Did God ever revoke his covenant with David tentatively?

Josheb said:

Yep. Already happened.



And you're digressing from the op. This op is about a very specific question asked about David's unending throne. Acts 2 answers that question. Everything else is off-topic.


But this is what happens everytime someone (not just me) posts this answer because it's intolerable to certain views. Immediately Jacob and Daniel and Ezekiel and all varieties of other scripture are brought eisegetically and off-topically into the conversation. If you read through my posts then you read where I posted the exact same admonition to OldWiseGuy: stay on topic; the topic is David's covenant and the descendant who would reign without end.

The problem with the copy-and-paste eisegesis is that I can't get any of you to ever stick to one verse at a time. When you get caught in the mistaken interpretation of one verse then you jump to another in avoidance. And then when that verse is addressed a leap to another and it becomes an endless chase around scripture in which you never face what scripture actually states. It's like chasing rabbits.

Acts 2 answers this op's question.


I'm not stuck and you have yet to prove "Other verses talk about [When] He [Christ] takes over King Davids Throne." All of the OT passages you've quoted work through Acts 2. All the NT verses you've quoted prove what I've posted, not your position. This is quite obvious in the distinction between "rule" and "subdue" in 1 Cor. 15 but you've completely ignored what it states in favor of what your hermeneutic makes it say and you accuse me of not relying on what it states when the exact opposite is the case.


And we're not going to be able to have cogent discourse as long as you misrepresent my posts. We're not going to have cogent discourse as long as you misrepresent your own posts. We're not going to have cogent discourse as long as you post op-irrelevant content. We're not going to have cogent discourse as long as you don't actually read what the scriptures actually state. And we're not going to be able to have cogent discourse as long as you endlessly hop around scripture never dealing with anything either of us post. The scriptures you have posted prove what I have posted, not your position.

.

Well, let's look at that again, shall we?

1 Corinthians 15:27-28
"For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all."​

First, you'll note Paul is quoting from the prophet Daniel (ch. 7) and Paul is implicitly saying that prophesy has been fulfilled. Second, it is plainly stated "All things are put in subjection." That is what the verse states, not what I make it say, not what I read into the text, not what I "interpret," so let's discard all those false accusations I am not standing on what t states and all those accusations I'm interpreting the verse. I am accepting it exactly as written.

Third, the verse says the one who put those things under Jesus is not Himself under that subjection. Fourth, the verse states, when all things are subjected to Jesus then Jesus himself will be subject to the one put who put all things under Jesus. When does the passage say all things will be subjected to Jesus? Well... according to what the verse actually factually, plainly STATES, all things have already been subjected to him!

You screwed up.

The plain reading of the text leaves with a bit of a conundrum: how can all things be under his subjection and something still be subjected to him? How can the verse state "All things are put in subjection," and then say, "When all things are subjected to him...?"

Psalm 110:1 answers that question and it does so without hermeneutic hurdles. No one has to interpret anything if they use Psalm 110:1. We don't have to go chasing through the Old Testament with eisegetic inference if we stand firm on what is firmly stated.

Fifth, Paul isn't actually making a statement about future history. Paul is making a statement about his previous statement. He is, in essence saying, "When I say, 'All things are put in subjection' I don't mean God is in subjection." And we understand this because Ephesians 1:23 states, "And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Jesus fills "all in all." He's already does that. All things are already put in subjection to Jesus and Jesus fills (not "will be") all in all.

That is what it states.

You screwed up twice. Three times if we count the failure to recognize Paul's implication Daniel 7 was fulfilled in the first century. Acts 2 tells us the unending Davidic throne was the resurrection.




Most important to this discussion, though, is the fact 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't mention "David" or "throne" anywhere. You've read that into the text. You did not read what was stated as I was falsely accused of doing. Under normal, ordinary, objective circumstances that's called hypocrisy. don't believe that was your intent so here's an opportunity for you to prove me correct about your innocence and good intent: Does 1 Corinthians 15 actually STATE anything about David or David's throne?


If not, then please retract what you posted about my not reading what is stated and please acknowledge it was you reading things into the text it doesn't actually state.

Because we won't be having cogent discourse if you don't have any personal integrity.

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

Yep. Already happened.

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

The poster friend of had a question about God tentatively revoking the covenant He made with David. The ensuing posts show three posters one of whom is you) citing passages that are not where the covenant is found (it is first found in 2 Samuel 7 and occurs within the context of 1 Samuel 8, which inturn occurs within the covenants God made with Moses and before that Abraham). It's also very clear from the first few posts the poster friend of does not himself know where the covenant is found. this is demonstrably proven when he writes, "Yes. Scripture like those. Is there any more out there?" We see he doesn't actually know what the scriptures are. His entire inquiry is based, "I think I remember reading somewhere that God did this." His entire inquiry is based on something he thinks he remembers reading somewhere.


And you came to help by framing the entire conversation within British Israelism.

And you came to help by framing the entire conversation within British Israelism even though you believe - according to your own post - British Israelism isn't for everyone.


Are you wanting to discuss this, because you're on record stating something different. And why would you post such relativism as a defense?

Once again: a baseless accusation that comes entirely from your mind and what you read in my posts. I'm not anger at all and it was wrong of you - again - to make the discussion personal. Once you make it personal you make yourself fair game. Is that how you want this to unfold?

Posts.

Posts, not posters.

It's a really simple concept. You clearly have difficulty with it and when that's noted you think the other person is angry and not compassionate or concerned for your well-being, or simply making objective observations based on the actual content of the posts.


And... once again... I have to wonder what kind of guy it is who wishes peace to those he falsely accuses of anger without looking at his own conduct. You do understand peace is an inherently relational condition, yes? Wrongly telling others wrongly how they are feeling is the antithesis of peace.

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

How can the verse state "All things are put in subjection," and then say, "When all things are subjected to him...?"

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

Demanding, shouting, and badgering isn't helpful.

Click to expand...

Semper-Fi said:

post #42 Hebrews 2:8 But "we see
not yet all things put under him."

1 Corinthians 15:27-28

it is [manifest] that [he is excepted] which did put all things under him.
-
It is a done deal, just not done yet.

Read in context- 1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

The last one is death, when death and hell arethrown into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14

There are many more enemy's before then.

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

Neither are baseless accusations helpful. How is it you can see my problems but not your own?

How many times have I asked for a return to the point of dispute? Many. The problem with this discussion is not on my end. Neither you nor Semper Fi are dealing with Acts 2 and the OT passages it references. Both of you have chosen to do this. Both of you have chosen to bring other verses into the discussion somehow believing it's okay to ignore the point of dispute and do other stuff under the guise of using all ascripture when that practice is really about avoiding what Acts 2 states in favor how the two of you interpret it based on other scriptures that are also interpreted in spite of what they state.

I'm not collaborating with that subterfuge.

If a conversation was desired by either of you then I wouldn't be reading personal attacks and I would be reading the three of us first engaging Acts 2.



No demanding, shouting, or badgering required.

If each of us take responsibility for ourselves, keep the posts about the posts, and stay op-relevant and we won't have any problems.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

As I said, you should take up this matter with your pastor (this Sunday?) then come back next week and tell us if he agrees that both God the Father and Jesus Christ are now sitting on the throne of David in heaven, as you insist.

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

Yep, and I said you should take this matter to your pastor. Again you're failing to take responsibility for yourself, attempting to foist the problem on another, and refusing to discuss the matter in civil discourse. You should take that to your pastor, too.



Historically this is a huge problem for Dispensationalists, British Israelists, and apocalyptic far futurists of the kind you and Semper Fi are asserting. During the early and mid-1800s a slew of "restoration movements" arose. There were three core features to these groups: 1) in practice they denied the impeccability of the Church, 2) they were apocalyptic in nature, and 3) they were eschatological at their core. These groups include but are not limited to the SDA, the CoC, the LDS, JWs, Darbyites, and the British Israelis. Many of these groups are straight up cults (even though they argue differently). These groups argued they were the true church and everyone else was not. This has been tempered over the decades but it still remains a doctrinal position for some of them.

There are several problem both theologically and practically but for the sake of this discussion I will point out the chief among them: These groups deny long-enduring and well-established thinking, doctrine, and practice of the Church, the ekklesia, the body of Christ. If any one of these groups is correct then everyone else for 18 centuries was incorrect, and since it is God Who is fundamentally responsible for His Son's body this is an implicit indictment of God! They implicitly elevate themselves above both the Church and God! Core doctrines of all Christendom are denied and replaced. This is a different Theology (big "T," Theology as in the nature of God), a different Christology, a different ecclesiology, a different soteriology, and a different eschatology. I repeat: core doctrines of the Church are denied and replaced by these groups. And because of this the worst of them simply are not Christian. The leaders of these groups preach a different gospel than the one Paul taught, thereby elevating themselves above the inspired apostle. Paul had some harsh things to say about that condition but I will spare posting them so as not to unnecessarily offend.

The point is Darbyism and Allenism/Armstrongism deny centuries of Church history and radically change core doctrines the Church has held since its inception by Christ; doctrines it's held for 20 centuries!

And most of the time the ordinary member of these groups is oblivious of this history and these facts because they are not taught this history. It is, imo, deceitful. If the common person actually read these leaders' positions with their Bible's in hand they'd reject these groups and their theologies. Sadly, when people like myself endeavor to provide just a small portion of correction the typical response is vilification. You have proven that so.



I'll digress just for this post and give you an example from John Harden Allen. Right at the beginning of his book, "Judah's Scepter..." Allen points out there are two covenants made with Abram/Abraham and he commendably quotes the Biblical text.

Genesis 17:1-8 KJV
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."​

The first problem arises because he''s quoted only half of the covenant! He has treated scripture selectively! He has done what we today call "quote mining," the practice of quoting only a portion of a text for the purpose of supporting one's position and not accurately presenting or representing the whole text.

Anyone familiar with the basics of exegesis and those of logic and logical fallacy should immediately recognize this as a problem! Why? Because the practice is immoral!

Things get worse almost immediately. After (partly) quoting the Genesis text without acknowledging that fact Allen then states,

"We see at once that the great feature of this covenant is a multiplicity of seed for a man that hitherto has been childless, and that this multitude of people are to become, not one great nation, not simply a plurality of nations, but a large plurality, i.e., 'MANY NATIONS.'"​

The problem with this statement is Paul says something entirely different. Paul states the exact opposite from what Allen is teaching.

Galatians 3:15-18
"Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed,' that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise."​

So right from the beginning of his book Allen has misinterpreted God's word. Not only has he misinterpreted God's word but he has asserted a direct contradiction! The man is teaching his readers contradictory teaching. Why is this a problem? This is a problem because everything built on a falsehood is equally false!

Again I point out anyone with a knowledge of scripture, a basic knowledge of sound exegetical principles, and a basic knowledge of logic and fallacy immediately recognizes this error. The problem is the common participant doesn't read Allen and many Christians don't sufficiently know God's word and lack the exegetical and logic skills to pick up on these errors.

Allen then proceeds to say,

"With the great majority of Bible students, and with most schools of Biblical thought, the fact that the Lord, when making this covenant, promised Abram that he should become the father of more than one nation is entirely overlooked. The general trend of the teaching is, that, of all the people, the one nation only, which is composed of the seed of Abraham; and that they, and they alone, are the chosen people of God whose national story makes u the great bulk of Biblical history and prophesy. But such cannot be the case, for if God has fulfilled the first promise which he made to the father of the Jewish people, he has made it possible for the people of some of the other nations of the earth to stand side by side with that one, and with them say, 'We have Abraham to our father.'"​

The problem here is two-fold; first, his representation of scripture is again contrary to what scripture actually states and second, what he says has never been the position of the Church. Here he has argued a straw man. Again: anyone with a knowledge of scripture, a knowledge of exegesis, and a knowledge of logic immediately recognizes the problem as a matter of objective appraisal and knows this is incorrect.

The correct understanding of scripture begins with the knowledge Jesus is the seed promised Abraham (not Israel), and it is from him that the many nations come. This is stated repeatedly throughout both Old and New Testaments, veiled in the Old, explained in the New. Church doctrine has long understood Jew AND Gentile (the people who were once not God's people - Hosea 1:9; Romans 9:25-26) converts to Christ are God-chosen members of His nation (1 Peter 2:9), His nation of nations. Anyone and everyone who reads and knows God's word knows and understands this is what scripture teaches and anyone familiar with mainstream Christian doctrine knows and understands this is what the Church has taught fro 2000 years.


So right from the beginning of his book Allen has 1) misrepresented God's word and taught things directly opposite of what the scriptures states, 2) misrepresented Church history and doctrine and again taught things directly contradictory to what the Church actually does teach, and 3) he's argued fallaciously, committing two logical fallacies within the first few paragraphs of his book.


friend o, the author of this op does not likely know this history. He does not know his scripture sufficiently to know and understand what you're teaching is very new to Christianity (less than 200 years old) and in no way correct. You yourself may not know the history of British Israelism and its cultic, heretical apostasy. You, apparently, think "it's not for everyone" is a reasonable and rational argument.

It is not.


And despite my knowledge of scripture, Church history, Church doctrine, and British Israel theology I am willing to discuss this topic with you. You've been shown a great deal of kindness, patience, forbearance, hope, trust, etc., but were apparently too oblivious to recognize it when it stood before you on the computer screen so I was personally attacked and the relevant scriptures avoided.




So...... to bring this post back to the op, Acts2:14-36 answers, addresses, AND explains the inquiry of this op. Acts 2:14-36 states "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ..." And that larger passage either quotes or references at least eight Old Testament texts and another dozen New Testament passages and neither of you broached any of them!

And..... as Semper Fi astutely pointed out, death will be the last enemy destroy. Logic tells us Jesus will remain enthroned on his current throne until death is destroyed. All those Old Testament verses y'all cited should first be read through Acts 2 or it must be explained how they should not and cannot be read thusly.

This passages references at least eight Old Testament texts and 1) explains them and 2) implicitly says they are fulfilled at Calvary and Pentecost. So I've asked you and Semper Fi to look first at Acts 2 and not jump around the Bible until that passage and the passages it references have first been explored and discussed. The responses uniformly demonstrated both an unwillingness and an inability to do this. That's not on me. I've been patiently waiting and encouraging and exhorting this practice but it has been viewed as impatient demanding.

How can anyone justify an explanation of Acts to if they have ignored the passages the text itself references?

Logically, they cannot.

If what the Acts 2 text states is going to be disputed then do so beginning with that text AND the texts it references.

It will be good for you whether you prove your position or not, and if this is done civilly then the readers will benefit from seeing us practice scripture, not just discuss it.

1 Corinthians 13:2
"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."​

Ephesians 4:29-32
"Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you."​

Colossians 3:8
"But now you must put aside all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your mouth."​

Philippians 2:3
"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others."​

Proverbs 27:6, 17
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend... As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."​

Psalm 141:5
"Let the righteous man strike me; let his rebuke be an act of loving devotion. It is oil for my head; let me not refuse it. For my prayer is ever against the deeds of the wicked."​

No Christian has truly won his position if he does so in disobedience to God's commands. Posts, not posters. Put me to the test here. Put yourself to this test.

Or don't.

Acts 2 states what it states and what it states is Jesus is now enthroned in accordance with the oaths God gave David about one of his descendants having an eternal reign. It states God was speaking of the resurrection (not an earthly throne), and it further states he will remained enthroned there until all his enemies are made his footstool.


{my apologies for the length)

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

You are conflating the Abrahamic promises of race and grace. You are also selecting one narrative for your position, ignoring all others that don't support it. You are trying to make Acts 2 say things that it just doesn't say.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

You are conflating the Abrahamic promises of race and grace.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

It is clear that British Israelism....

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

1) None of that has yet to be proven.

2) None of that has even been evidenced.

3) There's not a single scripture posted in this post to support what was just posted.

4) Neither is there any rational rationale for what was just posted.

5) There's not a single word in that post that's op-relevant.

6) Because of the absences just listed the post amounts to a derisive baseless accusation. And that is unkind.

7) Because there's no evidence, no scripture, no rationale and everything was off-topic and unkind it was a fruitless waste of time.


So why am I not reading something op-related? Why am I not reading some scripture..... beginning with Acts 2:14-36? Why am I not reading the slightest effort to discuss my op-reply op-relevantly? Why am I not reading the slightest effort to build from consensus? These were all within your power to choose. This lack is not on me. At the end of most of my posts I have brought the discussion back to the point of departure: Acts 2. I will do so again at the end of this post and I will do so in hope that the matter will eventually be engaged.

No, I am not. Strangers don't have a clue what I am or am not conflating. I have read Allen's book. Allen's dichotomy between race and grace is a false one. His argument is replete with fallacy and abuse of scripture and were his position the topic of the discussion I'd go through his book pointing out the many, many, many errors he made both exegetically and logically. There's much to commend in the first third of his book but the rest is dross. If you were as critical of Allen as you are of my posts it's likely you would not be a follower.

The point of my bringing up the first three errors he made was three-fold: 1) to bring some of the errors Allen makes to your attention and the attention of the lurkers here lest they be prompted by your recommendation to buy the book, 2) to provide theological, doctrinal, and historical context relevant to orthodoxy, and 3) to see whether the undeniable errors would be acknowledged. There's simply no way an objective person should deny Allen's errors..... as evidenced. I don't make baseless claims. I work to avoid baseless accusations. I support what I post with documentation.

What documentation of my supposed conflation was provided? None!
What documentation of race and grace was provided? None!
What evidence of my supposed selectivity was provided? None!
What evidence of my ignoring anything was provided? None?
What evidence I make Acts 2 say something it doesn't say? None! Acts 2 would first have to be engaged to makes such a case!

More importantly, why was the effort to get back to the point of dissent ignored in favor of completely off-topic content? That's not on me.

What's clear is British Israelism is not the topic of this op. The only reason it is being discussed at all is because you brought it here. The only way it is being discussed is as a theological, doctrinal, exegetical and normative outlier. Whether it is "for" anyone or not is irrelevant.


I don't need to talk to a pastor; it is because I have talked with many pastors from a wide variety of theological perspectives that I know to go to Acts 2 and it is because I have talked to many pastors of diverse theological perspectives that I know to remain steadfast in asking others to look first at Acts 2. I'm not stuck; I'm waiting! I'm not demanding; I'm waiting. I'm not impatient; I'm quite patient and forbearing despite the many off-topic, un-evidenced, and unwarranted personal attacks. I'm waiting with frequent reminders and requests.

Will you ever show up?




This op is about a single question about the Davidic throne and whether that covenant has been tentatively revoked. That and that alone is what this op asks. The answer to that question lies in Acts 2 wherein it is explicitly stated when God had sworn with an oath to David that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and was speaking about the resurrection of the Christ. That is what the text actually states, not what I have made it say so there can be no false accusation I am not attending to what it states. The text states he will remain thusly enthroned until his enemies are made a footstool. That is what it states. The larger passage references eight Old Testament passages and connects to a dozen New Testament passages, none of which have been engaged in the posts I have received despite my repeated requests. All of the Old Testament can be and should be rendered through what the Spirit-inspired Peter said because through Him God is interpreting His own oath, His own covenant with David.

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

Jesus stays enthroned where he's at until his enemies are defeated.

Acts 2 and Psalm 110 (and others) inform us he stays enthroned on his Father's throne at his Father's right hand until his enemies are defeated.

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

"Acts 2 states "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat

one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ..." "

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

The Matthew 25:31 text was (partly) addressed.
Why isn't that being engaged.

Click to expand...

WrappedUpinHisLove3 said:

I don't believe in British Israeltism. There is a modern day nation state of Israel started in the 1940s and many sos and daughters of Zion are returning there to the land of their ancestors but there are still many Jews scattered throughout all the earth. so to say the British are the true Israelites is inaccurate. there are Israelities IN Britain, but as a country we British are not the nation of Israel. God scattered the Israelites all over the globe, though many are coming back home.

Click to expand...