Bible Study Dividing the Word of Truth

[dianegcook]

Before I make my comment, I would like to remind everyone that this a Bible study forum, this is not a debate forum. The focus of this OP and study is more on how we study the Bible in rightly dividing the word of truth, not in what we actually believe a scripture to say. With that said, JLB has given you his example of "rightly dividing" the word of truth. But I ask in all seriousness if you actually payed attention to the reasoning that JLB gave for dividing this particular passage? Because they left the temple and walked to the mount.

So let me ask you a question Diane, if I were to ask you out for a movie and dinner, and we had just left the theater commenting to one another on how good we thought the movie was, and that it had made and impression upon us, that after we take a short drive we sit down for dinner at a nice quiet restaurant where we continue to discuss the movie we had just seen. Maybe one of us says that they would enjoy seeing it again, to which the other of us says when are you going? Now, because we started talking about the movie as we left the theater, and continued talking about the movie when we sat down to dinner, did the context of our conversation change? Did we start talking about a different movie just because of our location? I'm sorry, but that sounds kind of silly to me.

So lets look at the scripture for a moment that JLB cited for his example.

The subject begins with the temple, and the destruction of the temple. So let me ask you a question, was the temple being discussed of service to the Old Covenant of Laws and Ordinances in the service of God, or are they talking of the temple of God under the New Covenant according to the promise made with Abraham?

Jesus was also considered a prophet, and a prophet is always sent before the judgement comes to proclaim it, and give them space to repent of their ways. The Judgement of God had been proclaimed in the destruction of the Temple, their place of worship under the Old Covenant Law. It was to this Judgement that the disciples were questioning when they asked what would be the sign of his coming. What is the sign of your coming judgement?

Now consider this for just a moment. When the disciples asked Jesus this question, what will be the sign of thy coming? They still did not understand that he was leaving them and that he would be crucified. The concept of the disciples asking about a "second" coming is inconceivable when the disciples supposed that Jesus was to take his place upon throne of David at that time. You can read of their misunderstanding in Luke 24.

Again, please do no make this a debate about our interpretations of these scriptures. JLB has shared with you how he thought to rightly divide the word of truth. I have given you some food for thought that you might consider for yourself.

As I said it was a short example, didn't want to write all of Matt.24:, lol
And JLB is correct, not 70 AD.
We still have the wailing wall.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Maybe you can offer you thoughts Jethro Bodine, but it seems to me that in trying to make one scripture stand up to all the rest of the scripture creates an environment where one might begin to feel compelled, consciously or unconsciously, to begin twisting certain of the scripture that it might reinforce their own doctrines?

I'm thinking that trying to make one scripture stand up to all the rest of the scripture does the opposite. It keeps one from twisting scripture to reinforce a personal interpretation of a particular passage that has been divided out from the whole for consideration.

This is how to refute false doctrines. Use more compelling and plain scriptures to expose an interpretation of a passage that violates those other plainer and more compelling passages.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There are many voices to be heard when reading the scriptures, whom do you listen to? Do you listen to the spirit of Moses? Do you listen to the spirit of Elijah? Or do you listen to and hear the Spirit of Christ?

All the voices are heaven sent. For fear of being redundant, what we need to do is weigh each voice according to the whole counsel of scripture.

 

[ezrider]

As I said it was a short example, didn't want to write all of Matt.24:, lol
And JLB is correct, not 70 AD.
We still have the wailing wall.

So are you saying the Temple was not destroyed in 70AD? That the Holy of Holies is still standing? And the Alter? Are you aware of the scripture that said to leave the outer court to be trampled under foot of the Gentiles? Does your doctrines hang upon a wall?

Have we now identified the wall that separates us from the knowledge of Christ in our Hearts? Tear down that wall.

 

[ezrider]

There is simply no mention of the events of 70 AD in the Olivet Discourse at all, the reason being, Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Zechariah, which clearly has nothing to do with the events of 70 AD, and everything to do with the return of Jesus Christ, in which "every eye will see Him"...

And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:10

Again, I am not debating the interpretation of Matt 24. I did not introduce the scripture from Matt 24 into this tread, nor did I bring the events of 70AD into this discussion. Now you are trying to turn this into some preterist debate, of which this is not, and nor should you continue to attempt to turn it into such. I offed no interpretation of this scripture. I made no mention of it being fulfilled or not. I only asked a few simple questions, such as which covenant was the Temple of service to? If the disciples did not think Jesus would be leaving them, as in being crucified and killed, why would they ask about a "second" coming? But I know you well enough JLB, that you will never answer those two questions. You sometimes demand answers of others, yet seldom do you answer the question that are asked of you. So I should expect the usual; you will not answer the two very specific and yet very simple questions, instead you will post a few scriptures and never add a thing.

Now in your attempts to justify your own doctrines, you point to Zech 12:10 as your justification as to why the events in 70 AD couldn't possibly have anything to do with your version of the olivet discourse. So if that is your reasoning, then the day of Pentecost never happened, because as you say He did not pour out His Spirit of Grace upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem. If the Spirit of Grace has not yet come, then by what Grace do you claim to live by? Are you saying that Jesus was a liar when he promised that after he had risen he would send forth the Comforter, the Spirit of truth into our hearts? If the Spirit of Grace has not yet been poured out, then the new covenant has no standing, and the blood of Christ of no effect. Is that what your telling us JLB? Care to explain yourself?

 

[JLB]

Now in your attempts to justify your own doctrines, you point to Zech 12:10 as your justification as to why the events in 70 AD couldn't possibly have anything to do with your version of the olivet discourse. So if that is your reasoning, then the day of Pentecost never happened, because as you say He did not pour out His Spirit of Grace upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem. If the Spirit of Grace has not yet come, then by what Grace do you claim to live by? Are you saying that Jesus was a liar when he promised that after he had risen he would send forth the Comforter, the Spirit of truth into our hearts? If the Spirit of Grace has not yet been poured out, then the new covenant has no standing, and the blood of Christ of no effect. Is that what your telling us JLB? Care to explain yourself?

Who in the world ever said the Spirit of Grace had not been poured out on the day of Pentecost?

You are not rightly dividing the word and you are twisting the scriptures that I gave in an attempt to try and discredit what I posted.

Anyone that actually read what the scriptures said in Zechariah, would not come to this ridiculous conclusion.

10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;
13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves;
14 all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves.
Zechariah 12:10-14

This is speaking of the day of the Lord in which He returns to Jerusalem and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will see Him.

Most Jews living in Israel still do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.

When He returns, the scripture clearly says He will pour out the Spirit of Grace and supplication on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Why would this mean the Spirit had not been pored out on the Day of Pentecost?

Is God somehow limited as to when and where He pours out His Spirit.

JLB

 

[JLB]

such as which covenant was the Temple of service to?

To the covenant made with the children of Israel.

If the disciples did not think Jesus would be leaving them, as in being crucified and killed, why would they ask about a "second" coming?

I never said anything about what the disciples "thought", concerning Jesus leaving them.

I don't presume to know why the disciples asked Him about the sign of His coming and the end of the age.

I do know that Zechariah prophesied about His Coming, and destroying the enemies that surrounded Jerusalem, which certainly didn't happen in 70 AD.

JLB

 

[ezrider]

such as which covenant was the Temple of service to?

To the covenant made with the children of Israel.

I'm sorry but that answer is not sufficient. Both covenants were made with the children of Israel.

 

[JLB]

I'm sorry but that answer is not sufficient. Both covenants were made with the children of Israel.

Which 2 covenants?

 

[ezrider]

Who in the world ever said the Spirit of Grace had not been poured out on the day of Pentecost?

You are the one that quoted Zech 12:10 and said it had not been fulfilled. I read the scripture for what it says. In that day I will pour out my Spirit of Grace upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem. If this has not been fulfilled, then what of Joel 2:28? Because Joel 2:28 point to the same event as Zech 12:10, when the Lord would pour out His Spirit upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which event is recorded and spoken of in the book of Acts, known as the day of Pentecost.

The Promise has always been that He would send forth His Spirit to come dwell in out hearts. You look for a different promise than I do, and I am okay with that. The question is can you accept that the promise that I hold unto is just as real for me? Some wish to inherit the earth, I do not. My inheritance rests in the Lord.

Some are called to serve inside the temple, others only ever come to serve before the alter. Some vessels are called to Glorify the Righteousness of the Christ, other vessels are fitted for destruction, but both serve the Lord; and if He is Glorified in their destruction, what is their reward?

 

[ezrider]

Which 2 covenants?

Now you are playing game and you know it.

 

[ezrider]

Is God somehow limited as to when and where He pours out His Spirit.

And yet anytime, throughout multiple of these threads, throughout the many different forums, when ever the coming of the Lord by His Spirit it brought up, who is the first one to start posting scripture trying to limit the coming of His Spirit to one event you call the second coming?

Someone brings up the fact that Jesus appeared to the disciples many times after he had risen, such as is recorded in the scriptures for our witness and sound doctrine, and yet for some reason that never qualifies as a "second" or maybe even third coming. He was alive and they knew him, and they walked him and they talked with him. So after his death, when he appeared unto them again after he had risen, why does that not qualify as a "second" coming? When he told them that he had to leave at that point, but wait for ten more days, and he would come unto them again, could that not be considered a "second" coming? Because at the end of that 10 day period, on the day of Pentecost, Peter left no doubt when it was said that this is that which was spoken of the the prophet Joel.

 

[JLB]

Now you are playing game and you know it.

You said "both" covenants were made with the children of Israel, which the Temple was a service to.

Please name both covenants so I know what you are talking about.

JLB

 

[JLB]

And yet anytime, throughout multiple of these threads, throughout the many different forums, when ever the coming of the Lord by His Spirit it brought up, who is the first one to start posting scripture trying to limit the coming of His Spirit to one event you call the second coming?

The Spirit is not limited as to coming, and I never said any such thing.

The physical appearing of Jesus Christ is defined for us clearly in scripture.

Once when He came and died for our sins, and was seen by those who He was called to.

He will appear a second time, when He returns at the end of the age to Gather His people at the Resurrection/Rapture and remove the wicked.

At this next Appearing, the Coming of the Lord, every eye will see Him.


so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28

Scripture clearly says, He will appear a second time...

... a second time

To me this plain and clear scripture says He will appear a second time.

Maybe you see a deeper, more mystical meaning in the word "second" than I do.

If so, please share it with me.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Someone brings up the fact that Jesus appeared to the disciples many times after he had risen, such as is recorded in the scriptures for our witness and sound doctrine, and yet for some reason that never qualifies as a "second" or maybe even third coming. He was alive and they knew him, and they walked him and they talked with him. So after his death, when he appeared unto them again after he had risen, why does that not qualify as a "second" coming? When he told them that he had to leave at that point, but wait for ten more days, and he would come unto them again, could that not be considered a "second" coming? Because at the end of that 10 day period, on the day of Pentecost, Peter left no doubt when it was said that this is that which was spoken of the the prophet Joel.

Jesus presented Himself alived to His disciples, after His resurrection, for 40 days, teaching them about the kingdom, then He ascended into heaven and was seated at the right hand of God.

Since that time, we are awaiting Him to appear a second time, to be seen by all.

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. Revelation 1:7


JLB

 

[ezrider]

I'm sorry but that answer is not sufficient. Both covenants were made with the children of Israel.

Which 2 covenants?

Now you are playing game and you know it.

You said "both" covenants were made with the children of Israel, which the Temple was a service to.

Please name both covenants so I know what you are talking about.

JLB

JLB, you know absolutely which covenants I am referring, so please knock it off. I have called them out several times within this thread, so you are without excuse. While you play possum pretending to not know which covenants God made with Israel, and you sit there waiting to pounce on some scripture reference that you might impart your own wisdom into it, you have revealed yourself.

If you claim ignorance as to the two covenants for which I spoke, then how can you claim to be a teacher of scripture and an authority on "rightly dividing" the word of truth if you do not know which covenants the Lord made with the children of Israel?

 

[JLB]

JLB, you know absolutely which covenants I am referring, so please knock it off. I have called them out several times within this thread, so you are without excuse. While you play possum pretending to not know which covenants God made with Israel, and you sit there waiting to pounce on some scripture reference that you might impart your own wisdom into it, you have revealed yourself.

If you claim ignorance as to the two covenants for which I spoke, then how can you claim to be a teacher of scripture and an authority on "rightly dividing" the word of truth if you do not know which covenants the Lord made with the children of Israel?

I'm asking you to name the 2 Covenants that the Temple was a service to.

Please use scripture.


JLB

 

[ezrider]

There is simply no mention of the events of 70 AD in the Olivet Discourse at all, the reason being, Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Zechariah, which clearly has nothing to do with the events of 70 AD, and everything to do with the return of Jesus Christ, in which "every eye will see Him"...

And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:10

Then when you add the irrefutable fact that Jesus only comes a second time, according to Hebrews 9:28, and the fact that the resurrection of the dead takes place when He comes again, and the fact that the wicked will be removed from the earth when He comes again, it becomes crystal clear that the Olivet Discourse is clearly not about the events of 70 AD, even though Jesus returns to the same city, that the Romans destroyed in 70 AD.

At this next Appearing, the Coming of the Lord, every eye will see Him.


so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28

Scripture clearly says, He will appear a second time...

... a second time

To me this plain and clear scripture says He will appear a second time.

Maybe you see a deeper, more mystical meaning in the word "second" than I do.

If so, please share it with me.

Zech 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications:
and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,
and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Two things of note: The first is the declaration that he would pour out the SPIRIT of Grace on the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This passage speaks of the Holy Spirit. But it is not a physical appearance that you may behold it, except you stand witness to the power thereof. This is what was witnessed on the day of Pentecost, when the Lord poured out His Spirit upon, fulfilling as Peter declared in the book of Acts that this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel. To me, there is no doubt that this has been fulfilled as promised by Jesus when he said he would send forth the Spirit of Truth, baptizing them in the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit that sustains the Grace within me, and the same Spirit that gives give life to my being. You can not take it from me.

The second thing is the scripture in Zech 12:10 does not say that "every eye shall see Him." That is something that you have brought to this scripture to give it different meaning. The scripture as it is written in Zech 12:10 says "they shall look upon me" whom they have pierced.
While it could be implied that would physically see him, that is not what this is saying. If I wanted to learn about economics, I might look upon the writings of Adam Smith. When I read the scriptures I look upon Christ. The Spirit of Grace sustains me, and my heart always looks upon Christ. Whom do you look upon when you seek the forgiveness of your sins?

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Again two things of note: The first is this scripture does not imply an event in which every eye in the world will behold him at the same moment. The scripture as it is written in Heb 9:28 says plainly that he shall appear unto them a second time unto those who look for him. If you do not look for Him, how shall he appear unto you? I look to the things of the Spirit, not the thing of the world. My sight is by Faith.

The second thing to point out is He shall appear without sin. To appear without sin means that he would appear by His Spirit, apart from his body, that by His Spirit He might make known the Righteousness of Christ in our hearts, and by His Spirit we should know His Glory in us. But this is not possible in his body. To be apart from sin is to be apart from his body, that by his Spirit He will be glorified in our flesh unto our salvation. But we can not know this if we do not look for him first, and know what to look for. The Spirit of the Lord is being poured out upon the world, but you will not see it except you first look, but you will not find by looking to events in the world, for the world hides it from you. You have to search your heart, and look for him there, that is where the Spirit of the Lord will reveal himself.

God is a Spirit, and must be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth.

John 16:7-10 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

 

[ezrider]

I'm asking you to name the 2 Covenants that the Temple was a service to.

Please use scripture.


JLB

Those are your words, they are not mine. You have twisted, or are attempting to twist what I have said to make it seem as if I said the Temple was in service to both covenants. But if you can't be honest with the scripture, why should I expect you to deal honestly with what I have said. I asked which covenant was the temple of service to.

 

[gr8grace3]

I think we overlook the qualifications of rightly dividing the word.
One must be a Believer because correct interpretation requires the work of the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 2:14-16
One must be filled with the Holy Spirit.Eph 5:18 ......Key! Most believers have no idea that we can lose the filling of the Spirit.But Not the indwelling or seal.
One must possess a desire to know.Matt 7:7-8
One must be seeking to correctly interpret God’s Word. 2 Tim 2:15
One should have some spiritual education over a period of time. 1 Tim 3:6

Every time,every time and every time we go to the scriptures we need to be sure we are filled with the Spirit. We need to be sure we are not grieving or quenching the Spirit and make sure we have sited our known sins to God.