Dispy answer to Ps 110, Acts 2, 1 corinth 15

[Manasseh]

Hi all

It has been confidently affirmed by Greg L. Bahnsen, in his diatribe “HOUSE DIVIDED”, concerning Psalm 110, and I quote “ There is no question that this is a
postmillennial passage. Let me also assure the reader that there is no possible way for a pre- millennialist to explain this passage in terms of his system, let alone a
dispensationalist. And so premillennialists rarely com- ment on it. It is one of those favorite neglected passages in the pre- millennial camp.”

For some reason his claims seem to have been accepted, by many, out of hand. Accepted in much the same way as those who read Hunt, Lindsay, etc, perhaps the only truth to what is said in the above statement is this “It is one of those favorite neglected passages in the pre- millennial camp.” I agree, but only so far as the fact that much of the bible is neglected by most, for reasons other than eschatological.
However, in the particular circle of brethren in which I am associated, Psalm 110 is a much loved Psalm.

Let’s take a closer look at it.

It is the belief of those who are classically Dispensational, in the vein of Darby/Kelly, that Christ is now seated in Heaven on the right hand of God, awaiting the time when he will come forth to rule in the midst of his enemies and during which time his enemies will be made his footstool. His kingdom on earth will begin with his glorious appearing/manifestation (Col 3:4, Rev 1:7). He will rule his earthly Kingdom from Heaven (Eph 1:21), on the throne he calls “My throne” (Rev 3:21). He is currently seated with the Father in his throne.

Now to the Psalm….

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

In v1 we see Christ seated, as he currently is, on the right hand of God. The Psalm begins with his present position. He is seated there UNTIL God makes his enemies his footstool. When will that be?

Psa 110:2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies

It will be when God (The Lord v2) sends him forth out of Zion. To rule in the midst of his enemies, “rule thou in the midst of thine enemies”. Christ is NOT ruling in the midst of his enemies now, as seated in Heaven.

Now notice the tenses of the Psalm.

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Present position)
Psa 110:2 The LORD shall (Future) send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Psa 110:3 Thy people shall (Future) be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art (Present) a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall (Future) strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
Psa 110:6 He shall (Future)judge among the heathen, he shall (Future) fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
Psa 110:7 He shall (Future) drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall (Future) he lift up the head.

The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion.

Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.

The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries

In the words of Mr. W.Trotter 1886, "Can anything be more obvious, than that these acts are not characteristic of Christ’s present, expecting attitude at the right hand of God, but of the state of things which will follow upon his rising up from that exalted seat?"

Today he is seated on the right hand of God in Heaven. He is there as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Not a Priest AND a King, he will take up the kingly aspect up in a day to come.

Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Isn’t it strange that in the book of Hebrews, of all places, nothing is said about Christ now being seated on the Throne of David?

Now to Peters Acts 2 sermon…….

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

"It has been said by some, that Peter’s words in the above sermon, “that the promise to David of Messiah’s succession to his throne has received it’s intended accomplishment” that God has raised up Christ to sit upon the Throne of David, in the resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus: and his first exercise of regal authority was to send down the Holy Spirit."
Now however confidently it may be affirmed you will find, from reading Peters words, that the Apostle said no such thing. The Apostle did not say that the promise to David had received its intended accomplishment. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament will you find a passage of scripture that says Christ’s ascension was the accomplishment of the messianic promise to David. Peter did not say his first regal exercise was to send the Holy Spirit."

"Peter says that David knew that God had sworn to him, of the fruit of his loins to raise up Christ to sit on his throne: and Peter refers to this, and to David’s being a prophet, to show that in Psalm 16 “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” etc, David was not speaking of himself, but of “the resurrection of Christ” (Acts 2:31). His (Christ’s) souls was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Then Peter proceeds, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” Peter does not say “and placed on the Throne of David”. Far from it, what he actually says is “For David is not ascended into the heavens”. Peter shows that the seat now occupied by Christ was a seat never occupied by David.

Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

It is not David’s Throne. How can David’s throne be meant by a seat he never occupied? David’s Throne was a literal throne on Earth.

Now to 1 Corinthians 15……….

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

First in reference to v24:

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

I’ll again quote Mr. Trotter……”To a mere English reader, the words “then cometh the end” might suggest the idea that “the end” is at the same time as the coming of Christ, or that it immediately succeeds that event. But the words in the original, as all scholars know, have no such signification.”

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward (e[peita)they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end(tevloß), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

“Now these word, tevloß and e[peita, are used in many passages, where it will be seen that the events mentioned do not occur at the same time, but after a considerable interval. In v5 of the same chapter (1 Corinthians 15), where these identical words are used, we have such an instance.

1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then(tevloß) of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then (tevloß)of all the apostles.

Does this mean that Cephas, and the twelve saw Christ risen at the same time? , no, but in succession and, as we all know, after a considerable event.” Yet it is the same word (tevloß) which is employed in both cases---“Then of the twelve,” “then cometh the end”. Another instance Mark 4:28: “First the blade, then (tevloß) the ear, then(tevloß) the full corn in the ear” There can be no doubt that tevloß is used of events in succession, with significant amounts of time in between events. Without in any way defining the length of time between events

In 1 Corinth 15, there are 3 great events stated in succession. “The first is the resurrection of Christ---“Christ the first fruits”; the second, the resurrection of all who are Christ’s at his coming; and the third, “the end” which is to be distinguished by the delivering up the kingdom to God, even the Father. Between the resurrection of Christ (the first fruits) and the resurrection of those who are his at his coming, around 200 years have already elapsed. Between the resurrection of the saints at Christ’s coming and his delivering up the kingdom at “the end” the period of the kingdom itself intervenes. By kingdom we mean the kingdom of Christ in its open manifest character. In mystery, it exists even now—in manifestation it is not set up till Christ comes, and then the saints are raised, to share with him in the glories of his reign.”

Quotations from W.trotter Plain Papers on Prophetic and other subjects 1886 (exceptional)

[Bill the Cat]

[Dee Dee Warren]

But the words in the original, as all scholars know, have no such signification.”

Blatantly false. None of those examples cited give any support to insert a thousand years in between, and it would be odd indeed for Paul to skip over that event. Additioinally Paul makes it clear that DEATH is the LAST enemy and is synonous with the resurrection that occurs AT His return. Oh and ALL scholars know? Apparently Bahnsen either doesn't know or isn't a scholar, and the fact is he both knows and is a scholar.

1 Corin 15 is simply irronciable in multiple ways to a premill interpretation. It is the deathblow....

I shall definitely be back.

[adam.naranjo]

Manasseh,

Now to Peters Acts 2 sermon…….

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

"It has been said by some, that Peter’s words in the above sermon, “that the promise to David of Messiah’s succession to his throne has received it’s intended accomplishment” that God has raised up Christ to sit upon the Throne of David, in the resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus: and his first exercise of regal authority was to send down the Holy Spirit."
Now however confidently it may be affirmed you will find, from reading Peters words, that the Apostle said no such thing. The Apostle did not say that the promise to David had received its intended accomplishment. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament will you find a passage of scripture that says Christ’s ascension was the accomplishment of the messianic promise to David. Peter did not say his first regal exercise was to send the Holy Spirit."

"Peter says that David knew that God had sworn to him, of the fruit of his loins to raise up Christ to sit on his throne: and Peter refers to this, and to David’s being a prophet, to show that in Psalm 16 “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” etc, David was not speaking of himself, but of “the resurrection of Christ” (Acts 2:31). His (Christ’s) souls was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Then Peter proceeds, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” Peter does not say “and placed on the Throne of David”. Far from it, what he actually says is “For David is not ascended into the heavens”. Peter shows that the seat now occupied by Christ was a seat never occupied by David.

Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

It is not David’s Throne. How can David’s throne be meant by a seat he never occupied? David’s Throne was a literal throne on Earth.

[size=large]Rebuttal 1[/size]
Perhaps you are blind. Peters whole point here is that the promise to sit at God's right hand (the throne) was never made to David, BECAUSE DAVID IS DEAD AND BURRIED AND NEVER ASCENDED TO HEAVEN where, as the Jews KNEW (and you don't), the THRONE IS LOCATED. For the Scripture says, "HEAVEN IS MY THRONE AND THE EARTH IS MY FOOTSTOOL. The whole point is that that DAVID knew, only because he was a prophet, that God's promise was made to his descendent and not him. This is why Peter premises his sermon by saying, "let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." This is why peter adds the premise, "Because David did not Ascend." Peter's whole point is that David did not ascend to the throne, but Christ did.

[size=large] Rebuttal 2[/size]
Now lets look at Peters phrase, "foreseeing this"

29 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne, [size=large]foreseeing this[/size], he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

Foreseeing what??? David Foresaw the promise that one of his descendents would sit on his throne. So David foreseeing this very thing spoke of the resurrection -- its fulfillment. Unlike David, Christ was made alive again and ascended to the father. He fulfilled the enthronement which was typified in David. David’s prophecy, "the Lord said sit at my right hand", was the fulfillment of the ascension of the throne of David by Christ. Its quite obvious that the "sitting at my right hand" is the fulfillment of the type of the Davidic throne.


[size=large]Rebuttal 3 [/size]
David’s throne is only a TYPE or SHADOW. The Jewish people thought in terms of types and shadows, not 100% literalism. Remember that Heaven is the Throne and earth is the footstool.


And Finally, that the enthronement of Christ is in Daniel 7:13..

"9 “As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed."

The Son of Man comes UP to the ancient of days and receives His kingdom, etc.

One more thing. Peter says that God has made Jesus, "both Lord and Christ." The word LORD refers to His kingship. He is NOW LORD/ KING and is doing what Lords do, RULE.

Now to 1 Corinthians 15……….

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firs fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

First in reference to v24:

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

I’ll again quote Mr. Trotter……”To a mere English reader, the words “then cometh the end” might suggest the idea that “the end” is at the same time as the coming of Christ, or that it immediately succeeds that event. But the words in the original, as all scholars know, have no such signification.”

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward (e[peita)they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end(tevloß), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

“Now these word, tevloß and e[peita, are used in many passages, where it will be seen that the events mentioned do not occur at the same time, but after a considerable interval. In v5 of the same chapter (1 Corinthians 15), where these identical words are used, we have such an instance.

[size=large]Rebuttal[/size]

Perhaps if you read the rest of the text you could answer yourself on this one. keep in mind that Paul’s theme is the resurrection -- the victory over death. Now keep reading, "...when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death." So let's get this straight.

Premise 1:
Death will be defeated on the day of resurrection.

Premise 2:
Death is the last enemy to be defeated.

Premise 3:
Christ reigns until all his enemies are defeated and then the end comes, when he hands over the kingdom to his father.

Premise 4:
Resurrection happens on the day of Christ’s coming. - "they that are Christ's at his coming"

Conclusion:
Christ will reign until his enemies are subdued and then on the day that we are resurrected (also known as the "last day" John 11:24 "in the resurrection on the last day"; Jn 6:54 "I will raise him up on the last day) Christ will have subdued all of His enemies. Because the day we are resurrected is also the day of Christ's coming, and the day in which all of the enemies will have been subdued, then we know that Christ must be reigning now -- and subduing NOW, until death will one day be subdued at his coming. Otherwise scripture makes no sense. Good thing Paul lets us know that the LAST enemy is death, and death is swallowed up in resurrection. This is Paul’s whole reason for mentioning that "death" will be the final enemy. Because he is talking about resurrection.

P.S...there is only one resurrection, "of the just and the unjust", on the "last day". The end!


Bahnsen puts it well:
"Paul tells us that death h will be abolished at the resurrection and that will be the last enemy that Jesus subdues. He will reign until every enemy has been put under His feet. The last enemy is going to be subdued when we are raised from the dead. When will he raise us from the dead? When He comes. Then comes the end."

[adam.naranjo]

Mannaseh,

Concerning Psalm 110.

1 The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.”
2 The Lord will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.”


The passage says that Christ will rule in the midst of his enemies. The essence here is that Christ's ruling power will be extended over all of his enemies. It seems obvious to me that you don't know how to go about interpreting psalms. Especially those that are metaphorically typological.


"2 The Lord will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.”

Doesn't mean that God will send Christ. The idea here is that the Lord will show Christ's power to all of His enemies, and He will rule.

These are not chronological scriptures as you suppose -- Psalms are rarely chronological, if ever. Rather, they are topical. God is giving the idea, through poetic device, that Christ will rule. God starts by saying that He will rule from heaven. God will take dominion over His enemies while Christ remains at his side. Then, God discusses, in poetic device, how God will take dominion. First, God will do it from Zion (which is now the Church, as it is written, Heb 12:18 "For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched... But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born") with people who volunteer to obey God's plan for dominion.God is taking dominion now. Wont you volunteer to obey him in dominion?


Heberws 10:12

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.


peace,
Adam

[Dee Dee Warren]

Boy, nothing left for me to say - thanks Adam!

[studyhound]

Adam

[Hitch]

Orange 1

Tribes 0

[Manasseh]

Back again.

The whole point of this exercise, has been to show that the claims of those who say that Psalm 110 and it’s related passages are not a “deathblow” to Premill eschatology, as claimed by some. But to show that Postmill view in an “alternate view” and nothing more.

The Premillennial view is this. That Christ is Presently seated on the right hand of God. He is there exalted as a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek; and shall, in a day to come; Take up his earthly Kingdom and rule over the earth with a rod of Iron.
I’ll quote from my previous post.

Now notice the tenses of the Psalm.

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Present position)
Psa 110:2 The LORD shall (Future) send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Psa 110:3 Thy people shall (Future) be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art (Present) a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall (Future) strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
Psa 110:6 He shall (Future)judge among the heathen, he shall (Future) fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
Psa 110:7 He shall (Future) drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall (Future) he lift up the head.

Psalm 110 starts off in the present tense, with Christ seated on the right hand of God, as all affirm to be true. That is his present position; He is now seated on the right hand of God exalted. Notice the tenses of the Psalm after his present position is affirmed.

It says “shall”, future tense twice.

The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion.

Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.

Then the Psalm, being true to Christ’s present position, mentions the Melchizedek Priesthood in the present tense.
Thou art (Present tense) a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
Now, this is Christ’s present tile, he is even now, in heaven, at the right hand of God exalted, a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The Psalm then says “shall”six more times.
The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

My point being this; The Premillennial view agrees with the Psalm in every respect. It agrees that Christ is now at Gods right Hand a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Premill also affirms that Christ shall rule from heaven in a day to come. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion.
Premill also affirms that his earthly people shall be willing in the day of his power, That he shall judge among the heathen , shall strike through Kings in the day of his wrath etc.

You will notice Adams quote below in reference to Psalm 110.

These are not chronological scriptures as you suppose -- Psalms are rarely chronological, if ever. Rather, they are topical. God is giving the idea, through poetic device, that Christ will rule. God starts by saying that He will rule from heaven. God will take dominion over His enemies while Christ remains at his side. Then, God discusses, in poetic device, how God will take dominion. First, God will do it from Zion (which is now the Church, as it is written, Heb 12:18 "For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched... But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born") with people who volunteer to obey God's plan for dominion.God is taking dominion now. Wont you volunteer to obey him in dominion

He said
These are not chronological scriptures as you suppose

and

with people who volunteer to obey God's plan for dominion.God is taking dominion now.

The Postmill view has to do this of course, it has to deny the chronology of the Psalm. It has to deny the chronology of the first 2 verses. It also has to deny the tenses, “The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion.”
As Adam said… God is taking dominion now.
In verse 2 when the Psalm says “shall send”; Post mill has to deny the tense as it stands in the Psalm and impose a present tense “now”.
“Shall” doesn’t actually mean “shall” in means “now“, they will tell you.
These are changes to the Psalm not required by the Premill view. The Premill view requires no such change. The premill view fits perfectly with the Psalm as is stands, no change required.

Psalm 110 is most definitely not the “deathblow” to Premill eschatology that it is made out to be. Quite the opposite in fact; Now watch them kick up a stink.

Rebuttal 1
Perhaps you are blind. Peters whole point here is that the promise to sit at God's right hand (the throne) was never made to David, BECAUSE DAVID IS DEAD AND BURRIED AND NEVER ASCENDED TO HEAVEN where, as the Jews KNEW (and you don't), the THRONE IS LOCATED. For the Scripture says, "HEAVEN IS MY THRONE AND THE EARTH IS MY FOOTSTOOL. The whole point is that that DAVID knew, only because he was a prophet, that God's promise was made to his descendent and not him. This is why Peter premises his sermon by saying, "let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." This is why peter adds the premise, "Because David did not Ascend." Peter's whole point is that David did not ascend to the throne, but Christ did.

”as the Jews KNEW (and you don't), the THRONE IS LOCATED. For the Scripture says, "HEAVEN IS MY THRONE AND THE EARTH IS MY FOOTSTOOL


First of all I’ll quote from the third paragraph of my original post.

“His kingdom on earth will begin with his glorious appearing/manifestation (Col 3:4, Rev 1:7). He will rule his earthly Kingdom from Heaven (Eph 1:21), on the throne he calls “My throne” (Rev 3:21). He is currently seated with the Father in his throne.”

It seems I’m not the one that’s blind.

In the above verse you quoted Acts 7:49, lets of a look at the passage.
Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

You will notice v48 says “the most High”, this passage cannot be applied to our Lord Jesus Christ because he is not only the Son of God; he is also the Son of Man. You cannot apply the passage to Christ as the Son of Man. The Lord Jesus quoted the same passage in Matthew’s Gospel.
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

He applied it to God the Father and not to himself. He then went on to say “neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King”. Here he was speaking of himself. I reject your use of the passage as applying to Christ as the Son of Man.
It is as the Son of Man that Christ Claims the tile deeds to the Kingdom Dan 7:13, 14; as you know.

The whole point is that that DAVID knew, only because he was a prophet, that God's promise was made to his descendent and not him. This is why Peter premises his sermon by saying, "let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." This is why peter adds the premise, "Because David did not Ascend." Peter's whole point is that David did not ascend to the throne, but Christ did

I’ll simply requote what I said and stand by it.

"Peter says that David knew that God had sworn to him, of the fruit of his loins to raise up Christ to sit on his throne: and Peter refers to this, and to David’s being a prophet, to show that in Psalm 16 “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” etc, David was not speaking of himself, but of “the resurrection of Christ” (Acts 2:31). His (Christ’s) souls was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Then Peter proceeds, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” Peter does not say “and placed on the Throne of David”. Far from it, what he actually says is “For David is not ascended into the heavens”. Peter shows that the seat now occupied by Christ was a seat never occupied by David.”

Rebuttal 2
Now lets look at Peters phrase, "foreseeing this"

29 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne, foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

Foreseeing what??? David Foresaw the promise that one of his descendents would sit on his throne. So David foreseeing this very thing spoke of the resurrection -- its fulfillment. Unlike David, Christ was made alive again and ascended to the father. He fulfilled the enthronement which was typified in David. David’s prophecy, "the Lord said sit at my right hand", was the fulfillment of the ascension of the throne of David by Christ. Its quite obvious that the "sitting at my right hand" is the fulfillment of the type of the Davidic throne.

Foreseeing what??? David Foresaw the promise that one of his descendents would sit on his throne.

Of course, no problem here as was said in my post "Peter says that David knew that God had sworn to him, of the fruit of his loins to raise up Christ to sit on his throne: and Peter refers to this, and to David’s being a prophet, to show that in Psalm 16 “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” etc, David was not speaking of himself, but of “the resurrection of Christ” (Acts 2:31). His (Christ’s) souls was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

"the Lord said sit at my right hand",was the fulfillment of the ascension of the throne of David by Christ.

Correct in that, his ascension was the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. Not correct in that Peter said his ascension was the fulfillment of the throne of David by Christ. Peter said no such thing.

Its quite obvious that the "sitting at my right hand" is the fulfillment of the type of the Davidic throne

No, you go too far, this is your imposition. Peter does not say anything of the sort. He said “This Jesus hath God raised up” and he goes no further. Peter spoke about the fulfilment of Psalm 110:1. He said nothing about the fulfilment of the Messianic promises to David. This is purely a presupposition on your part. I repeat, nowhere in the New Testament will you find the Messianic promises to David spoken of as being fulfilled. You can only impose it on Acts 2:30-36.

Rebuttal 3
David’s throne is only a TYPE or SHADOW. The Jewish people thought in terms of types and shadows, not 100% literalism. Remember that Heaven is the Throne and earth is the footstool.

You said

”David’s throne is only a TYPE or SHADOW.”

A baseless statement; show me the verse or passage that clearly states that the Throne of David was a type or a shadow of the Throne Christ now occupies.

And Finally, that the enthronement of Christ is in Daniel 7:13..

"9 “As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed."

The Son of Man comes UP to the ancient of days and receives His kingdom, etc.

Everyone knows that Premill and PostMill have different views on the above passage. Peter didn’t site Dan 7 in his acts 2 message so it is hardly the point.

[quote]One more thing. Peter says that God has made Jesus, "both Lord and Christ." The word LORD refers to His kingship. He is NOW LORD/ KING and is doing what Lords do, RULE.[quote]

No, again you impose you’re your presuppositions on the text; and this is a good example of how you do it “He is NOW LORD/ KING” Lord means Lord, King means King. The verse says Lord and that what I read it as. I am not going to impose anything further, based on a presupposition that Christ is seated on the Throne of David.

Rebuttal

Perhaps if you read the rest of the text you could answer yourself on this one. keep in mind that Paul’s theme is the resurrection -- the victory over death. Now keep reading, "...when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death." So let's get this straight.

Premise 1:
Death will be defeated on the day of resurrection.

Premise 2:
Death is the last enemy to be defeated.

Premise 3:
Christ reigns until all his enemies are defeated and then the end comes, when he hands over the kingdom to his father.

Premise 4:
Resurrection happens on the day of Christ’s coming. - "they that are Christ's at his coming"

Conclusion:
Christ will reign until his enemies are subdued and then on the day that we are resurrected (also known as the "last day" John 11:24 "in the resurrection on the last day"; Jn 6:54 "I will raise him up on the last day) Christ will have subdued all of His enemies. Because the day we are resurrected is also the day of Christ's coming, and the day in which all of the enemies will have been subdued, then we know that Christ must be reigning now -- and subduing NOW, until death will one day be subdued at his coming. Otherwise scripture makes no sense. Good thing Paul lets us know that the LAST enemy is death, and death is swallowed up in resurrection. This is Paul’s whole reason for mentioning that "death" will be the final enemy. Because he is talking about resurrection.

P.S...there is only one resurrection, "of the just and the unjust", on the "last day". The end!


Bahnsen puts it well:
"Paul tells us that death h will be abolished at the resurrection and that will be the last enemy that Jesus subdues. He will reign until every enemy has been put under His feet. The last enemy is going to be subdued when we are raised from the dead. When will he raise us from the dead? When He comes. Then comes the end."

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Referring to the above passage I have already pointed out that “then”, in ref to “Then cometh the end”, does not mean immediate succession. But any length of time can come between successive events.

I’ll again quote Mr. Trotter……”To a mere English reader, the words “then cometh the end” might suggest the idea that “the end” is at the same time as the coming of Christ, or that it immediately succeeds that event. But the words in the original, as all scholars know, have no such signification.” This has been proven

It has been said that it would be odd for Paul not to mention the 1000 years reign, but Paul, in verse 23, bypasses the last 2000 or so years, without mentioning that either.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; (There are about 2000 years between these events already)afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

So the Apostle Paul is actually being consistent. If it is strange that he does not mention the 1000 year reign in the Passage. Then it is equally as strange that he has not mentioned the last 2000 years.

The JFB Commentary put it even better than Bahnsen.

1Co 15:23 - But every man in his own order--rather, "rank": the Greek is not in the abstract, but concrete: image from troops, "each in his own regiment." Though all shall rise again, let not any think all shall be saved; nay, each shall have his proper place, Christ first (Col_1:18), and after Him the godly who die in Christ (1Th_4:16), in a separate band from the ungodly, and then "the end," that is, the resurrection of the rest of the dead. Christian churches, ministers, and individuals seem about to be judged first "at His coming" (Mat. 25:1-30); then "all the nations" (Mat. 25:31-46). Christ's own flock shall share His glory "at His coming," which is not to be confounded with "the end," or general judgment (Rev_20:4-6, Rev_20:11-15). The latter is not in this chapter specially discussed, but only the first resurrection, namely, that of the saints: not even the judgment of Christian hollow professors (Mat. 25:1-30) at His coming, is handled, but only the glory of them "that are Christ's," who alone in the highest sense "obtain the resurrection from the dead" (Luk_14:14; Luk_20:35-36; Phi_3:11; see on Phi_3:11). The second coming of Christ is not a mere point of time, but a period beginning with the resurrection of the just at His appearing, and ending with the general judgment. The ground of the universal resurrection is the union of all mankind in nature with Christ, their representative Head, who has done away with death, by His own death in their stead: the ground of the resurrection of believers is not merely this, but their personal union with Him as their "Life" (Col_3:4), effected causatively by the Holy Spirit, and instrumentally by faith as the subjective, and by ordinances as the objective means.

So does Mr Anderson

"BUT NOW IS CHRIST RISEN FROM AMONG THE DEAD, AND BECOME THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THEM THAT SLEPT."

Verse 20: The sleeping saints shall rise again!

Verse 21: God's triumph is achieved in Man!

Verse 22: The extent of the effects of the fall of Adam-surely a racial head-"For as in the Adam all die," shall the extent of resurrection in Christ be any narrower? Decidedly not. "Even so in the Christ shall all be made alive."

Verse 23: Christ is coming! Then shall all those who are described as being Christ's experience the power of His resurrection.

Verses 24-28: In these parenthetical verses the Scripture passes quickly over the ensuing reign of the Lord indicating in so doing that the same power which shall raise and change the saints, shall also bring order into the realm where, for so long, disorder has prevailed. All rule and all authority and power shall be put down by the once-crucified Christ. Then shall He bring to a close His mediatorial reign and upon the threshold of eternity He shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father. All shall be would up in absolute perfection. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Elsewhere we learn that "death and hell were cast into the lake of fire."

As stated at the start of this post, the point of this was to show that none of the passages sited is the “deathblow” to premill eschatology. Ihave shown that the Postmill view is a mere “alternate view” but definitely not some sort of “deathblow”. I'm going to let the Postmill veiw have the last say on this, I don't have time to do the whole going back and forth thing. I'm sure you who are premill will see though the smoke that they will blow.

Regards
M

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh there's smoke being blown alright....

I look forward to coming back and adding to Adam's dismantling. Anyone interested in the interim can check out the Wrestlefest and see where I go into great detail how Christ's throne is not earthly, the chronology of the reign, and just generally how that combination of factors is in fact the death knell to premill. Of course one can twist, postpone, and use the gap-o-rama....

[GrayPilgrim]

I'm working on a treatment of Psalm 110. So far I have only tranlated the Massorah Parve, which are "textual notes" that the Massoretes put in the margins of the text to note oddities and such in the text. These can be helpful, but are often just spelling notations. I will be bringing in the "New Perspective on the Psalms" as VanGemeren labeled it in his paper on Psalm 34 last year at ETS' annual meeting.

GP

[GrayPilgrim]

I will divide my post up into two different posts. The first will deal with the New Perspective on the Psalms. later Iw ill post one that deals specifically with 110.

Why start here after all Manasseh explicitly mention 110? Well here is why. The Psalms for too long have read without a context, and thus are allowed to fit into what ever nook or cranny that we wish them to fit. Here is part of a paper I wrote for my masters:

As we transition to the argument of the Psalter as a whole, we must develop the arguments of Psalms 1 and 2. These two psalms stand at the head of the Psalter and serve as a lens through which the Psalter should be read. 1 They define a bipolar humanity in which people are numbered either among the wicked or among the righteous. 2 Psalm 1 leaves these categories ambiguous while the remaining psalms detail the characteristics of the wicked and the righteous. Besides dividing humanity into two disparate groups, Psalm 1 also indicates the eschatological destiny of each. It reminds the righteous person that Yahweh cares for him and thus will tend to him. It uses the language of a tree giving its fruit in season harkening to the longevity of the righteous person. 3 Simultaneously it uses chaff to indicate the transitory nature of the wicked whose destiny is destruction. 4 This language is the future hope of the righteous that God will someday destroy the wicked, as opposed to a description of the psalmist’s current experience. 5

Psalm 2 further clarifies God’s purposes by telling us that the Messiah will inaugurate God’s rule, in which he will destroy the wicked. The placement of Psalm 2, a Royal Psalm, after Psalm 1, a Wisdom Psalm, sets the stage for a certain reading of the Psalter. It indicates the ascendancy of the wisdom tradition over the royal tradition in the Psalter. In Psalm 2, the wicked are described as the nations that surround God’s people. They desire to throw off the yoke of God’s rule as embodied in the Messiah. 6 Key elements in Psalm 139 find their antecedent sources in this Psalm, e.g. Yahweh as the sole refuge for the righteous (blessed are all who take refuge in him).

After reading these two psalms one might be inclined to understand life for the righteous as being free from trial. However, the rest of Books One through Three are filled with lament and characterized by cycles of disorientation and reorientation. 7 The righteous suffer while the wicked seem to prosper. This reality perplexes the psalmist and leads him to despair. Book Three ends with a psalm of despair, Psalm 89. In this psalm, the author charges God with infidelity. Why did he so charge God? Because the Psalmist looked upon the Temple in ruins and the empty Davidic Throne. Did not God promise to dwell forever on his Holy Hill and to maintain the Davidic King upon the throne? There is some faulty Zion Theology goping here, but, not as faulty as some would have us believe. So we see here that the psalmist has wrongly perceived the structure of reality, thus Psalm 89 creates the need for reorientation in the Psalter, and the final two collections (Books 4 and 5) function to reorient the reader so that he sees the fidelity of God. 8 Book Four expounds on Yahweh’s fidelity as evidenced towards Moses. Two of the three approximations of the covenant formula in the Psalms occur in Book Four, again demonstrating that Yahweh has not cast off Israel forever. 9 Moreover, Yahweh is Israel’s Great King who protected and delivered Israel from her adversaries. 10

Book Five charges the reader to place his hope in Yahweh while not opposing the establishment of the future order in which a Davidide would again sit on the throne. 11 Psalm 110 in Book Five, the most often quoted Psalm in the NT, depicts Yahweh swearing to David that he himself will accomplish his purposes first addressed in Psalm 2, thus revitalizing the eschatological hope within the Psalter. It ascribes actions attributed to the Messiah in Psalm 2 to Yahweh himself. Therefore, far from denigrating a hoped for Messiah, the Psalter instructs the wise person in whom to place his hope, Yahweh, as opposed to Yahweh’s agent. However, Psalm 107 not 110 is the most determinative psalm in Book Five. Psalm 107, the head of the fifth collection, begins identically to Psalm 106. However, it develops in a different manner. Whereas Psalm 106 works through Salvation-history detailing Yahweh’s fidelity despite Israel’s infidelity, Psalm 107 expounds Yahweh’s faithfulness towards the righteous and wrath upon the wicked, thus restating the bipolar reality structure developed in Psalm 1. As in the case of Psalm 1, this is a psalm of orientation. Immediately after this psalm of orientation, the pattern of disorientation and lament resumes. In 108-9, again the psalmist poses the questions: is God faithful? did he not reject us? is God aloof? Then God reorients the righteous with the reminder that he has sworn to David that he has not forsaken them, and he has seated David at his right hand so that God may accomplish all of his purposes. This mixed pattern continues throughout this collection culminating with Psalm 145, which is a resounding psalm of orientation extolling Yahweh’s fidelity.

Within Book Five, the final Davidic collection responds to the despair of Psalm 137. 12 In 137, Yahweh is aloof. Israel’s glory is gone. This song about Zion is not a Song of Zion, which were joyful songs. 13 The imprecation is perhaps the most repugnant to modern sensibilities. Yet it places in focus the despair of these people who have been uprooted by Yahweh’s wrath. This collection not only concludes the response to Psalm 89’s charge against Yahweh, but it concludes the fifth collection. 14 In this, we find God’s proclamation of his complete fidelity to David and thus his fidelity to all.

______________________
1 See Patrick Miller “The Beginning of the Psalter,” in J. Clinton McCann. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTS 159. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993 ) 83-88.

2 “So the two ways, and there is no third, [separate] for ever (sic),” Kidner. Psalms 1-72: An Introduction & Commentary TOTC 14a. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1973) 49, (emphasis added).

3 “The imagery (in verse 3) of the tree does not speak here of the recompense to which he can look forward—it would be altogether unsuitable for conveying such a meaning—but it speaks of the meaning and value of life which the godly man discovers by living his life in obedience to God,” Artur Weiser. The Psalms OTL. (Philadelphia: Westminster) 105. Hence, this is not the vindication of the righteous as such, but rather the result of godly living, contra Hans~Joachim Kraus. Psalms 1~59 CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 118-9, who sees the imagery as linking to prosperity. The eschatological vindication is rather in verses 5-6 when God will destroy the wicked and continue his care for the righteous.

4 A.A. Anderson. The Book of Psalms. NCB. vol. 1 (London: Oliphants, 1977) 62, who directs the reader to 1QS II:17b.

5 James Luther Mays Psalms. I. (Louisvillea: John Knox Press, 1994) 44.

6 Mays 48ff; this is the only place in the OT where the Messiah is linked with Yahweh’s son, a significant teaching of Jesus in the NT, (cf. von Rad Old Testament Theology 2:172).

7 This is a system developed my Walter Bruegemann.

8 McCann, “Books I-III and the Editorial Purpose of the Psalter” in McCann, 95-100.

9 Rolf Rendtorff. The Covenant Formula. OTS. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998) 14, while the formula is normally להיות לי עם, the change to אנטנו עם can be explained as poetic allusion to the covenant formula (cf. 95:7, 100:3). The third possible usage of the covenant formula draws upon the election, בחר, as opposed to the people theme (Psa 33:12).

10 Gerald H. Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms” in McCann, 75-6.

11 Contra Whybray, “…readers were eventually discouraged from continuing to long for a restoration of the Davidic dynasty…and encouraged to place their hopes in a kingdom not of this world where Yahweh alone is king,” (88-9).

12 Interestingly this psalm is the only one that names its setting and date so that one could determine its Sitz im Leben.

13 Mays 421.

14 This reading understands 146-150 as a conclusion in similar manner as Psalms 1 and 2 were understood as an introduction to the Psalter.

[Dee Dee Warren]

GP, we are looking for some member articles... are you game?

[GrayPilgrim]

sure

[Dee Dee Warren]

Great, let's talk about it some when I get back, please remind me.