Sometime later this year, I will have the privilege of sharing a message with God’s elects. I am right now in the midst of preparing the message I am going to deliver unto them. What I am sharing with you here is a small section of this message. Due to the fact that the message I am preparing is already quite long, there is a chance that I might choose to remove the section I a sharing with you below. But at the present time I do intend to include it. I am sharing this with the audience at Sermon Index in light of some of comments that were made on the previous thread I started that was related to the doctrine of soul sleep. I hope it can be of some benefit to some.

From this point on you will be reading the words as I plan to speak them to my audience.

…..Before moving forward with the case I am about to make I need to make something clear. As I proceed with my message, I am going to use the term Old Testament and New Testament. However, I will only do this for the purpose of clarity and also because at this present time it is a habit that will probably prove hard to break.

I have just come to understand that calling the first 39 books of the Bible “The Old Testament” is a very careless and incorrect thing to do. Because the first 39 books of the Bible have been incorrectly titled “The Old Testament,” one gets the impression that those 39 books are less important, less inspired and less relevant than the section of scripture we call “The New Testament”. However, I am now convinced that this too is simply another lie inspired by Satan in order to create confusion and to diminish the true wisdom and power that is revealed the gospel.

The truth of the matter is this: with only the exception of their age, there is nothing “Old” about the 39 sections of scripture that we call “The Old Testament.” Those 39 books are no less important and no less inspired than the 27 books of the Bible we call “The New Testament.” The same Spirit of God who spoke through the Apostle Paul, Peter, John, and yes, even Jesus the Christ, is the same Spirit of God who spoke through the men who wrote the first 39 sections of scripture.

While there are some men today who do ignorantly and foolishly diminish the importance of the words spoken in the first 39 books of scripture, they certainly did not receive this example from Jesus or the apostles. Time and time again in the gospels and epistles you will see both Jesus and Paul quote from those first 39 sections of scripture in order to establish a doctrinal truth.

In Second Timothy 3:16 Paul said that - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now, what scripture was Paul referring to when he spoke these words? Was he speaking of the last 27 sections of scripture we call the “The New Testament?” No. We know this because at the time Paul spoke these words, the writings that make up “The New Testament” did not yet exist (Well to be technically correct, some of them did exist; however, they were not yet considered scripture.). So for that reason, we can be certain that when Paul spoke these words to Timothy, we know he was speaking of the sections of scripture that are currently referred to as “The Old Testament.”

In the first chapter of his second epistle, the Apostle Peter also affirms the fact that it was God’s Holy Spirit who inspired the words that are recorded in the early scriptures.

In verses 20 and 21 Peter says: (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

With these verses now brought into the light, let me say once again that there is nothing “Old” about the 39 sections of scripture called “The Old Testament.” There is nothing less important about those 39 sections and they have no less authority than the scriptures we currently call “The New Testament.” If something is established as truth in the first 39 sections of scripture, then it will continue to be truth in the remaining 27 sections of scripture.

This is not a truth of my invention but it is a truth established by Jesus himself.

In John 10:35 Jesus is speaking to the Jews. While speaking to them he attempts to make a point. In the process of doing so he quoted a truth from the book of Psalms. Then to establish the eternal authority of that truth, Jesus went on to say: the scripture cannot be broken.

What Jesus was essentially saying was this: Here is a truth from the scripture, and as you know, if it was a truth when it was stated, it is still just as much a truth today, for the scripture cannot be broken.

For this reason, you can rest assured - if there is a truth that is clearly and firmly established in the first 39 books of scripture, you can rest assured that neither Jesus or the Apostles will ever say anything to contradict that established truth. If Jesus or the apostles were to say something that appeared to contradict a truth that is clearly and firmly established in the first 39 books of the Bible, one should not try to redefine that established truth because of that contradictory statement. That is what is referred to as getting the cart before the horse. Instead, one should use the truth that is clearly and firmly established in the first 39 books of scripture to recognize that a contradictory statement in the “New Testament” is either mistranslated or deliberately altered.

What I am telling you is the truth proclaimed by Jesus himself (John 10:35), but because of the influence of Satan, a great many people view the first 39 books of the Bible as something that is less important or as something that carries less authority than the last 27 books of the Bible. However, that is simply not the case. Not one time will you see such an idea promoted in the last 27 books of scripture.

All scripture is just that – scripture. It is all God’s word spoken through men as the Holy Spirit led them. To refer to the first 39 books of the Bible as “The Old Testament” is a tradition and habit that I recommend you attempt to leave behind. Maybe begin referring to it simply as the early scriptures, or maybe start calling those 39 books “The Introduction to the Gospel,” for that description would then be fairly accurate.

If you read books very often, then it is likely that you have come across a book with a fairly important introduction. Now not all introductions are important, but on occasion you will come across one that is vital to fully understanding the material you are about to read. Some introductions you can skip and still get the gist of what is happening, but there are some introductions that simply can’t be skipped, because if you do, you will not fully understand what remainder of the book is about. And so it is with the first 39 books of the Bible. They are absolutely indispensable to understanding the full power of the gospel that is revealed in the last 27 books. The first 39 books are the foundation on which the glorious gospel stands. And if you don’t recognize the authority and importance of those first 39 books, you will never be able to understand the doctrines that are taught in the last 27 books.

So, call those first books “The Introduction” or call them “The Foundation” or call them “The Early Scriptures,” but whatever you choose to call them, try to break the habit of calling them “The Old Testament.” By calling those first 39 books “The Old Testament” and by then calling the last 27 books “The New Testament,” you are subconsciously feeding the notion that “The Old Testament” is worn out and irrelevant, and you are feeding the notion that it deserves less priority than “The New Testament.” So I strongly encourage you to begin breaking this habit now and begin calling it by a new name that establishes its place of relevance and importance.

Now, I want you to understand that I am not speaking in jest; however, I also want you to you to know that this is not something to be dogmatic about. While I think it is a really good idea to call the first 39 books of the Bible something other than “The Old Testament,” the reality is that that is what they are known as and the reality is that this will prove a very hard habit for many to break. So for simplicities sake, there will be times you will need to use the term. There will be times that you will be in the midst of a discussion with someone and will find it simpler and less confusing to call those books “The Old Testament.” However, outside of those circumstances, I would really suggest that you try not to call those first 39 books “The Old Testament.” By changing this habit and by simply referring to those books as scripture, you will open a door of learning that many others have shut. When you begin to see those first 39 books as scripture that is breathed by the Spirit of God, then you will begin to recognize the authority that is in those books. This will help you understand many truths that will in turn set a foundation for understanding the true glory that is revealed in the gospel.

Now, even though this may seem like a great contradiction, as I proceed now with my message, I will continue to refer to those first 39 books as “The Old Testament.” The reason for this is the reason I just stated. Since most of you recognize that portion of scripture as “The Old Testament,” I will continue to call it that in order to avoid any confusion. However, in my daily life, I am going to make a serious attempt to do away with the term “Old Testament” when referring to the first 39 books of scripture.

Before moving on, I should point out that there is such a thing in the Bible as an Old Testament, or a more fitting name might be an Old Covenant. However, the Old Covenant is not the first 39 books of the Bible. The Old Covenant was the covenant that God entered into with the children of Israel after that were delivered from Egypt. It was revealed and initiated in the book of Exodus and expounded upon throughout the next three books of scripture (Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). This is the covenant that was in effect with the children of Israel until Jesus initiated a better covenant. So yes, one could accurately say that the Old Covenant was in effect during the time the first 39 books of the Bible were written. However, that does not mean that those 39 books belong to that Old Covenant. Instead, nearly everything that was written in the pages of those 39 books was written for the benefit of us upon whom this great hour of history has come. (1st Corinthians 10:11, 1st Peter 1:12)

Let me again state, that this is not something to be dogmatic about or create division about, but it is something I say in seriousness. If you will begin to look upon the first 39 books of the Bible as simply scripture, it will certainly help you avoid a whole lot of confusion and it will help you establish sound doctrine. If a truth is firmly established in the early scripture, then you can be confident that that truth will remain consistent in the later scriptures.

On a final note: you do need to understand that I am speaking of truths that are clearly established and truths that are eternal in nature. Not everything spoken by God in the early scriptures are eternal truths. For example, there were many laws and promises given by God to the children of Israel in the context and confines of the old covenant. Those laws and promises cannot automatically be called eternal truth, for they were specifically given to those who were under the old covenant. You cannot take an old covenant promise or law and call it eternal truth unless God established that law or truth elsewhere in the scripture. But that is a whole subject on its own and one can be addressed at another time. Right now though, it is time to proceed with the message at hand…..

That ends that particular segment of my message.

People who love the Word love all of it and recognize that the first 39 books were prior to Christ. Even Malachi speaks of tithes and offerings which, without the temple have no meaning.

All of God's word is profitable for instruction.

However...


God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:1-2)

Jesus disclosed the spiritual realm for us while the OT spoke of it in types and shadows. First the natural then the spiritual.

If the OT spoke about the coming Kingdom of God and the Suffering Servant who was to come wh would provide a way into this Kingdom then how was it not making forecasts of the spiritual realm? Is the OT dealing completely with natural things and nothing spiritual? Where did this notion come from? When David spoke "take not thy Holy Spirit from me" was he speaking in types and shadows? Types and shadows are in the OT to be sure but not everything spoken of and presented was non spiritual with the blanks to be filled in later.

Quoting,

"It is widely held that the most obvious corollary to the Christocentric hermeneutic is the "theologia crucis" that the New Testament must always be our guiide to interpreting the Old Testament. But why would a rule be imposed on the revelation of God that demands that the Old Testament passages may not become the basis for giving primary direction on any doctrines or truths that have relevancy to New Testament times? This is only to argue in the end for a canon within a canon...We misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says the most recent revelation of God is to be preferred or substituted for that which came earlier."

(W.C. Kaiser Jr.)

That's not a call in my opinion to return to former revelations that are better explained in the NT. It's not a call to return to types and shadows but again, the OT is not solely about types and shadows and nothing else. What many OT authors spoke on still stands today even in the light of NT revelation. If the OT is dismissed as it is many times under the notion that it was entiriely about types and shadows then like the author said, the NT becomes a canon within a canon. Food for thought.

I think the OP is pretty good and thought invoking in the right way.

_________________
David Winter

The Pharisees and Sadducees were expecting only a physical deliverer and physical kingdom. They had conditioned many to believe what they taught. Many godly prophets of the OT saw Christ and His spiritual kingdom.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

What Abraham was looking for was not on this earth.
Hebrews 11:10
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

The notion of a spiritual kingdom minus this earth was a thought the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets and Jesus never once considered or had in mind. I'm thinking Julius to say they did is a Gentile and western notion not really rooted in historical reality. The Hebrew mindset in which the Scripures were penned saw the spiritual and the material dwelling together in unity and harmony. The kingdom is "spiritual only" in not in keeping with the Hebrew world view in which the scriptures were penned. Never once did they think of the Kingdom of God in terms that did not include a restored earth. See Romans 8:19-22.

/The Pharisees and Sadducees were expecting only a physical deliverer and physical kingdom. They had conditioned many to believe what they taught. Many godly prophets of the OT saw Christ and His spiritual kingdom./

The Pharisees and Sadducees also saw there would be a spiritual aspect to the coming Kingdom of God. Yet they T weren't entirely devoted to the notion that a coming kingdom would be "spiritual only." They saw a coming Messiah but they saw this as occurring in the days when the Spirit wouod be poured out to people on the earth.

28 And it will come about after this that I will POUR OUT MY SPIRIT on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams. Your young men shall see visions.

29 - And even on the male and female servants I will POUR OUT MY SPIRIT in those days. (Joel 2:28-29)

24 For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.

25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

28 You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God. (Ezekiel 36:25-28)

After the Spirt was placed within them they would LIVE IN THE LAND God gave to thier forefathers - earthly land. So this spiritual kingdom having the Spirit within them would be lived out on the earth.

29 - And I will not hide My face from them any longer, for I shall have POURED OUT MY SPIRIT on the house of Israel, declaresd the Lord God. (Ezekiel 39:29)

What stumbled early Isarel was in main the seeming tampering with the Law that Jesus did and His claims to divinity. No one saw that the coming delieverer or Messiah would be God incarnate. But most of all the coming champion hero turned out to be much more than just a delivering hero but was Yaweh incarnated in the flesh setting the stage for a perfect sacrifice because His pure conception had bypassed the natural order. Just a physical Jewish hero was the least thing He was. But especially it was His suffering and death (which always precedes glory) that stumbled them. "O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter ionto His glory? And beginning with Moses and the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself n all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:25-27) All the prophets you so rightly mentioned had foreseen a spiritual kingdom but what was missing from Israel's understanding was that the coming One would be incarnate divinity and would suffer to obtain redemption and deliverance to bring this Kingdom. None of this in any way implies the Kingdom of God would be spiritual only and not include anything of the earth. Again, that is a Gentile and western notion.

Then Christ poured out His Spirit from on high to men on EARTH and filled them with His Spirit and sent them into the nations of the EARTH to procliam His gospel and this exalted Christ will Himself return to the EARTH. It was not foreseen that the Messiah would pour out His Spirit from heaven after He had left the earth while promising to come again. Yet it remains that He poured out His Spirit from on high to men on the earth. The spiritual Kingdom of God includes the material earth. It seems the notion that it doesn't has caused notions of the Kingdom to be advanced that really aren't in keeping with the Scriptures.

Thanks.

Blessings.

_________________
David Winter

Hebrews 11:13-16
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven."

_________________
David Winter

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel also saw the Lord's Kingdom.
Dan 4:3 How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.

The people of His Kingdom are on earth and are at work bringing about His will in many lives by preaching the Gospel and walking as Christ walked. This is what is meant "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

/The people of His Kingdom are on earth and are at work bringing about His will in many lives by preaching the Gospel and walking as Christ walked. This is what is meant "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven./

Exactly.

And Christ returns to this earth. Why does Romans 8 speak of a earth and creation set free unto glorious liberty instead of entirely destroyed immediately?

Quoting,

"There are a number of variations in the common Christian belief that those whomm Christ redeems will receive eternal life. These can be grouped into two basic models, the "spiritual vision" model and the "new creation" model.

"In the spiritual vision model of eternity, heaven is the highest ontologicsal reality. It is the realm of the spirit as opposed to base matter. This is the destiny of the saved, who will exist in that nonearthly, spiritual place as spiritual beings engaged in eternal activity."

"The new creation model of eternal life draws on biblical texts that speak of a future everlasting kingdom, of a new earth and the renewal of life on it, the bodily resurrection (especially of the physical nature of Christ's resurrection body, of social and even political concourse among the redeemed. It does not REJECT PHYSICALITY OR MATERIAL;ITY (emphasis mine), but affirms them as essential both to a holistic anthropology and to the biblical idea of a redeemed creation."

"When we examione the history of Christian thought, we find that the spiritual vision model was intimately connected with practices of "spiritual interpretation" that were openly acknopwledged to be contrary to the meaning of the words being interpreted. The long term practice of reading scripture in this way so conditioned the Christian mind that by the late Middle Ages the spiritual vision model had become an accepted fact of the Christian worldview. Hermeneutical justification was unnecessary. Reasonable persons (and even unreasonable ones) simply knew that ultimate salvation was spiritual in essence, consisting in the eternal betific vision. The pilgrim character of life for those who wanted to be saved involved an assent to God in which the world must progressively be left behind and spiritual realities come ever clearer in view."

(Craig B. Blaising - "Three Views on the Millenenniuim and Beyond" - Ch 3 - "Premillennialism" - copyright 1999 - 160-165)

I think Blaising has relevant obervations regarding the spiritual vision model which seems to caarry with it the notion that all earthl;y life and materiality will eventually be left behind. "My kingdom is not of this world" does not necessarily mean that all earthly life will eventually be left behind for a more permamant spiritual only existence. Chrstiot taught them to pray, "Thy kingdom come as Thy will is done on earth as in heaven." Christ will return to a earth. Romans 8 speaks of a reneewed earth. Ezekiel 36 speaks of a Spirit-filled people dwelling in the EARTHLY LAND given to their forefathers. This is after the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon them (Ezekiel 39:29).

Never once did the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets and Jesus think redemption would eventually exclude earthly materiality minus the land. Even the New Jerusalem descends out of heaven to earth. If Christ eventually creates a new heavens and earth it must be remembered that included in that is the creation of a new EARTH.

_________________
David Winter

Docs, we have been over this. Let's return the thread to questionmark and see where he wanted to go with it.

questionmark, please continue.