type of the one being talked about, so what I've said applies regardless.)

So, how does this "man of sin" take possession of a spiritualized throne in a spiritual Temple? To me, it makes much more sense that he'll usurp a physical sanctuary.

Feel free to explain why you feel differently, though. I'm interested to hear why.

Concerning the restoration of the throne of David, and David's future session upon it, you make the following statements:

1. "CHRIST IS NOT YET SITTING ON THE THRONE OF DAVID, BECAUSE DAVID'S THRONE IS AN EARTHLY THRONE AND CHRIST IS PRESENTLY IN HEAVEN."

You would be able to understand the Gospel more accurately if you paid better attention (and gave more respect) to the teachings of the New Testament apostles. They correctly understood, by the Spirit, the passages about which the rabbis could only conjecture. If you can exegete Acts 2:29-36 and Acts 13:32-34, verse-by-verse, to show that Peter's and Paul's statements can somehow NOT mean that Christ has risen and is seated on David's throne, I will definitely sit up and take notice.

I showed the logic which proves that Jesus is not presently sitting on King David's throne. If going through those passages will satisfy you, then here we go with Acts 2:29-36. For brevity's sake, I'd prefer not to do both, but if your questions about my position aren't answered with the following, then I'll also give my commentary on Acts 13:32-34.

Acts 2:29-36

"Men and brothers, let me freely speak to you concerning the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. [David] was a prophet and knew that God had sworn with an oath to him. Of his descendants, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his [David's] throne. Seeing this beforehand, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in the grave, neither did his flesh see decay. God has raised up this Jesus, and we all are witnesses. Therefore, He has been exalted by the right hand of God, and he has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father. He has given [the Spirit] to us, [the manifestation of] which you now see and hear. For David has not ascended into the heavens, but [rather] he himself said, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your foes your footstool.' Therefore, let all the house of Israel assuredly know that God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Paul interprets two psalms to apply to Jesus in this passage. The first is from Psalm 16, that David's soul would not be left in the grave and that the Holy One would not be left to decay. David was making a parallel between himself and the coming Messiah, who would be the Lord, the "Holy One" of Israel. Paul reinterprets the whole passage to apply to Jesus, because David originally wrote it to mean that his righteousness was a guarantee of inheriting eternal life. (Compare Ps. 17:15.)

The second is from Psalm 110. You already know my feelings on that psalm. Regardless, Paul is saying that Jesus was exalted to sit at the right hand of the Father "until your I make your foes your footstool."

What "foes" was this referring to? I think we can both agree that "the last enemy is death" - 1 Cor. 15:24-26 - speaking of the resurrection and of the destruction of the wicked.

Now, if Paul was reinterpreting these two psalms to apply to Jesus, then how are we to understand the promise to David? God's promise to David was not only of an unending dynasty which is fulfilled by the coming Messiah, but also of an eternal throne. Here we have Christ being slated to fulfill that dynasty by sitting at the right hand of the Father. What, then, of the promise to David?

What we're seeing is a spiritual promise being fulfilled to Jesus, because He does not now reign on the earth. We are told that when He returns, then He will be king over the earth (Zech. 14:9). Then it will be a physical promise being fulfilled to Jesus. In the same way, David may be dead, but his spirit is in heaven right now. The promise to David of an eternal throne exists in potential right now, but at the resurrection it will manifest physically.

The great cycle of history is physical-spiritual-physical (for example, physical birth, spiritual rebirth a.k.a. baptism, physical rebirth a.k.a resurrection), and that's what we're seeing here. Seeing Jesus as completely fulfilling this psalm right now ignores the end of that cycle.

Why should we feel compelled to believe that "David's throne" must refer to the earthly throne of David? Does that actual chair still exist? I doubt that it does.

The Ark of the Covenant - God's throne on earth - still exists, although it's been hidden. 2 Maccabees 2:4-8 tells us explicitly that it was hidden, although the Ark has been moved from there since then. Likewise, the throne of David was preserved, because it was overlaid with gold and didn't rot away. As to where they are (and they're not in the same place, either), it's not time for that to be revealed yet. Additionally, Solomon's ivory throne overlaid with gold may still exist as well. I need to do more research on that.

If you're in doubt as to whether or not 2 Maccabees is historically accurate in this regard, since there are historical inaccuracies in the book, then I'd like to suggest that you look at the Copper Scroll. This is a scroll that was apparently written in the time of the Babylonian siege which described the Temple treasures that had been hidden in various places to protect them from being plundered. One of the authors of this scroll was none other than Jeremiah himself! For years, scholars doubted its authenticity, but a man by the name of Vendyl Jones pulled a Heinrich Schillemann on them and used it to discover some of the missing Temple treasures.

You can find more information on his discoveries at the following site.

It may not make sense to you, given your amil perspective, that such things were preserved. Nevertheless, it's a slam-dunk that they were, and that they were preserved by inspiration of God. Given that that's the case, you might want to reconsider automatically assuming that the New Covenant makes everything pertaining to the way God dealt with physical Israel "obsolete."

The best that even the Jews can hope for is not that anyone will ever again sit on the literal chair that David sat upon--unless it (now 3000years ancient) was indestructible. You can only claim, at best, that there will be another throne analogous to the one David sat upon. The apostles believed (as their words indicate) that the throne upon which Christ is now seated is analogous to David's throne. Why can't they be as right as you in their interpretation?

They are right. But that doesn't make me wrong.

2. "IMO, if I were David and I were promised an eternal throne (meaning that he would have to be given eternal life), and then in the resurrection it didn't happen that way, I would feel deceived and cheated."

Yes, if you were David, and if such promises were made to you, and they didn't come true, you might very well feel cheated. However, David will not have occasion to feel this way, since no such promise was ever made to him. It was never said anywhere that David would himself sit on his own throne forever, as your words imply. What was said was that his offspring (Christ) would sit on his throne--that is, would assume David's position of rule over the true Israel forever (2 Sam.7:12-13/Ps.132:11/ Isa.9:6-7/Luke 1:32/ Acts 2:30).

Er, no. 2 Samuel 7:16 says: "And your [King David's] house and your
kingdom will be established forever before you. Your throne will be
established forever." It's that last part that applied to David
himself, not simply his royal dynasty.

In 1 Chronicles 28:1-4, this is even clearer. Here, David says that God had chosen him personally, over and above all of his father's household to be king over Israel FOREVER.

According to the promise, this enthronement would occur, not after the resurrection of the last day, but while David was still dead, "sleeping with his fathers" (2 Sam.7:12f).

Again, 1 Chronicles 28 straightens out the confusion. God not only established the kingdom of David's son Solomon, which is what 2 Samuel 7:12 is referring to, but also ordained David himself as a king over Israel forever.

You write: "Understanding is revealed in and through Christ, that's true, but it doesn't mean that no one outside of Christ can preserve revealed understanding from long ago."

This is true, but how do we know that the understanding passed down by those "outside of Christ" is indeed the "revealed understanding"? If the inspired writers do not agree with these men outside of Christ, and, in fact, disagree with them, doesn't this cast serious doubt on the assumption that these non-christians are preserving the "revealed understanding"?

Ah, that's the rub. There's no guarantee of inspiration from God if one looks at what the Jews understand, as you say. But that's why I said that discernment is needed. Also, we ourselves are given a guarantee that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. There's no limitation on that. We can even be given the inspiration to discern between what's accurate and what's not about Jewish understanding.

That's what I claim is happening with me.

This is the very crux of where you and I differ. I am entirely in favor of using "proper discernment." I am not so self-confident as to label my own hunches, arbitrary constructions, and preconceived notions borrowed from the very teachers who authored blasphemous words against Christ (in the Talmud) as "discernment," on the same level with the insights given by Jesus and the apostles that He appointed to teach official Christian doctrine. I am not too proud to be "spoon-fed" by Jesus and those whom He charged with the feeding of His sheep.

Again, these aren't just "hunches." I claim to be being inspired by the Holy Spirit to discern certain things from a Jewish understanding that are accurate versus other things that are not.

There are, of course, many things that you say with which I agree. In fact, you frequently mention that you agree with my interpretation, but you are convinced that there are multiple interpretations, including your futuristic interpretation. The reason I am not acknowledging this point is that there is no support for these futuristic applications in scripture. When the scripture declares that "All the promises of God are (present tense) Yes, and in Him (Christ) Amen...through us (the church)" (2 Cor.1:20), I see no evidence that the apostle believes there are as yet unfulfilled promises, which are not complete in Christ, and which will be fulfilled through Israel, not the church.

Has a physical resurrection happened yet? Wasn't that one of the things that Israel hoped for? (Acts 24:14-15) If that hasn't happened yet, isn't it conceivable that there are other promises which were given to Israel which have likewise not been fulfilled yet?

Again, I don't mean to separate true Israel and the Church, since technically they're equivalent in God's eyes. They're both His people. Nevertheless, the promises made to physical Israel cannot be broken. To say that all promises have been fulfilled now, in Christ, is not strictly accurate. Paul was making the point, not that all of the promises are had now, but that the promises aren't here one moment and gone the next because of trials and difficult circumstances in this world. They're sure.

What I perceive as your problem is that your eschatological paradigm is built, more than you know, upon Jewish ideas that were rejected by the New Testament, once the Spirit came and led the writers into "all truth." Those Jewish ideas insisted on a literal, ethnic and geographical interpretation of the words "Israel," "Jacob," "Levites," "Jerusalem," "Zion," "House of God," "temple," etc. whereas the New Testament writers applied such terms to the church, and applied the Old Testament prophecies that used these terms accordingly.

There's nothing wrong with applying those terms to the Church, but the Church cannot replace Israel in regards to the fulfillment of the promises. Otherwise, it's as if God was only in a "marriage of convenience" to Israel, and then married the Church after His death and resurrection with no thought to the covenant and the promises that He had made to Israel. You and I both know that isn't true.

Damon
PS. I just saw your reply to the gentleman who posted the article refuting Calvinism. I admit that I tend to get very verbose and that the posts in this thread are reaching book length. I'll ty to keep things shorter in the future.

[_Steve]

Damon,

I don't know how we can continue communicating effectively, if we don't have the same standard of authority to appeal to. This is why discussions with Mormons and Catholics are so frustrating for Protestants. The latter accept the scriptures alone as a final authority and court of appeals, whereas the other groups appeal to scripture plus Joseph Smith, or scripture plus the traditions of the church. What this always ultimately boils down to is that the second authority cancels the authority of the scriptures, because the scriptures can only be trusted as interpreted by the secondary authority.

We have the same problem in our dialog. I believe the scriptures to be the final authority, but you accept them only as interpreted by your "discernment" which you believe to be the same as "divine revelation." These are your actual statements:

"Ah, that's the rub. There's no guarantee of inspiration from God if one looks at what the Jews understand, as you say. But that's why I said that discernment is needed. Also, we ourselves are given a guarantee that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. There's no limitation on that. We can even be given the inspiration to discern between what's accurate and what's not about Jewish understanding. That's what I claim is happening with me."

and again,

"... these aren't just 'hunches.' I claim to be being inspired by the Holy Spirit to discern certain things from a Jewish understanding that are accurate versus other things that are not."

I should clarify that I do not rule out divine inspiration of the believer in his/her personal study of the scripture. In fact, I count on it, and have very often felt that I was experiencing that very phenomenon as God led me, through the years of biblical studies, to reject the views you now hold and to see things as did the apostles. But that truly is the rub, isn't it? You and I are not the only people who think they are experiencing divine illumination in reaching our conclusions, but we, and others who take different views from yours or mine, can't all be guided into contrary beliefs by the same Spirit.

This does not result in a stalemate, however, since there is a way to "test the spirits, to see whether they are of God." The only objective test must be the inspired scriptures, since we don't know from the beginning whether your views are really inspired, or whether my views, contrary to yours are really inspired. We do know that the biblical writers were inspired, so their statements provide a reliable standard by which to test those views that we have thought to be inspired in our understanding.

Here is where we cannot find a meeting of minds. If I say, "This verse means 'such-and-such,'" I endeavor to show that my reason for saying so is that Jesus and/or the apostles have used it that way. But when you say, "This verse means 'such-and-such.'"--you have no ability to show that any inspired writer ever agreed with your interpretation, and you rest entirely upon your subjective "discernment." Then you believe that your discernment equals in value the discernment of the apostles, or even exceeds it.

An example of the latter is the case where, after I quote the New Testament writer to establish a point, you reject my statement (which isn't mine, but that of a biblical writer) and refer to the point as my "assumption." You wrote:

"Given that that's the case, you might want to reconsider automatically assuming that the New Covenant makes everything pertaining to the way God dealt with physical Israel 'obsolete'."

In fact, this is not my assumption at all. To say that the Old Covenant and its ordinances are "obsolete" is simply to repeat the exact words of scripture (Hebrews 8:13).

Sometimes, you take the tact of saying, essentially, "Okay, the scriptures may indeed prove your point; but that doesn't mean that my point [not supported by scripture, but by personal discrenment] isn't equally true!"

For example, you write:

"Just because God now dwells in our hearts through the aegis of the Holy Spirit (something that was just as true of the prophets in the Old Testament, by the way) does not mean that God cannot also dwell in one specific location (which He did during the time of those same prophets)."

You are apparently mistaken. God's making His dwelling place in the hearts of His people, as a temple, does not seem to have a precedent in the Old Testament. It is true that the prophets had the Spirit occasionally visit them to inspire their oracles, but the testimony of scripture is that "the Holy Spirit was not yet given [in the sense that He is now given], because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). Though the Holy Spirit visited certain men in the Old Testament, His recognised "house" was the tabernacle/temple. In the New Testament, the temple is dispensed with, and the people of God, the church take its place as the temple of God (1 Cor.3:16/ 2 Cor.6:16/ Eph.2:19-22/ 1 Pet.2:5).

The church has become the dwelling place of God "forever" (John 14:16, 23/ Rev.21:3-4). There is no warrant anywhere in scripture (apart from one's subjective discernment) that God will ever again live in a temple made with hands (Isa.66:1-2/ Acts 7:48-50).

You seem to stumble at my interpretation of Malachi 3, because you unnecessarily apply the passage to the future. You find this necessary, apparently, because you take the expression "sons of Levi" literally. In your words:

"Malachi 3 also talks about purifying the sons of Levi to serve in the Temple that the Lord would suddenly come to, something that I showed before cannot apply to John the Baptist. Therefore, it demands a future fulfillment for purification for Temple service in regards to a future Temple."

There is no warrant anywhere in the passage to apply it to the future, since, as I mentioned before, all of the synoptic Gospels apply the setting to the first century, and no passage of scripture ever applies it otherwise.

The thing about it that you say makes the passage "demand a future fulfillment" is the comment about the Levites. However, there are reasons to see the "sons of Levi" as a reference to "the servants of God's temple," conceived spiritually, rather than ethnically. Here are some reasons to do so:

1. The Levites are history. Their entire order has been preempted by the Melchisedek order of priesthood. This latter order is permanent and eternal, so there will be no room for the Levitical priests to crowd in there at some future date (Hebrews 7);

2. Levites are spoken of non-ethnically in Isaiah 66:20-21, where God says, "I will take some of them [Gentile converts] for priests and Levites." Paul alludes to this passage in Romans 15:16, and identifies the Gentiles that he was bringing into the church with those mentioned in this passage;

3. You have yourself questioned whether there will be animal sacrifices in the future temple, or not. If they ever are reinstituted by Israel, it will be without legitimacy, according to Hebrews, chapters 9 and 10. If animal sacrifices are not re-established, what do the Levites have to do with their time? If one would answer, "They can offer spiritual sacrifices!" Well, how does that differ from what all saved people do now (1 Pet.2:5/Heb.13:15)? Special duties of the Levites were associated with the sacrificial system. Without that system, Levites would be out of a job. In such a case (i.e., if the temple was used only for "spiritual sacrifices" to be offered), the building itself would differ nothing from any church building used for such purposes today.

My understanding of Malachi 3:1-4 is very simple, and does not require any contradiction of other scriptures, nor the importation of mysterious, otherwise unknown, characters, like your "Messenger of the Covenant." Here is what Malachi predicted in these verses:

A. God will send the messenger, John the Baptist, before the (first) appearance of Christ, after which Christ Himself, "the Lord...even theMessenger of the Covenant," whom all Israel is seeking and is seeking, will arrive (v.1). So far, so good. Simple, and already fulfilled to the letter;

B. When "the Lord...even the Messenger of the Covenant" comes to His temple, it is a day hard to be endured by those whose activities have corrupted the temple and the Jewish religion, who must then be purged (v.1-2). This may have a preliminary fulfillment in Christ's denouncing the ministers of the temple, but is more probably a reference to His "coming" to destroy it in AD 70. This seems to be supported by the, almost rhetorical, question, "Who will be able to stand?" raised here, and again, in Revelation 6:17 (which, for reasons too numerous to mention here, I take to be about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70);

C. The judgment on Jerusalem by Christ (AD 70) has the result of purifying the Levites (that is, ministers of God's temple) as a category. The corrupt ministers are swept away (like the chaff in John's prediction--Matt.3:12), and purer "Levites" are brought in to replace them (i.e., those who have been purged by the blood of the New Covenant, and whom God, according to Isa.66:21, takes "for [in place of]... Levites"). The result is "the sons of Levi" as a category is purged of the dross and made pure to offer up pure sacrifices (Rom.12:1/ 1 Pet.2:5/ Heb.13:15).

I realize that your approach is to take terms like "sons of Levi," "Judah" and "Jerusalem" in their literal (i.e. Old Testament) sense. The apostles did not do this (Rom.2:28-29; 9:6/ Phil.3:3/ Gal.4:26/ Heb.12:22-23), nor do I.

When the New Testament interpretations of these things are accepted, we lose all reason to demand that any part of this passage be relegated to a future fulfillment, and we can take Jesus at face value when He said that the events of AD 70 will bring about the fulfillment of "all things that are written [i.e., in the Old Testament, including Malachi]" (Luke 21:22).

Concerning my view of this subject, you write: "A lot of interpreters do that, but they're incorrect." But you do not demonstrate from any biblical exegesis that they are incorrect. You depend upon your personal divine inspiration. How are we supposed to place any confidence in this novel inspiration, without it matching up with scripture?

Again, you write:

"The rebuilding of the Temple is only one part of [Christ's] goal, in connection with Isaiah 2:1-5."

But how are we to know that the building of a Jewish temple is part of Christ's goal, if neither He nor any other biblical writer have said so? There is nothing in all of scripture that tells us that it will be part of the Messiah's program to build a third temple and to bring back the defunct worship forms that He rendered obsolete at His first coming.

Isaiah 2:1-5, and every other prophecy in the Bible, can very adequately be exegeted from New Testament statements, without the importation of a "third temple" concept.

You challenge Paul's identification of "the temple of God" with "the church," and insist that he must mean what you prefer for him to mean, rather than letting his own writings interpret his statements. You think you have found a flaw in the reasoning. You write:

"Then let me ask you how you expect the 'man of sin' to sit in a spiritual Temple and be suddenly paid attention to. To me, that makes no sense...So, how does this 'man of sin' take possession of a spiritualized throne in a spiritual Temple? To me, it makes much more sense that he'll usurp a physical sanctuary."

It might make more sense, according to your "discernment," but Paul has already identified what he means by the term "temple of God" in unambguous terms (1 Cor.3:16/ 2 Cor.6:16), so special discernment does not need to be called in to help us know his meaning. If Paul believed there would be a future, physical "temple of God," he was completely mum on the subject elsewhere, as were Christ, the Old Testament prophets, and the other New Testament writers. Why should we make this statement into the sole support for such a concept, when Paul has consistently used the terminology in a different way than this?

There is no mention of any "throne" that the man of sin usurps (you made that part up), but even if there were, it would present no difficulties to the postulate that the "man of sin" has seized the reins of the church, as predicted, and has claimed to be God Himself on many occasions. All the church fathers and the reformers unanimously held that the man of sin would rise immediately after the fall of Rome, and the reformers identified the "man of sin" as the institution of the Roman Catholic papacy. Of course, these interpreters were not "inspired" in their interpretation, any more or less than you or I are, but their theory satisfies every datum in the passage adequately, rendering it unnecessary to insist upon some futuristic interpretation.

You claim too much for your argument, when you say, "I showed the logic which proves that Jesus is not presently sitting on King David's throne." I missed the logic in your argument. All I remember is your denial of the proposition, not your refutation. You said that David's throne must be an earthly throne, but that position presupposes the necessity of understanding the word "throne" literally. You showed no authoritative reason for us to take this expression as referring to the literal chair upon which David sat. You only pronounced it (apparently on the basis of your divine revelation) to be so. This is not what most would call a logical demonstration.

Since the apostles identified the fulfillment of this promise to David as already being fulfilled in the resurrection and ascension of Christ (Acts 2:32-34/ Acts 13:34), I think we have biblical authority for taking "David's throne" non-literally. And who can make a "logical" argument that it should not be thus understood?

In your exegesis of Acts 2:29-36, you repeatedly ascribe the statements to Paul, not Peter. I wouldn't be so petty as to point this out, if it were merely the lapse of a preacher in a sermon. I'm sure I have made the same kind of mistake many times.

The problem is, one of the first steps in responsible exegesis is to correctly identify who is the author of the statements you are treating. Misidentifying the speaker does not necessarily impact the significance or meaning of his words (in this particular case), but it raises concerns about the carefulness of the exegete in looking at the passage he is treating.

In your exegesis, you seem to miss the relevance of Peter's argument to the promise made to David. Peter begins by saying, of David, that "he is both dead and buried" (v.29), showing that conditions for the fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7:12 are in place. He then says that God made a promise to David that He would "raise up" his seed (not David himself) to sit on his throne (v.30). Then he declares, "This Jesus, God has raised up" (v.32), identifying the fulfillment of that promise with the resurrection of Christ. Finally, Peter concludes: "let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus...both Lord and Christ" (v.36). In the context of the discussion about the promise of the Christ arising to take the throne, this last statement can hardly be seen as declaring anything less than the fulfillment of that promise under discussion.

You continue your support for futuristic interpretations in writing: "We are told that when He returns, then He will be king over the earth (Zech. 14:9)." Christ has become "King over all the earth" (as opposed to Israel only) by virtue of what He did at His first coming, and holds that office in His present session at the right hand of God (Matt.29:18/1 Tim.6:15).

I would argue that Zechariah makes no reference to the second coming of Christ, and is more reasonably interpreted, verse-by-verse, as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the New Order that has replaced it. I know this is difficult for anyone to see, who has been accustomed to see it futuristically. I know this, because it took me decades to see my way clear of my futuristic assumptions about this chapter, and to accept Christ's assessment of "all that is written" (Luke 21:22).

You write, in your assertion that the literal throne of David physically exists today somewhere on the earth:

"It may not make sense to you, given your amil perspective, that such things were preserved. Nevertheless, it's a slam-dunk that they were, and that they were preserved by inspiration of God."

You say it is a slam-dunk that this chair still exists, but you give no biblical or archaeological evidence that this is so. You say there is evidence that it was hidden long ago, but that it exists today is sheer speculation. It seems that the only thing that elevates this claim to "slam-dunk" status is your personal inspiration, which has already proven to be contrary, in many points, to that of the biblical writers, and which looks, to a person like me, more like a forcing of difficult data into a paradigm to which you have chosen to be unconditionally loyal. Nothing, other than your paradigm, supports the validity of your assertion. Since I view the paradigm as flawed, I see no reason to believe the assertion that rests upon it.

In an attempt to make David the eternal future occupant of "the throne of David," you do some rather odd exegesis of relevant texts. You write:

"2 Samuel 7:16 says: 'And your [King David's] house and your
kingdom will be established forever before you. Your throne will be
established forever.' It's that last part that applied to David
himself, not simply his royal dynasty."

I can find no exegetical reason to isolate the concept of David's "throne" from that of his "kingdom" or his "house." Yet you, seemingly arbitrarily, consign the latter to David's offspring, but the former to David himself. I can't see how this is justified, other than by subjective "discernment." No one who studies this text should be thought obligated to chop it up so strangely, merely because of someone else's alleged discernment.

You then choose a "clearer" text, which really turns out to be no more servicable to your ends. You write:

"In 1 Chronicles 28:1-4, this is even clearer. Here, David says that God had chosen him personally, over and above all of his father's household to be king over Israel FOREVER."

Here is the relevant portion of the text [David speaking] :

"the Lord chose me above all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever, for he has chosen Judah to be ruler..."

A cursory reading of the first clause might give the impression (in the absence of conflicting biblical data) that God's promise was to sit the man David eternally over Israel. But there is indeed conflicting biblical data, and the wording of the text shows that this cannot be its meaning.

First, the conflicting data consists of the many verses throughout scripture saying that it is David's seed, the Messiah (not David), who will permanently occupy the davidic throne (I listed several of these passages in my previous post). Also, David is clearly referring back to the promise first uttered in 2 Samel 7:12, which mentions only David's son (not David) being enthroned after David's death, and having an eternal reign. It would be strange to make David misinterpret that promise here, when it is clearly repeated, without such distortion, so frequently in the rest of scripture.

Since David speaks both of himself and of Judah being chosen to reign, it makes sense to see here a reference, not to the individuals, but to the "houses" of these two men. "The Lord God of Israel chose me above all the house of my father...He has chosen Judah...the house of Judah..." David and Judah are both tribal or dynastic names. They encompass, not just the man David and the man Judah, but all who are descended from them as well. All the kings of David's line were rightfully called "David" (1 Kings 12:16)--including the Messiah (Hos.3:5).

Your claim to being both amillennial and premillennial seems to be supported by your espousal of both views of Israel:

"Again, I don't mean to separate true Israel and the Church, since technically they're equivalent in God's eyes. They're both His people. Nevertheless, the promises made to physical Israel cannot be broken."

On the one hand, you take the amillennial view by equating Israel with the church (good job!), but on the other, you take the dispensational position of re-erecting the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and claiming some special promises apply only to Israel, and not the church. This seems hopelessly inconsistent, which is why no one can really be amil and pre-mil at the same time.

Promises to Israel cannot be broken by God, but some promises were conditional, and Israel's failure to meet the conditions caused them to be retracted (Jer.18:7-10). All of God's promises to Israel have either 1) been fulfilled historically, or 2) been fulfilled spiritually, in the church, or 3) been abrogated because of Israel's defaulting on the obligation to meet the stipulated conditions.

Finally, you write:

"There's nothing wrong with applying those terms to the Church, but the Church cannot replace Israel in regards to the fulfillment of the promises. Otherwise, it's as if God was only in a "marriage of convenience" to Israel, and then married the Church after His death and resurrection with no thought to the covenant and the promises that He had made to Israel. You and I both know that isn't true."

Wrong again. God can divorce an adulterous wife (just as you or I can) without becoming a covenant-breaker, and without being charged of having only had a "marriage of convenience." A true, committed marriage can be broken in cases of adultery. That is the reason God divorced the Old Covenant wife.

The church certainly has replaced Israel, according to the most reasonable interpretation of Matthew 21:43:[Jesus, speaking to the Jews] "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it." Also, Paul writes, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman will not be heir with the son of the freewoman" (Gal.4:30), In view of his previous identification of "the son of the bondwoman" with the earthly Jews under the Old Covenant (vv.24-25), and "the son of the freewoman" as the church (v.31), it is impossible to retain any inheritance of promises to the former, which has been supplanted by the latter. Repugnant as this idea is to dispensationalists (they call it replacement theology), it is the unambiguous teaching of the New Testament.

I am going to put this one to bed. You may have the last word, if you like.

[jaiotu]

I'm trying to shorten this post up a bit. Bear with me, please...

Damon,

I don't know how we can continue communicating effectively, if we don't have the same standard of authority to appeal to. This is why discussions with Mormons and Catholics are so frustrating for Protestants. ...

[snip]

We have the same problem in our dialog. I believe the scriptures to be the final authority, but you accept them only as interpreted by your "discernment" which you believe to be the same as "divine revelation." ...

[snip]

I should clarify that I do not rule out divine inspiration of the believer in his/her personal study of the scripture. ...

[snip]

Well, first of all, you won't have the same problem with me that you do with Catholics or Mormons. I certainly won't put myself in the position of looking down on you if you don't accept what I believe. (I get enough of that from my parents and I know how it feels!) Also, in another post I can clarify specifically what it is, concerning certain Jewish beliefs, that I'm claiming that the Holy Spirit has inspired me to understand are true. I'm not claiming that everything I've posted here comes from the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit - although I certainly hope it does. Let me know if you'd like me to do that, since you said you wanted to wrap up the discussion.

By the way, we each do have a recourse in coming to terms with one another's beliefs. We have the option to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal if what the other is saying is true. That's not to say that we'll necessarily get an answer or get an answer right away, but we do have that option.

Nevertheless, it's my belief that it's not yet the time for people like you and I to be doctrinally reconciled. We'll have to learn how to love one another (which I think we already manage quite well, in fact) in spite of whatever doctrinal disagreements we may have. I do believe that there will come a time when there will be prophets once again who will clear up doctrinal issues, so that the body of Christ will no longer be doctrinally at odds with itself. (I don't believe it will ever be corporately unified, but I do believe that it will be doctrinally unified before the return of Christ.)

[snip]

Again, as always, you take the tact of saying, essentially, "Okay, the scriptures may indeed prove your point; but that doesn't mean that my point [not supported by scripture, but by my discrenment] isn't equally true!"

But the problem is that I firmly believe that I am basing my beliefs on Scripture, and that I'm correctly interpreting it. You see things differently, and that's where we are.

As far as the comment about reconsidering whether the New Covenant makes certain items pertaining to how God dealt with physical Israel under the Old Covenant "obsolete", I made this comment in connection with giving physical evidence that they had been preserved through inspiration of God. Are we not told to "prove all things"? That's what I was doing.

More below on that.

You are apparently mistaken. God's dwelling place in the church does not have any precedent in the Old Testament.

Er, you're missing my point. My point was that God was able to dwell both in the hearts of the prophets as well as in a certain physical location. Having the one dwelling does not preclude God from having the other.

There is no warrant anywhere in scripture (apart from your subjective discernment) that God will ever again live in a temple made with hands (Isa.66:1-2/ Acts 7:48-50).

But Isaiah 66:1-2, which is quoted in Acts 7:48-50, was originally written at a time when the Temple still existed. The point that Isaiah was making is that God is not confined to dwelling at a physical Temple. Jeremiah clarified Isaiah's point in Jeremiah 7:1-11, saying that the Jews had the attitude that because they had the Temple - and through it, access to God - they had license to steal, murder, commit adultery, and do whatever they wanted. God rejected that attitude. He will not dwell with sin, but instead dwells with those who have a humble and contrite heart.

You seem to stumble at my interpretation of Malachi 3, because you unnecessarily apply the passage to the future, and you take the "sons of Levi" quite literally.

Well, what other way is there to properly interpret these "sons of Levi" in the context of the book of Malachi? I've already gone through the arguments on why I see them as physical and not spiritual. But you've presented some further arguments below, so I'll address them now:

1. The Levites are history. Their entire order is preempted by the Melchisedek order of priesthood. This latter order is permanent and eternal, so there will be no room for the Levitical priest to crowd in there at some future date (Hebrews 7);

If that's how we're to understand Hebrews 7, then God's promise in Jeremiah 33:14-22 is broken. But, I believe there's a way to reconcile these two passages.

2. Levites are spoken of non-ethnically in Isaiah 66:20-21, where God says, "I will take some of them [Gentile converts] for priests and Levites." Paul alludes to this passage in Romans 15:16, and identifies the Gentiles that he was bringing into the church with those mentioned in this passage;

I already addressed that issue. I said that in the context of Malachi 3, the Levites being spoken of were being purified to offer righteous offerings to God because they had formerly been offering polluted offerings to God (Mal. 1:6-7). The Gentiles who are being made Levites, according to Romans 15:16, have never offered polluted offerings to God. Therefore, Malachi 3 cannot ultimately be talking about Gentiles who have been made Levites. That may be a partial fulfillment, as Romans 15:16 indicates. But ultimately, it has to be talking about physical, racial Levites.

3. You have yourself questioned whether there will be animal sacrifices in the future temple. Without them, what do the Levites have to do with their time? If you say, "They can offer spiritual sacrifices!" Well, how does that differ from what all saved people do (1 Pet.2:5/Heb.13:15)?

How indeed?

Because the Gentiles are now being grafted onto the vine of Israel, does that mean that there is no difference in office between Jews and Gentiles? The answer is actually no. There is a difference in office. Israel was called to be a nation of priests to the other nations of the world (Ex. 19:5-6). Even though Gentiles are now being called to become part of that priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9-10), national Israel will forever have that office. It was taken away from them for a time, but it will not remain that way (e.g., Hos. 1-2, which I clarify below), and in the Kingdom they will have the pre-eminence (Rev. 7:1-8 and 14:1-5).

The same is true of the Levites. The way in which there is no difference between them and Gentile "Levites" or between Jews and Gentiles in general is that all have sinned (Rom. 3:22-23), and that we must all repent and live by faith (Acts 15:8-9).

[snip]

I realize that your approach is to take "sons of Levi," "Judah" and "Jerusalem" in their literal (i.e. Old Testament) sense. The apostles did not do this (Rom.2:28-29; 9:6/ Phil.3:3/ Gal.4:26/ Heb.12:22-23), nor do I.

No, I take them in both their literal and spiritual senses, whereas you focus exclusively on the NT, spiritual sense.

Concerning my view of this, you write: "A lot of interpreters do that, but they're incorrect."

A lot of interpreters make the "messenger of the covenant" to be Jesus, but they're incorrect. That's what I said that in connection with. I still hold to that, and you've not convinced me otherwise.

...how are we to know that the building of a Jewish temple is part of Christ's goal, if neither He nor any other biblical writer have said so?

As I said, I believe that Malachi 3 proves that a third Temple will be built. If you don't, fine. We'll just have to disagree.

It might make more sense according to your "discernment" [that the man of sin sits in a physical Temple of God], but Paul has already identified what he means by the term "temple of God" in unambguous terms (1 Cor.3:16/ 2 Cor.6:16), so special discernment does not need to be called in.

Okay, then explain how this man of sin sits in a spiritual Temple of God, because it still doesn't make sense to me. I specifically invited you to explain your views on this. Feel free to start another thread on it, since you said you wanted to wind this one up.

There is no mention of any "throne" that the man of sin usurps (you made that part up),

Steve, don't do that. That's rude and un-called for. I interpreted the passage to point to this man of sin usurping God's throne by sitting in the Temple as God (which God figuratively did by "sitting" on the Mercy Seat; see Ex. 25:21-22; remember that the Mercy Seat represented God's throne - see Jer. 17:12). If you don't see it that way, fine, but don't accuse me of simply making something up if you don't know for a fact that it's the case.

...a man of sin has seized the reins of the church, and has claimed to be God Himself on many occasions. All the church fathers and the reformers unanimously held that the man of sin would rise immediately after the fall of Rome, and the reformers identified the man of sin as the papacy.

First of all, the Pope never seized the reins of the whole Church because there were many Christians who existed outside of the sphere of Rome's influence for centuries. Celtic Christianity, at least up until 664 AD at the Council of Whitby, is a perfect example. So I don't buy this argument, although I can see why many do.

Besides, it doesn't explain who in the heck "planted the tabernacles of his palace between the seas [the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea] in the glorious holy mountain [the Temple Mount]" (Dan. 11:45). Historically, that doesn't tie in with the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It was only fulfilled in 691 AD, when Abd al Malik built the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount and five palaces surrounding the Temple Mount. If this marked the beginning of the so-called "fourth beast" then the fourth beast should be understood as Moslem, not Roman and not pointing to the Pope.

Interesting, is it not, considering that the trouble today springs from the Moslems and not the Catholic Church?

You claim too much for your argument, when you say, "I showed the logic which proves that Jesus is not presently sitting on King David's throne." I missed the logic in your argument.

My argument was that David's throne is an earthly throne, not a heavenly one. Any fulfillment of this verse in the spiritual sense, having Christ reigning at the right hand of the Father in heaven, must therefore be only a partial fulfillment. I don't even have to interpret the word "throne" literally - although I do. David ruled as the physical King of Israel. Jesus, at His return, will become the physical King of Israel. David and Jesus will therefore have occupied the exact same "throne."

In exegeting Acts 2:29-36, you repeatedly ascribe the statements to Paul, not Peter.

My mistake. In the midst of all of the other things I've studied over the years, a small lapse like this is negligible.

I hope you really understand how much research, prayer, and experience has gone into formulating my position and my beliefs. I'm not as old as you are, but I'm not exactly a "young" Christian, spiritually speaking.

In your exegesis, you seem to miss the relevance of Peter's argument to the promise made to David. Peter begins by saying, of David, "that he is both dead and buried" (v.29), showing that conditions for the fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7:12 are in place.

You didn't understand what I said, then. 2 Samuel 7:12 applies to David's son, not David himself. 1 Chronicles 28:4 applies to David himself. I never denied that a kingdom would be established under David's son, who is spiritually Jesus. See below for more on 1 Chr. 28:4.

You continue to presume futuristic interpretations when you write: "We are told that when He returns, then He will be king over the earth (Zech. 14:9)." My contention is that Zechariah makes no reference to the second coming of Christ, and is more reasonably interpreted, verse-by-verse, as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the New Order that has replaced it.

Zechariah 14:4 (cf. Acts 1:9-12) might have something to do with why I read it the way I do. Jesus went up into heaven from the Mount of Olives, and He will come down and stand on the Mount of Olives when He returns. Zechariah 14:4 is specifically pointing to the day of His return.

I'm not claiming that there's no application to 70 AD, but that is not the final fulfillment that this prophecy points to.

You write, in your assertion that the literal throne of David exists today somewhere on the earth:

Not only the chair, but also the descendants of King David, yes.

You say it is a slam-dunk that this chair still exists, but you give no biblical or archaeological evidence that this is so.

Er, no. You misread what I wrote. It's a slam-dunk that the following were preserved by inspiration of God:

1. The Holy Anointing Oil, used to anoint kings, priests, and prophets in the Old Testament.
2. The ashes of the Red Heifer, used for purification at the Temple.

Why is it a slam-dunk? BECAUSE THEY WERE FOUND BY USING THE COPPER SCROLL WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY FIVE AUTHORS INCLUDING JEREMIAH HIMSELF, UNDER THE DIRECT INSPIRATION OF GOD.

2 Maccabees 2:4-8 says that the Ark of the Covenant was likewise preserved. I have research which shows that the throne of David was preserved as well. On these two, we have no physical evidence to prove this as yet. Nevertheless, because we've already seen certain appurtenances of the Temple come to light which have been preserved through inspiration of God, it's not inconceivable, both theologically and historically, that these might have been preserved as well.

I am asking you to look at the physical evidence for yourself on what has been proven to have been preserved through inspiration of God. Go and look at the web site I mentioned in my previous post. I'm not asking you to take the rest "on faith" but instead to leave open the possibility that the Ark of the Covenant and the literal throne of David might also have been preserved.

[snip re 1 Chr. 28:4]

A cursory reading of the first clause might give the impression (in the absence of conflicting biblical data) that God's promise was to sit the man David eternally over Israel. But there is indeed conflicting biblical data, and the wording of the text shows that this cannot be its meaning.

First, the conflicting data consists of the many verses throughout scripture saying that it is David's seed, the Messiah (not David), who will permanently occupy the davidic throne (I listed several of these passages in my previous post). Also, David is clearly referring back to the promise first uttered in 2 Samel 7:12, which mentions only David's son (not David) being enthroned after David's death, and having an eternal reign. It would be strange to make David misinterpret that promise here, when it is clearly repeated, without such distortion, so frequently in the rest of scripture.

You're using circular reasoning to prove your point, though! In other words, this verse can't really mean what it's saying because other verses say something different. WRONG! Don't do that, Steve! You've told me before that you often overlook the historical and cultural context of OT passages in order to conform them to NT interpretations, and I can understand how your perspective justifies you doing that, but you have no such justification here. I've seen you excuse passages like Ezekiel 37:24 from literally meaning that King David will reign over Israel after the resurrection because of your position, but this is getting ridiculous! All this is is circular reasoning and making a passage fit a preconceived interpretation, something you've accused me on more than one occasion of doing!

Steve, do me a big favor and don't be the pot calling the kettle black. This passage means exactly what it says. King David could see that God's promise in 2 Samuel 7:12 could be interpreted in more than one way - both as his dynasty being established forever and also as he himself literally being enthroned forever - and David took both ways of interpreting God's promise to be accurate!

Please let something in for once, instead of making passages fit your position.

Since David speaks both of himself and of Judah being chosen to reign, it makes sense to see here a reference, not to the individuals, but to the "houses" of these two men.

No, that's not what it means. Out of all of the sons of Jacob, Judah was chosen to be the ruler - the one with the sceptre. Judah didn't literally rule over his brothers, nor did he literally have a sceptre. But out of Judah's descendants came Jesse, David's father. Out of Jesse's family came David himself, and David was the one who was finally chosen to be a literal ruler over Israel, fulfilling this promise to Judah. That's what David meant. He wasn't referring to his dynastic line, although 2 Samuel 7:12 did. He was referring specifically to himself.

By taking your position that the promises of physical Israel must all apply to the Church and that the promises to King David are also spiritual and figurative, one can read whatever one wants into the Scriptures. But I try not to do that. I try to read the Scriptures in the historical and cultural context in which they were written, which, IMHO, is the best way to understand how they were intended to be properly understood.

Just FYI, how, in your opinion, was the promise in Jeremiah 33:17 kept from the time that King Zedekiah was taken to Babylon until Christ came?

On the one hand, you take the amillennial view by equating Israel with the church (good job!), but on the other, you take the dispensational position of re-erecting the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and claiming some special promises apply only to Israel, and not the church. This seems hopelessly inconsistent, which is why no one can really be amil and pre-mil at the same time.

It's not inconsistent to me. Again, there is a difference in responsibility and office, but not a difference in relationship. By making that distinction, I can take both positions without any inconsistency.

Promises to Israel cannot be broken by God, but some promises were conditional, and Israel's failure to meet the conditions caused them to be retracted (Jer.18:7-10). All of God's promises to Israel have either 1) been fulfilled historically, or 2) been fulfilled spiritually, in the church, or 3) been abrogated because of Israel's defaulting on the obligation to meet the stipulated conditions.

Well, I disagree with you. I claim that NOT all of God's promises to Israel have been fulfilled yet. And I believe the word of God backs up that assertion. (For example, Rom. 9:4, 11:1-2, 11-12, 15-29. "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.")

Wrong again. God can divorce an adulterous wife (just as you or I can) without becoming a covenant-breaker, and without being charged of having only had a "marriage of convenience." A true, committed marriage can be broken in cases of adultery. That is the reason God divorced the Old Covenant wife.

You missed my point. Remember, Moses didn't command divorce in cases of adultery. Rather, he permitted it. Why? Because of the hardness of their hearts. BUT GOD'S HEART WAS NEVER HARDENED TOWARD ISRAEL. He wasn't simply a "fair-weather Husband," deserting Israel at the first sign of unfaithfulness on their part. Even after He divorced them, it was still His desire to bring them back to Him. Hosea 1-2 is very clear about that. That being the case, the original promises that were made to Israel would not be null and void. Those that repented and returned to God would attain to the promises that God had originally given to them.

That's my point.

Furthermore, the Gentiles would be blessed to receive a portion of those promises. Why? So that they could in turn be a part of bringing physical Israel back to God! For instance, read Isaiah 54:6-14 and also Isaiah 49:14 and 21-23.

The church certainly has replaced Israel...

Again, I disagree. For the present time, physical Israel is bearing no fruit suitable for repentance (Mat. 3:8-12). Nevertheless, we have the sure promise of God that He will bring them back to Him. That's the whole message of Hosea 1-2, and the bringing in of the Gentiles is for the express purpose of also bringing Israel back to God.

I am going to put this one to bed. You may have the last word, if you like.

Steve, it's not that I want the last word. I don't have any personal ego involved in what I'm saying. What I do have is a heart to see Israel return to God, just like Paul did.

There will come a time when God will again send His prophets to clarify things once and for all. The spiritual Temple of God - the Church - must be rebuilt prior to His return, because right now "not one [spiritual] stone has been left upon another". I fervently await that day, and desire to be a part of it.

In the meantime, until that happens, it's fruitless to argue to the point of unrighteously condemning one another. I would never want to do that to another person, especially considering that both of my parents have done that to each other and to me, and I know how it feels. I consider you a brother in Christ because you have a heart to minister to others, and because of that I see Christ dwelling in you.

Anyway, if I'm to have the "last word," that would be the last thing - and the most important thing - I'd want you to remember.

Damon

[Guest]

Damon, I am NO scholar but I still say you have done some homework!
May I ask you your age?
Keep seeking!

[jaiotu]

Yes, you may ask.

I'm 31.

Damon

[_Steve]

Damon,

I don't start new threads here, and I won't prolong this one. I will gladly answer any question that anyone posts on new threads, and if you would like to post the specidfic questions that you raised above in separate threads, I will address them.

Suffice it to say, I know your reasons for seeing the scriptures futuristically as you do, because I did the same for many years. I also know that my arguments apparently do not impress you, or perhaps you didn't notice them, since many of them are passed over as if they weren't there. I think the arguments are unanswerable, but since you do not find them convincing, I can do little more to answer you to your satisfaction.

You are welcome to call my program any weekday and debate any of these points in real time. With the number of things we differ about, it might be more productive than laying out dozens of disputed points at a given time, and then trying to dispute each one in long, drawn-out answers.

Suffice it to say, sadly, I see every one of your arguments as flawed by presuppositions that I used to hold myself. My present views did not arise from different presuppositions from yours, but actually had to overcome my settled presuppositions in order to take hold of my thinking. In that transitional time, I was not exposed to one amillennial teacher or writer (to my knowledge) because, in those days I read nothing but the Bible and devotional literature.

I can see that it will do no good to exegete individual texts with you. It is necessary to exegete entire chapters (like Zechariah 14) in order to expound the view of a single verse (like Zech.14:4). If you could hear my lecture series called "Topical Isaiah," you would understand my position comprehensively, rather than piecemeal.

In the final analysis, however, it is my respect for the superior revelation given by Christ and His apostles, and the clear teaching that this revelation is a corrective to the uninspired Jewish opinions, and that the spiritual reality has forever replaced the types and shadows of the Old Covenant, that makes my position irreconcilable with yours. I don't mind dialoging further, but our starting points being so different, I fear we must never reach the same end conclusions.

Thanks for the energy and time you have devoted to attempting to expound this topic for us.