The Gospel as Restoration

Theology 101: Resurrection OF the body, not separation FROM the body, is the hope of the Christian faith. - Dr. Micheal Svigel

Where is the throne of David?

And did the Apostle Peter really say that the throne of David has now been moved to heaven?

(Acts 2:30-36)

One of the core teachings of supersessionism (replacement theology), amillennialism, and post-millennialism centers around the idea that God does not have to tangibly fulfill his promise to David to seat his messianic descendant on his throne in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7:11-16), because after the resurrection of Christ this Davidic promise was fulfilled when Jesus took his seat at the right hand of God the Father in heaven.

In his famous work on supersessionist hermeneutics, Hans LaRondelle summarizes this view.

He states:

"God restored the throne of David in the resurrection, ascension, and inauguration of Christ Jesus as Lord and Redeemer of Israel (Acts. 2:36; 5:31). [...]"

"As the Davidic kings were sitting 'on the throne of the LORD' (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23), so Christ is now seated with His Father on His throne (Rev. 3:21)."

"The Davidic throne is no longer unoccupied or ineffective, but is transferred from Jerusalem to the throne room in heaven, where Christ is presently the Davidic King (Acts 2:34-36; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20-22)."

(The Israel of God in Prophecy; 149)

We see here that LaRondelle, and for that matter nearly all supersessionists, amillennialists, and post-millennialists, believe that the Davidic Covenant now has only a spiritual fulfillment in Christ, and does not point forward to a future millennial reign when the Messiah will fulfill the OT promises by sitting on the throne of David in the place where it was originally established, namely, Jerusalem.

This view is based on Peter's famous Pentecost sermon in Acts 2, and though appealing to many for a number of reasons, it fails to discern the primary message Peter was communicating to his Jewish audience in the first century AD. So what was Peter actually saying in this text? And how can understanding his sermon help us develop a more biblical eschatology?

Here are 4 key points:

First, Peter's primary point in Acts 2 is not that the throne of David has now been moved to heaven, or that the Davidic promises are being completely fulfilled through the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Instead, Peter is saying that through his death, resurrection, and ascension, Christ has earned the right to the Davidic throne on the earth.

To understand why Peter is approaching his apologetic in this way, one needs to first grasp that in first-century Judaism the idea that the Messiah would die, be raised from the dead, and then go to heaven was not widely accepted. Some Jewish texts contain traces of this idea (see Daniel Boyarin's book The Jewish Gospels).

But by and large, the common coinage of Jewish messianic expectation in the first-century was that the Messiah would arrive and immediately destroy Israel's enemies and set up his kingdom in the Promised Land (cf. Acts 1:6).

Because of this widespread belief, Peter's primary task in Acts 2, starting in verse 22, was to defend the idea of the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah from Scripture.

Basically, Peter had to prove from accepted Jewish texts (i.e. the OT) that before the Messiah could reign on the throne of David in Jerusalem, he would first have to be crucified, rise, and ascend to God's right hand in the heavens.

Peter is doing evangelism to a Jewish audience in Acts 2, and in this context he implicitly affirms their hope in the Messiah's future reign from Jerusalem.

But at the same time, he must also correct their limited and incomplete understanding of God's messianic plan, in particular by telling them that some other things were prophesied to happen first, prior to the reestablishment of David's throne in the holy city.

Second, Peter's evangelistic context in the midst of a Jewish audience explains why he focuses on Psalm 16:8-11 and Psalm 110:1-2 at the end of his sermon.

Psalm 16, which Peter quotes directly in Acts 2:25-28, implies the death and resurrection of the Messiah when it says:

"For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever."

In other words, David, the Psalmist, based his personal hope of resurrection on the resurrection of God's "Holy One," the Messiah.

David prophetically saw that God would not allow the Messiah to be abandoned to the grave, and this indicated that the Messiah would actually have to die and rise again, which was the first point Peter needed to prove.

Thus, Peter follows up on his quotation of Psalm 16 by saying:

"And so, because he [David] 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 that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses." (Acts 2:30-32).

Then, towards the end of his sermon, Peter makes the equally important shift to Psalm 110, which teaches that before the Messiah could reign on the earth, he would first have to ascend to the right hand of God in heaven.

Psalm 110:1-2 reads:

"The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand

Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.'"

From Peter's perspective, this Psalm has so much apologetic value because in it David plainly states that his Lord (i.e. the Messiah) would first sit at God's right hand, and then, only at a later time, initiate the final judgment and the full establishment of the Messianic Kingdom on earth.

In other words, this particular Psalm was the perfect corrective to oversimplified first-century Jewish eschatology, which only believed in one coming of the Messiah, after which point the Kingdom would be immediately established in Israel.

Peter sees, and his Jewish audience would later see, that right there in the Hebrew Bible the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah were clearly predicted (Ps. 16; 110), which implied that there would be an intervening period of time between the appearance of the Messiah and the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.

Consequently, Peter says:

"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth that which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:

'The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.''" (Acts. 2:33-35)

Again, at this point, Peter's goal is entirely evangelistic. He is trying to win his Jewish brothers to the Messiah through a strategic use of biblical prophecy.

Peter never says the throne of David has been moved to heaven, or that Jewish eschatological hope was ill-conceived because it suggested that the Messiah would reign from the throne of David in Jerusalem.

He is simply trying to show that Jesus is the one who will one day reign from Jerusalem (Acts. 2:30), because he has fulfilled the prophecies that the Messiah needed to fulfill before he could actually take up his throne on the earth.

This is why Peter ends his sermon by saying:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36)

Crucifixion -> Resurrection -> Ascension -> Reign from David's throne in Jerusalem.

This is the basic outline of events that Peter highlights to win his Jewish kin to the messianic faith.

Third, other NT texts outside of Acts 2 confirm that Jesus will reign from David's throne in Jerusalem.

In his next sermon, Peter reiterates that he accepts basic Jewish eschatology, including the idea that the Messiah will reign in Jerusalem, but also, just like in Acts 2, Peter adds the qualifier that this full inauguration of the Kingdom would be preceded by the fulfillment of prophecies that concern the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah.

Peter says:

"But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled."

"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord."

"And that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts. 3:18-21).

Notice how Peter follows the same basic outline here as in Acts 2:

First the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, then the "restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (v. 21)

Peter gives no indication here that he believes the prophecies of restoration, which would include the establishment of the Messiah's throne in Jerusalem, will not be fulfilled literally, as written.

Instead, he simply wants to make clear that before this can happen, "heaven must receive" the Christ for a period of time.

This was the pastoral approach that allowed his Jewish brethren to both look forward to the Kingdom and accept the Gospel.

Likewise, in Luke 1:32-33, Luke says of Jesus:

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

Does Luke say here that the "throne of David" has been moved to heaven, or that the promises to David have only a spiritual fulfillment through Christ's ascension?

Of course not.

He simply states that God will give Jesus "the throne of His father David," which will lead to him reigning over "the house of Jacob."

Though there is certainly a partial or spiritual fulfillment of the David Covenant through the birth and ascension of Christ, this does not nullify the core substance of the Davidic promises.

In multiple places, the Apostles affirm that Jesus has been made Lord and Christ of Israel through his literal fulfillment of some biblical prophecies, which will culminate with the literal fulfillment of other prophecies later on. (Acts. 3:21)

Fourth, to argue for a strictly spiritual fulfillment of the David Covenant through Christ's ascension, requires one to accept an untenable and inconsistent approach to Bible prophecy.

To understand this point, let's go back briefly to Psalms 16 and 110 in Acts 2.

In this passage, Peter argues for the literal fulfillment of OT prophecy in the life of Christ, and without this literal fulfillment of prophecy the core tenets of the Gospel could not even be maintained.

Psalm 16 predicted the death and resurrection of the Messiah, and this prediction was literally fulfilled in the life of Christ.

Psalm 110 predicted the literal ascension of Christ to heaven, and this prediction was literally fulfilled as well.

These examples prove that the New Testament itself validates the literal fulfillment of prophecy, and there is no evidence that prophecies that pertain to the Second Coming will not be literally fulfilled in the same way as these prophecies that pertain to the First Coming.

For example, right after it predicts the ascension of Christ to heaven, Psalm 110 also says:

"The Lord will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, 'Rule in the midst of Your enemies.'" (v. 2)

"The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He will lift up His head." (vv. 5-7)

If all can agree that Psalm 110 has a partial and literal fulfillment through the ascension of Christ, it would be illogical and self-defeating to not also accept that everything else in this prophecy will be literally fulfilled as well:

Namely, the Messiah reigning with his "scepter" from "Zion" (i.e. Jerusalem) among his "enemies," judging the nations, shattering kings, and filling the earth with corpses as he wages a military campaign and drinks form the "brook by the wayside." (vv. 2-7).

The entire argument Peter makes in Acts 2 about the messianic credentials of Jesus depends on the literal fulfillment of prophecy, and we cannot, on our own authority, selectively choose which prophecies have a literal fulfillment and which ones do not.

This is the core problem with supersessionism, amillennialism, and post-millennialism:

These systems force the interpreter to decide, on completely arbitrary grounds, which prophecies have a literal fulfillment and which prophecies have only a spiritual fulfillment.

And not surprisingly, they almost all choose to take only prophecies about Christ's first coming literally while relegating any future prophecies that speak of Zion and Jerusalem to the realm of a spiritual fulfillment!

This is pure bias, and there is no basis for approaching Scripture in this way. An internally consistent hermeneutic requires that Jesus will reign from David's throne in Jerusalem, just as David, Peter, Luke et al. predicted.

Supersessionists, amillennialists, and post-millennialists assume that the throne of David has been moved to heaven, and that the ascension of Christ fulfills the Davidic promises.

But the biblical text never says anything of the sort.

These assumptions are merely being read into Scripture for polemical and theological ends, without enough attention being paid to Peter's real purpose in Acts 2-3, which was to recalibrate, but not completely reject, Jewish eschatology for evangelistic ends. - Travis M. Snow

Thousands of doctrinal and moral ills have come from well-meaning Christians who have shaped specialist movements focused on prayer and missions while neglecting healthy biblical ecclesiology. Piecemeal ministry is a veneer for the practical denial of the authority of Scripture. - BA Purtle

Millennialism was affirmed by John in Revelation and certainly became prevalent in the centuries following Jesus and the apostles, but "1000 years" is wrongly seen in modernity as something completely divergent from the framework of first century Jewish apocalyptic eschatology. - Joshua Hawkins

The folks that want to take the OT verses concerning the 1st coming of Jesus literally and then hyper spiritualize verses coming His 2nd coming, really just have a problem with Jesus.

“Did God really say?”

-TJ Sewob

"I don’t think that we love God any more than we love truth, for He is the Truth. And the love of the truth is much more requiring than the respect of the truth…"

-- Art Katz

I am the LORD; those who hopefully wait for me will not be ashamed. Isaiah 49:23.

Preaching the End Times from a proper biblical perspective is fear-mongering for the wicked, but hope-mongering to the righteous and oppressed. - Joel Richardson

My teaching on the great catch of fish and the calling of the first disciples in Luke 5. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream. 

Our mouths were filled with laughter...our tongues with shouts of joy. 

Then they said among the nations, “The Lord has done great things for them.”

- Psalm 126

The nations will say it again.

-Joshua Reese 

If you embrace a system of theology that espouses pretribulationism (the idea that we're raptured before the tribulation) you are forced to believe that there are two raptures, to resurrections, two second comings, two people of God, two divine destinies, two new covenants often, two weddings, two bridegrooms. 

The scriptures teach there is one Bridegroom, one marriage banquet, one King, one new covenant, one people, one ultimate destiny, one coming, one resurrection, one rapture. - Joel Richardson

My teaching on Jesus as a boy in the temple from Luke 2 for a VBS. Notes. Audio 1. Video 1. Video 2. 

"In answer to the question ‘Did Jesus perform miracles?’ we have to reply with an unequivocal and resounding ‘Yes!’…The necessary conclusion, in the light of our inquiry, is that there is hardly any aspect of the life of the historical Jesus which is so well and widely attested as that he conducted unparalleled wonders." - Graham Twelftree

"Most historical Jesus scholars today, regardless of their personal theological orientation, do accept that Jesus drew crowds who believed that he performed cures and exorcisms.” - Craig Keener

“[W]e note that Jesus as exorcist, healer (even to the point of raising the dead), and miracle worker is one of the strongest, most ubiquitous, and most variously attested depictions in the Gospels. All strata of this material–Mark, John, M-traditions, L-traditions, and Q–make this claim. This sort of independent multiple attestation supports arguments for the antiquity of a given tradition, implying that its source must lie prior to its later, manifold expressions, perhaps in the mission of Jesus himself.”

“Yes, I think that Jesus probably did perform deeds that contemporaries viewed as miracles.” - Paula Fredriksen  

"None have more pride than those who dream that they have none." - Spurgeon

"Whatever you think about the philosophical possibility of miracles of healing, it’s clear that Jesus was widely reputed to have done them." - Bart Ehrman

One of the most compelling features of the whole sweep of ancient opinion of Jesus is his reputation as an exorcist and healer. It is no exaggeration to claim that it is one of the most widely attested and firmly established of the historical facts with which we have to deal. - Dunn, Jesus Remembered

Third: as vessels of God’s spirit, these special ex-pagan gentiles, Paul claims, resemble God’s temple itself. “Don’t you know that you are God’s temple, for God’s spirit dwells in you? . . . God’s temple is holy/separated/dedicated, as you are.” “Your body is the temple of holy spirit.” “We are the temple of the living God.”

Theologians will sometimes point to these verses to argue that, for Paul,the physical, Jewish temple back in Jerusalem has been replaced or surpassed by this new, “spiritual” and metaphorical “temple,” the diaspora Christian communities. Given that, since 70 C.E., no temple in Jerusalem has stood, this claim can seem to be simple common sense.

 

But that is not what Paul says. Paul writes before 70. He never imagined a world without the temple. On the contrary: Paul praises his new communities by comparing them to this institution, which he valued supremely. Had he valued the temple less, he would not have used it as the defining image for his assemblies. Mid-first century, then, on the topic of the temple, Paul’s thinking is not “either/or” but “both/and.” God’s spirit dwells both in Jerusalem’s temple and in the “temple” of the believer and of the community. As the Jesus of Matthew’s gospel will declare, two generations or so after Paul, “He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it”—that is, by the god (sic) of Israel. - Paula Fredricksen

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? (1 Cor 10:14-18).  

The point for our purposes here is to note that, as far as Paul is concerned, the altar in Jerusalem creates this divine-human sharing around sacrificial food. For Paul—and, thus, for his mid-first-century gentile audience in Corinth—the temple’s sacrifices both illumine and exemplify how the eucharistic offering works. - Paula Fredricksen

The house of David (that is, the kings of David’s line) and the house of God (that is, the temple in Jerusalem) came bound together in Jewish tradition. 

In 586 B.C.E., Babylon terminated both, destroying Solomon’s building and taking the last Davidic king into captivity. Rebuilt by returning exiles and enhanced by the Hasmoneans, the Second Temple reached its height of splendor thanks to the talents and vision of Herod the Great. Herod, ingeniously combining backfill and huge retaining walls—still visible today as Jerusalem’s Kotel, the Western Wall—enlarged the temple precincts to some thirty-five acres. Its most  exterior courtyard, the Court of the Nations, was Jerusalem’s largest public space. This was the space within which Jesus proclaimed his message of God’s coming Kingdom; this was the space within which his apostles, after his death, continued his mission; this was the space from which, prophesied Paul, quoting Isaiah, “the Redeemer will come”—that is, where the returning messiah would appear (Romans 11.26; Isaiah 59.20). Both actually and imaginatively, both before its destruction in 70 C.E. and even thereafter, Herod’s temple was a major staging area of the gospel movement. - Paula Fredricksen

A futurist eschatology centered around the nation of Israel is not inherently "dispensational."

Even in the rabbinic literature there is a prevalent idea known as "the birth pangs of the Messiah," which concerns widespread tribulation and antisemitism prior to the Messianic Era. 

The rabbis got that from the Bible, not John Nelson Darby. - Travis M Snow

My teaching on Jesus's ministry in Capernaum in Luke 4. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

“We are the world’s rejects, but the elect of God.” - Art Katz

...opposition will culminate in a final onslaught in which evil will appear to triumph, and only the intervention of God will prove the contrary. This will be the occasion of the final judgement and God's kingdom. - Joyce Baldwin, Daniel

The theological implications of Covenantal Theology

Images via Joel Richardson

We should not see the coming day of judgment as primarily an evaluation of doctrine, but an evaluation of deeds.

And God hasn't left us in the dark as to his standard on that day, nor has he left us without a helper. -Joshua Hawkins 

Did Jesus fulfill the Law?

COME JESUS COME - Stephen Mcwhirter

Few things make me long for Jesus' return like nursing home visits. 

Though lots(!) of love is put on display, Death and decay run the joint. 

But it won't be this way forever. 

These wilted bodies will be restored and there'll be no nursing homes in the Kingdom. 

Maranatha

-Joshua Reese

Surviving this Present Evil Age // THE FAI INKWELL // 10 May 2024

First century Jewish apocalyptic eschatology was not merely background information or "that old Jewish stuff that doesn't matter anymore"  for Paul. Rather, it was the central, primary, and ultimate thrust of his ministry and letters. - Joshua Hawkins

..Daniel..Isaiah...Zechariah...teach that God's people should persevere because God has appointed a day when the oppressive brutality of worldly powers will be judged, while the faithful martyrs of the Lord will be raised for the dead and rewarded. 

- Dr. Jim Hamilton 

“Many of us are so busy thinking about Christianity that we have lost our hold of Christ.” – MacLaren

•A Brief Exhortation On Fatherhood•

Any father with an ounce of self-awareness is often cognizant of ways in which he falls short in the raising of his children. This grief is common to us all.

That being so, fathers: Don’t be paralyzed by your very real shortcomings, but make them your servants for clearer faith and better fatherhood.

Stand in Gospel grace, be quick to repent, and exercise your God-given authority— not timidly nor haughtily, but humbly, happily and heartily, for the glory of Christ and the flourishing of your children and grandchildren.

Don’t let society, your own failures, or the accuser of the brethren emasculate your soul. Be biblical, Spirit-led, and self-sacrificial in the holy call of fatherhood. 

Curse your propensity to pride, blame-shifting, and the limp-wristed abdication of responsibility. Ask the Lord regularly for a strong back, a wise walk, and a gentle spirit.

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.”

In more ways than you can know, the present and future joys of your wife and children will be shaped by your clarity of vision, relational earnestness, and steadfastness in the discipline and nurturing of your offspring.

There will come a day when they will no longer be under your roof. It will arrive very soon, brothers. Some of us are already there, with certain regrets, gratitude for mercy, and a desire that the rest of our brethren would be sober and wise in this precious stewardship. 

There will also come a day when you will no longer live under your own roof, and all that your children shall have of you will be the memories you left with them. Live in such way as to be unashamed when that day comes. 

Rest in Gospel grace, live free and happy in Christ, and aim for holiness in all of life. Pray that His very disposition might increasingly shine through you in all your interactions with them. 

If your phone is a distraction to fathering meaningfully, if the rat race for riches has gotten a hold of you, if lust and porn have a grip on you, chuck them all now, for God’s sake! And don’t go it alone. Walk in the light with brothers in a biblical church. Get Bible priorities and pour your life out in “the obedience of faith” to shoulder them.

Your God and Father has called you after His own name. He has made you a father. He has given you children! Be strong in His grace and keep your shoulder to the plow. It will be worth it in the end.

“Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.”

-BA Purtle

My mother's day teaching on Acts 9 and 1 Corinthians 3. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

...The expression, 'the throne of David,' often occurs in prophecy; and it is difficult to understand exactly what the spiritualists make of it. According to them, so far as we can see, David’s throne might mean any throne, David’s kingdom any kingdom; or rather, it must mean every throne and every kingdom. But surely David’s throne was not in heaven. His kingdom was not in heaven. His throne was not in the hearts of men. His reign was not a mere reign of principles.

...whatever it means, it must at least mean the peculiar sovereignty of Messiah over the literal Israel. It appears to us, that Christ’s being to receive the throne of his father David, must refer to the peculiar dominion which he is to exercise over the tribes and land over which David ruled. It may mean more, but at least it means this, else it does seem to us to be as vague a term as could be employed. We cannot consent to explain away such an important phrase as this. Not that we deny the truth that Christ is really the Head and King of all his saints; we admit this most fully,—as fully as our opponents can possibly do. All we contend for is, that this phrase does not refer to this; that it means something more, and has reference to the peculiar exercise of his dominion over the nation of Israel. Surely no one will deny that it may mean this. None will say that his being in a peculiar and pre-eminent manner King of Israel, prevents his being also King of saints. No one will refuse to admit that such is the plain and natural meaning of the words. And if so, why are the strong and peculiar words of Scripture to be spiritualized till all their strength and peculiarity are gone?

That 'the throne of David,' and such-like expressions, have the literal meaning we have stated, is, we think, evident from many passages of the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

....Alas, for the forlorn exiles, the homeless tribes of Israel, that once were the people of the Lord, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood! But she shall yet rise again. She has dwelt in dust and been clothed with sackcloth, but she shall put on her beautiful garments,—garments more glorious than in the days of old. Rebuilt and re-adorned, as the metropolis of the earth, she shall forget her misery in the joy of her second espousals and remember her shame no more.

In Israel we see the standing memorial of Jehovah’s faithfulness and truth. Nothing has failed of all that the Lord had said that he would do for or against that people. All has come literally to pass. The curse has gone forth against them and every threat has been verified. Yet they are not consumed; they are still beloved for their fathers’ sakes, and preserved because of the covenant which cannot be broken. Destined for brighter days, they still live on. Monuments now of God’s righteous severity, they are yet to be more signal monuments of his unchanging grace, for 'where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.' Tossed from billow to billow upon a single plank, they have weathered centuries of storm, seeing the mightiest vessels part anchor in the blast and go down at their side, themselves buoyant still. Merses profundo pulchrior evenit! To this day, as hitherto, unfixed, unanchored, unsheltered, unprotected—driven hither and thither by the tide or the tempest, they are awaiting the outburst of the world’s last hurricane, which, while it devastates the earth, and strews the sea with shipwreck, shall leave them unharmed, nay, waft them home! What faithfulness, what patience, what unchanging love. In Jehovah’s eyes they are precious still; the chosen heritage of God. Their covenant abideth sure; their promises are imperishable. Were it not for these, where had they been? Would they not have perished from the earth, and been found no more among the nations? These promises held them fast and bound their roots 'as with a band of iron and brass,' that they should not be swept away nor consumed. Through all these 1800 years they have been sustained as a nation, emerging from the smoke and ruin of a thousand cities,—rising out of the fragments of an hundred empires, surviving, with mysterious tenacity of life, the storm, the sack, the massacre, the flood, the flame!

The prominence given to Israel in the prophets forces itself vividly upon our notice. Nay, history and prophecy are in this respect alike. Such is Jehovah’s purpose; such is one of his ordained channels of self-manifestation! 'O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God.'"

[Horatius Bonar, Prophetical Landmarks; Containing Data for Helping to Determine the Question of Christ’s Pre-Millennial Advent (London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1847), pgs. 295–332.]

Via BA Purtle 

We have no objection to the spiritual, provided the literal be found untenable; but till it be found so, we shall continue to hold by it. Not that we object to a spiritual application of these predictions: all we ask is, that such a spiritual application be founded upon a literal interpretation. We would spiritualize and apply prophecy just as we would history; that is, we would first interpret it. We would deal with the Book of Isaiah as we would do with the Book of Chronicles. We might admit that there was more of figure in the former than in the latter, though not so much more as many suppose; but we would still maintain that the language was essentially the same, and that, therefore, the same grammar and lexicon would do for both. The question would turn out to be one as to difference in degree, not in kind. There are figures in Chronicles as well as in Isaiah; and the same principle which shows us what is literal and what is figurative in Chronicles, will also show us what is literal and what is figurative in Isaiah. It seems often taken for granted that those who assert the literal interpretation of the blessings promised to Israel, thereby exclude the spiritual. They do not. They assert the literal blessing, because they believe that God has promised it; but they maintain the superiority and necessity of the spiritual as firmly as do the others. They believe that Israel will be converted, and they rejoice in this as the glorious issue towards which the prophets point. But they believe more; they believe not only that they will be converted, but that they will be restored to their own land. But does their literal restoration take from them one single spiritual blessing? Or, does it prevent the Gentile nations from enjoying one of those innumerable blessings which are given to them for an inheritance?

Every word of prophecy is big with meaning. 

....We would remark upon the ambiguity with which spiritual expositors interpret the names Israel, Judah, and such like. These words may have three meanings. They may mean the literal Israel, or they may mean the visible Church, or they may mean the real spiritual chosen of Abraham. Now, what we remark is, that many expositors mix up these three meanings, so that sometimes one of these is meant and sometimes the other, according as it suits their interpretation. They lay down no rule for fixing the signification of these words, so as to determine exactly when they mean one thing and when they mean another. Prophecy, under such a system, is a mere mass of confusion and uncertainty. 

To say, as is often done, that when they refer to the Christian Church they must be spiritually interpreted, is such a begging of the question, that we wonder how any one could seriously advance such a statement. The very point in dispute is, whether they do refer to the Christian Church. How are we to rid ourselves of the inextricable confusion in which we are involved by not knowing what Israel really means? When we quote some strong passage of the prophets in proof of the restoration of the literal Israel, we are met with two explanations. At one time we are told that such a passage does not refer to the restoration, but to the conversion of the Jews: and, again, at another time, we are told, and often by the same people, that these prophecies do not allude to the Jews at all, but to the Christian Church. In this manner, Scripture is recklessly tossed about from one interpretation to another, till the Infidel scoffs at men pretending to confute him from prophecy, who yet do not themselves know whether the prediction refers to Jew or Gentile. Some, however, seem inclined to fix the meaning of most passages to the Christian Church; not to the merely visible Church, but to the really spiritual Israel. But here we do feel at a stand. These prophecies speak of the conversion of those called Israel, that is, of the conversion of those who are already converted! They were entitled to the name of Israel because they were believers, or converted men; and yet of these it is foretold that they shall be converted in goodly numbers in the latter days. What a maze! - Horatius Bonar

 "Israel’s history, both past and future, occupies no narrow region, either in the purposes of God or in his written Word. Besides, the prophecies concerning Israel are the key to all the rest. True principles of interpretation in regard to them will aid us in disentangling and illustrating all prophecy together. False principles as to them will most thoroughly perplex and overcloud the whole Word of God.

...In all cases, then, we are bound to adhere to the literal until we can show reasons for departing from it. These reasons ought to be well weighed and found sufficient before we venture to disturb the plain meaning of God’s own words. For instance, the Unitarian departs from the literal meaning of those passages which speak of our Lord’s incarnation and divinity because he cannot understand how such a sense is reconcilable with other Scripture statements respecting the unity of Godhead. But is that a valid reason for turning those passages into figures? The common sense of a man tells him that this is perverting, not expounding Scripture. If all strong expressions are to be set down as Orientalisms, which may be interpreted as we please, what becomes of inspiration?

But, I am told that the literal sense is often so carnal that it must be departed from. Perhaps in some cases it may be so; but every passage must first be brought separately to the test. A literal fulfilment is often just as spiritual as any other, and it is a strange misapprehension of the true scope of Scripture to suppose that because some interpret literally, therefore they do not interpret spiritually. Besides, with the comparative value of the spiritual over the literal, we have, in the first instance, nothing to do in interpreting Scripture. We have simply to ascertain the real meaning of the words, whether that meaning be literal or spiritual. - 

Take the prophecies regarding the incarnation of Christ. Before that event took place, there might be a controversy as to whether they were to be literally fulfilled or not. A Jew might have argued with much apparent force against a literal meaning. What! Is God to take upon himself the form of a man? Is Jehovah to become an infant of days, nay, to be born of a creature—to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief—to die and be buried, as men die and are buried? 

Impossible! the very idea is carnal beyond endurance. These prophecies cannot be interpreted in their literal sense; they must have some figurative, some spiritual meaning. So might a Jew have argued before Messiah came; and truly, when we think what it was that he had to believe regarding his Messiah, we could not have wondered, had he found much difficulty in receiving such prophecies as literal; our wonder is at the strength of that faith which, in spite of difficulties so vast, could take in the idea, and believe in the reality of that stupendous fact which the literal interpretation of prophecy involved! The fact, the glorious but stupendous fact, made known in the fulness of time, proved not only that the literal was the true sense of these prophecies regarding Messiah’s first coming, but also established this truth, that the literal interpretation and fulfilment may be the more truly spiritual of the two. Take, as another illustration of the point in hand, the doctrine of the resurrection. That doctrine appeared to some in the first ages such a carnal doctrine, that they denied the literal accomplishment of those Scriptures which speak of it. Of these were Hymenæus and Philetus, mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy. They maintained that a literal resurrection was such a carnal thing, that those passages which refer to it must mean something spiritual,—the resurrection of the soul from sin. They 'erred concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection was past already.' Here, also, the literal was the more spiritual of the two interpretations. - Horatius Bonar

Be willing to drop your fixed opinions of others, and make allowance for them to have grown over time.

After all, you believe that you have grown, and you desire for others to receive you as you are today — not as you were ten or even five years ago. - Nick Uva

The hopelessness of realized eschatology - podcast by Joel Richardson

"The next meal of Jesus with his disciples will be the Messianic meal on a transformed earth... Jesus will drink the wine ‘new,’ ... To be ‘new’ is a mark of the redeemed world and of the time of salvation, of the transformed creation." (Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 217)

Biblical Christianity: Jesus will return to reestablish the throne of His father David and thus the royal Jewish monarchy.

Gnostic Christo-platonism: Jesus has already spiritually restored the heavenly throne of David, thus we Christians are co-ruling a spiritual kingdom now. 

-Joel Richardson

The Lord's Prayer is not a magic formulation of words that Jesus invented to get God to really hear prayer.

It's a shortened form of the Amidah, a Jewish prayer that Yeshua prayed growing up, and that my Jewish brothers and sisters still pray today. - Joshua Hawkins

"In the morning, while the dew is on the grass, let grace drop upon the soul. Let us give to God the mornings of our days and the morning of our lives. Prayer should be the key of the day and the lock of the night" - Spurgeon

May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned backward. - Psalm 129:5

Theology 101: Theologians need to overcome the urge to answer questions nobody is asking or to ask questions nobody can answer. - Dr. Michael Svigel

Without foundation in the unchanging revelation of the Torah through the Jewish people, the entire Christian edifice is subject to constant revision and reinterpretation, usually trailing the moral consensus of the mainstream by a decade or two. - Daniel Thomas Lancaster

"'The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,' would stand out as a beacon-light to all mankind on their way, burning brighter and brighter … till in the fullness of time 'the Sun of Righteousness' arose 'with healing under His wings!'” —Alfred Edersheim

One of the coolest things in the book of Isaiah is how his theology of the new heavens and new earth (65:17) is tied to the death and resurrection of the Suffering Servant in chapter 53.

The renewal of the entire cosmos hinges on the shed blood and resurrected body of the Son of Man. - Travis M. Snow