Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Solomon's judgment of Adonijah and Joab | 1 Kin 2:13 | DocTrinsograce | 203957 | ||
Hi, Carlos... First you'd have to establish from Scripture that Solomon's reign was, indeed, an "archtype of the new kingdom" (sic). If that presupposition is a "foundation of dust," surely answering the other questions would be, exegetically, "dwelling in houses of clay." In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Solomon's judgment of Adonijah and Joab | 1 Kin 2:13 | CarlosDF | 203988 | ||
Hmm, "have I uttered that which I understood not"? So the fifteen times or so Jesus is called the son of David in the NT doesn't do it for you without ref... No problem, the king who reigns in peace, builder of the temple, possesing the wisdom of God, I just made some assumption about commonly ascribed parallels. I retract all assumptions. So let me rephrase. My question is if anyone has read any analysis pertaining to these verses under the context of assuming Solomon's reign metaphorically represented the Messiah's, or has perceived any verse supporting the first judgments of Solomon in relation to the Messiah's judgment. Forgive the assumptions and garbled diction, "I abhor myself". Peace in the One who breathes the word into the present. |
||||||
3 | Solomon's judgment of Adonijah and Joab | 1 Kin 2:13 | DocTrinsograce | 204039 | ||
Hi, Carlos... Jesus is called the "son of David" as an explicit fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant articulated in 2 Samuel 7. His lineage was an important authentication that He was Messiah (Isaiah 9:6-; 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15-17). Why mystically read anything into Solomon's reign simply because he was the David's son? If we are going to do that, what about Roboam the son of David, or Abia the son of David, or Asa, Josaphat, Joram, etc. etc. etc. So, let's build upon a solid foundation. Where in Scripture do we find "Solomon's reign metaphorically [representing] the Messiah's?" In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Solomon's judgment of Adonijah and Joab | 1 Kin 2:13 | CarlosDF | 204103 | ||
I considered carefully by what reply would benefit, please forgive the length. In no way is the intention to speculate, or create some mysticism. However, those things which are revealed, taught, or highlighted by the Spirit are spiritual things, and as such can be seen as speculation from a different perspective. By that, I in no way here claim to be highly enlightened, or full of the vision of God beyond you or the next believer, woe is me, for I am ruined. That is no simple off the cuff justification for your concern, which I take with all regard. Yet at many points in the walk of faith, there are things which appear foolish to the educated mind. One cannot reason their way to a greater supply of eternal life. Perhaps this is where the the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, in that you may be right, your logic infallible, but find not life. And it is certain, that without the anointing, I am wrong, defiled by post hoc ergo propter hoc, and in no way finding or providing life. I will be brief then with the picture, yet I did find life in your prodding beyond the measure experienced previously in seeing Christ in the reign of Solomon. You perceive one aspect of the title, son of David, and that being the blood lineage to satisfy 2 Samuel 7. Of that same covenant, repeated by David in 1 Chronicles 22:9,10, is David confused about what he heard? Or is he simply mixing up the prophecy with the reality? Or perhaps this is the writen word displaying Solomon as a picture of the coming King? But that is speculation, so I hang not my hat there. Let us consider Psalm 72, presumably a consideration of David, about his son, yet clearly it describes the coming eternal king. By what means do you count the title, “A Psalm of Solomon” with the clear description of the future eternal King? If written by David, did he confuse his natural son's reign with the prophetic one? To which author shall we refer here, as to fix the meaning? David speaking in the Holy Spirit? Then there would be no confusion. Again, speculation, so we rest not on that. What do you make at the end of Stephens discourse, a road map of the pictures of Christ throughout, where he states (Acts 7:47) “But it was Solomon who built a house for Him...”? Though not equating the reign of Christ with the reign of Solomon, we find Solomon as a picture of Christ in the building of the temple, which only the king could do, while reigning in a time of peace. More speculation? Yet we have another king who, by the declaration in Hebrews 7, points to the nature of the Messiah. He, our High Priest, is of the order of Melchizedek, who happens to be king of Salem. Yes, the reign of peace, whether by definition, or picture, or reality. The king of peace, perhaps Solomon walked in such a way. Do we claim significance? Coincidence? Linguistic accident that Solomon's name, as revealed by God to David, means peace? And in Christ we have both, High Priest, not of the blood descendants, and Eternal King through the lineage. How amazing is our God! I do not ask rhetorically, or in any way to create some mystical association. The reality of the now by faith, is that there is a King, who reigns over a kingdom, and has subdued all of His enemies, even conquering death itself. This was intended from the foundation of the world, I believe. If the requirement to perceive all the pictures of this current reality comes by logic, reason, or scholarship then the pictures one views do not necessarily lead to more life. In that I do not discount the value of knowledge, or study. But hold finding life in higher esteem. May we find life in the Spirit, in the unveiling of Him daily in our experience, the one who is the living word. And may we find that life together. May the flame that is the living word consume any speculation, and may Grace guide any who read these words to the true King, irregardless of metaphor. Thanks for the provocation, I definitely found a new measure of life in Psalm 72, my blessing to you! |
||||||
5 | Solomon's judgment of Adonijah and Joab | 1 Kin 2:13 | DocTrinsograce | 204192 | ||
Dear Carlos, A sound and proper hermeneutic starts with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). The most learned, erudite, unregenerate person will make infinitely less headway in understanding of the Scriptures than will the simplest of believers. The old Baptist divines expressed it this way, "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (John 16:13-14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)" (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 1, paragraph 5) Man is made in the image and glory of God (Genesis 1:27, 1 Corinthians 11:7). God "formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul: (Genesis 2:7). Adam became a type of soul that is superior to that of non-rational animals (2 Peter 2:12, Jude 10). Man, as God's image bearer, is a rational being (Colossians 3:10). Again, this is why the apostle Paul could spend time "reasoning" with his readers "from the Scriptures." Because Christ is the Logos who "gives light to every man who comes into the world" (John 1:9), we are to understand that there is a point at which man's logic meets God's logic. In fact, John 1:9 denies that logic is arbitrary or that there are many kinds of logic. There is only one kind of logic: God's logic... and the Logos gives every image bearer the ability to think logically. God has given man an understandable message, "words of truth and reason" (Acts 26:25). God has also given us language. It enables man to rationally converse with his Creator (Exodus 4:11). Without logic, such thought or conversation would be impossible. Logic is an indispensable ingredient to all God-given, human language and thought. Sin did, indeed, damage man's ability to reason soundly (Romans 1:21), but this does no damage to the laws of logic. The laws of logic are not strengthened by people complying with them or weakened by people ignoring them. The laws of logic are fixed in the mind of God. Carl F. H. Henry said it better than I could have done, "The laws of logic are not a speculative prejudice imposed at a given moment of history as a transient philosophical development. Neither do they involve a Western way of thinking, even if Aristotle may have stated them in an orderly way. The laws of valid inference are universal; they are elements of the imago Dei. In the Bible, reason has ontological significance. God is Himself truth and the source of truth. Biblical Christianity honors the Logos of God as the source of all meaning and considers the laws of thought an aspect of the imago." The doctrine of the verbal plenary inspiration of the Word emphasizes that each jot and tittle has a Providential purpose. This is why Paul can base an entire theological argument on whether a Hebrew word is plural or not (Galatians 3:16). Since our God placed such a high premium on language and thought, ought we not to hold those God given and God imitating abilities in the same high regard? God places His Word about His Own Name (Psalm138:2), He can do nothing contrary to His Word (Titus 1:2), the Holy Spirit works exclusively within the Word (John 6:63). Ought we not exercise every faculty -- faculties providentially given us -- to expose the truth of the Word? You've seen in my reproof a desire to help you be everything you can be in Christ. What I'm offering up to you is not limitations, it is the opportunity to be a "scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 13:52). The old and new treasures will be great visions indeed! But they will magnify Him alone, and not ourselves. I wanted to suitably respond on this point. If I must forgive the length of your post, then you'll need to be equally indulgent. :-) I will discuss your other points in subsequent posts. In Him, Doc |
||||||