Thursday, 15 June 2017

BOOK REVIEW


Witherington, B. 2009. Imminent Domain: The Story of the Kingdom of God and Its Celebration. Kindle Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.


In this essay I will review the book Imminent Domain: The Story of the Kingdom of God and Its Celebration written by Ben Witherington the 3rd, chapters 1-6. I will not be discussing the introduction or the appendix. The book is easy to read and each chapter follows the other in logical sequence. The focus of the first three chapters of the book is God’s present reign over the hearts of His people and its implications in terms of the visibility of God’s kingdom on earth in the present age. The last three chapters focus on the eschatological return of Christ and the theological implications which should effect the practice of believers and the church as a whole.    


[Chapter 1 location 108-230] In the first chapter Ben establishes that although the kingdom of God has not yet fully come eschatologically, it is already present through God’s rule over the hearts of His people. He points out that in Luke 17:20-21 Jesus taught the Jews that God’s kingdom was not coming with visible signs in the sky at some future point, as they expected, but rather that it was already in their midst through His reign over the hearts of believers. Ben refers to Matthew 5:27-28 as well as Mark 7:18-22 and points out that the human heart is the source of mankind’s sin and so God must deal with the source of sin rather than the symptoms in order to effect real change in creation. When God rules human hearts this creates real change in their lives and even effects the social fabric of society.


[Chapter 2 location 234-344] In chapter 2 Ben continues by building on this concept and argues that God’s domain is visible through the lives of His people, their pious living and in their good deeds. He uses Romans 14:17-18 as well as the fruits of the Spirit mention in Galatians 5:22-23 to argue that God’s kingdom is seen in the righteousness, joy and peace of God’s people. Furthermore according to 1 John 3:24 the obedience of believers and their love for one another proves that they abide in God and God in them. Finally Ben elicits the Psalms to prove that God dwells in the midst of the praises of His people


[Chapter 3 location 349-510] In chapter 3 the focus of the book becomes more personal and Ben argues that those who live as though Jesus was not their Lord give evidence that they are not a part of God’s Kingdom. He contrasts the fruit of the Spirit with the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-23 and draws upon 1 Corinthians 13 as well as Matthew 5-7 to prove that without the fruit of the Spirit no individual can claim they belong to the kingdom of God.  


[Chapter 4 location 515-653] The focus of the fourth chapter of Ben’s book deals with the common misconception that heaven is the final destination for believers. He points out that when Jesus returns the dead in Christ will be resurrected, all God’s people will have their corruptible bodies transformed into incorruptible bodies, heaven will merge with earth and God will dwell with His creation forever.


To support these points Ben draws upon the apostles creed, which mentions the resurrection of believers from the dead, to prove that Christians have always believed they will live on earth in resurrected bodies. Ben also utilises 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, which says that the dead in Christ shall be resurrected and those that are alive shall be changed with them in a twinkling of an eye. The same text says that believers will have an incorruptible body and will inherit the earth. Ben also argues that according to Revelation 6:9-10 the saints of God are asking “how long” until the inhabitants on earth are judged and the intermediate period in heaven will come to an end.


[Chapter 5 location 658-792] In the fifth chapter Ben discusses the fate of all those who are not God’s people. He begins with the fate of the Jews who rejected Jesus and seeks to defend the charge of anti-Semitism by pointing out that the Old Testament prophets were just as harsh on their own people as the New Testament writers. Furthermore Paul frequently sought to evangelise the Jews and even wished his own damnation if it could result in their salvation. Paul also writes to the church in Rome arguing that God was not finished with natural Israel.


Ben then argues that Paul’s example of sincere desire towards Israel’s salvation should teach us to have a similar desire towards people in other faiths. However we should never deny or apologise for the Christian teaching that salvation is not found in anyone else except Jesus Christ. Ben ends this chapter by referring to Revelation 21:8 which teaches that unbelievers and the like will be sent to the lake of fire.


[Chapter 6 location 796-924] In chapter 6 Ben discusses the implications that a kingdom focused church has for the environment. He draws upon the imagery and teaching of Isaiah 65:17-25, Isaiah 2:4 and Romans 8:19-24 to show that God cares for the earth as well as the creatures which inhabit the earth. He argues that if Jesus intends to end suffering for animals and restore Eden like conditions on earth at His coming and the consummation of His kingdom then the church should have the same care and desire for creation. Ben also argues that the river of life mentioned in Revelation 22:1-5 flows throughout the earth healing the nations and ending the curse. This is God’s desire and it should also be ours.  


The book is informative from a theological perspective and well worth reading for both theological insight as well as practical instruction. The use of scripture to reveal the current presence of the kingdom of God and the future role of Israel provides good insight into two important topics. The practical implications of the kingdom of God raised in the book were unexpected and refreshing. The admonition to examine whether Christ really reigns in our hearts is healthy. The instructive aspect of chapter 5 relating to the attitude of believers towards Israel and persons of other faiths as well as to creation itself was also helpful.  I would recommend the book for any student of theology or laymen seeking to read a well written and informative book.




The Davidic Covenant

2 Samuel 7:1-17

2 Samuel 7:1-17 is has come to be called the Davidic covenant, and what begins as David’s desire to build a house for God results in God promising to build a house for David which will endure forever. David’s son Solomon is chosen to build God’s Temple and David is promised an everlasting dynasty reigning from Jerusalem through his son Solomon. Even though David is not chosen to build a house for God, nonetheless David receives great blessing and honour from God.

David proposes to build a house for God


After the king was settled in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.” 2 Samuel 7:1-2


In the preceding chapter David had brought the ark into Jerusalem with great joy and had housed it in the tent which David had built for it, which was most likely constructed like the Mosaic Tabernacle according to the pattern given to Moses in the Wilderness. A general summery of all David’s wars is given in chapters eight, however it is most likely that the present rest spoken of in this passage is rest from David’s wars with the House of Saul, the Philistines, Moabites and the hostile Canaanite tribes which were mixed with the Israelites[1].   


At a time when most Israelites still lived in tents, cedar was the a rare and expensive timber and was used to create sealed houses. David’s concern for the Ark of God continues to reveal to us David’s devout heart and David serves as an example for God’s people to not only be concerned with their own pleasures but to also have a desire to please God and to serve Him. This example is picked up by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah when the people had returned from captivity and had built their own homes but neglected the House of the Lord.[2]  


Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you. 2 Samuel 7:3


This is the first mention of Nathan the prophet in scripture and later he rebukes David for his sin with Bathsheba and also anoints Solomon, David’s son, as Kind of Israel. Nathan, recognizing that God is with David, approves of the noble task that David desires to accomplish for the Lord. He does not claim to speak on behalf of the Lord and his words should be distinguished from the words of the Lord. Nathan sanctioned David’s plan from his own feelings and not by divine inspiration[3].


God promises to build a house for David


But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying: “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?” 2 Samuel 7:4-7


Because David’s intentions were pious God did not allow him to continue in his error for too long and spoke to Nathan that very night. God addresses David affectionately as His servant but God’s question to David implies that he is not the one to build a house for God to dwell in. The parallel account in 1 Chronicles 17:4 states it plainly, that David was not the one to build a house for the LORD.[4] 


God proceeds to inform David that He has not dwelt in a house from the day Israel left Egypt to the present. God further adds that He has never commanded any of the rulers of Israel to build Him a house. It seems as though God had been content to dwell among His people in a tent and move from place to place[5].


“Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord Almighty says: I took you from the pasture, from tending the flock, and appointed you ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men on earth. 2 Samuel 7:8-9


Even though God had not chosen David to build God’s House, nevertheless God refers to David as His servant, an honorific title, and reminds David of the favour which He has bestowed upon him. God’s blessings had followed David from the humble beginnings of tending his father’s flock to becoming King of all Israel and shepherd of the flock and people of God. God had been with David through all his trials, trained his hands for war and given him victory over all his adversaries. God proceeds to tell David that despite the fact that he has not been chosen to build God’s house, nevertheless it is not because he was of low stature because God was going to give him a great name, like the greatest men on the earth.[6]

David’s Eternal Kingdom 


And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. 2 Samuel 7:10-11a


Here God speaks of a future time when God’s people Israel would be established in the land of Canaan and God will give them rest and they will no longer be disturbed or oppressed by wicked people. This time of rest is going to be distinctly different to the times of the judges where there was a repeating cycle of God’s people Israel being oppressed because of their sinfulness and then God delivering them when they called upon Him. The rest God is promising here is a permanent rest and a permanent end to oppression, it follows then that there is a permanent end to sin as well. David’s prayer also confirms this truth when he states “You have established your people Israel as your very own forever, and you, Lord, have become their God”. Even though today the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect the Davidic Covenant remains and was understood by David and the prophets to refer to the people of Israel.[7]


In Solomon’s letter to the King of Tyre, found in 1 Kings 5:1-6, Solomon says that in the past David could not construct the temple because of his enemies roundabout, but now God had given him rest and so he desired to build the temple. However this could not be the rest of God’s promise to David because Israel continued to face enemies throughout its history. Solomon’s reign serves only as a fore shadow of the final fulfilment of God’s promise.[8]


“ ‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 2 Samuel 7:11b-13


God tells David that He will create a dynasty from David’s own body which will continue after David’s death and into eternity. His own son will build a house for God’s name and God will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Jesus cannot be the son spoken of in this passage because verse 14 implies that David’s son will sin and be disciplined for it. Solomon was the son who assumed David’s throne and it was Solomon who built a house for God and it is Solomon’s throne that will continue forever.


Because of God’s promise to David the Israelites believed the Temple would stand forever and the Kingdom of David would never be destroyed, however the temple was destroyed and Judah was taken into captivity. No king has since assumed the throne of David in Jerusalem. However Jeremiah prophesied of a future descendant of David, whom he called the branch, who would reign in the land, save Judah and give Israel rest. This final King is none other than Jesus Christ himself.
The second coming of Jesus Christ, which will be preceded by national repentance in Israel and mourning for the one whom they have pierced, is the ultimate fulfilment of this promise and it is Jesus who will bring the ultimate and final rest for Israel. Luke 3:23-38 traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ through Mary to David but Matthew 1:2-16 traces the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph to Solomon, and this is the legal basis for Jesus claim to the throne of David. God’s promise that Solomon’s kingdom will be established forever will only find fulfilment during the events described by the prophet Zechariah.[9]


I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ ” 2 Samuel 7:14-16


The relationship between God and David’s son Solomon will be a relationship of a father and son. God will chastise his son when he sins but he will never take his love away from him. In Psalms 89 Ethan the Ezrahite composes a song based upon the Davidic Covenant of 2 Samuel 7:1-17. There the psalmist applies the promise of God’s discipline to Solomon’s sons but explicitly states God will not take His love away from Solomon and will not violate the covenant He made with his lips. God will fulfil His promise to David even though the temple was destroyed and the people of God were carried away into exile.


Conclusion
While there are many parallels between the Davidic covenant of grace and the New Covenant, this prophecy is still yet to be completely fulfilled. Solomon was the son who built a house for God and Jesus is the descendant of Solomon who reigns as King when there is national repentance in Israel.




[1]Expositors Bible Commentary, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/expositors/2_samuel/7.htm; Pulpit Commentary Series, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/2_samuel/7.htm;  Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary, comments on 2 Samuel 7:1, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/2_samuel/7.htm;  2 Samuel 3:1 NIV
[2] MacLaren Expositions Of Holy Scripture, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/maclaren/2_samuel/7.htm;  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/2_samuel/7.htm; Expositors Bible Commentary, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/expositors/2_samuel/7.htm
[3] Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary, comments on 2 Samuel 7:1, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/2_samuel/7.htm
[5] Gill's Exposition, Comments on 2 Samuel 7, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/2_samuel/7.htm
[6] Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, comments on 2 Samuel 7:4-17, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mhcw/2_samuel/7.htm; Benson Commentary, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/2_samuel/7.htm; Psalms 144:1 NIV;
[7] Every Prophecy of the Bible, by John F. Walvoord, Kindle Edition, Pg. 52-58; Darby's Bible Synopsis, comments on 2 Samuel 7, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/darby/2_samuel/7.htm; The Davidic Covenant, by Michael A. Grisanti, Associate Professor of Old Testament, TMSJ 10/2 (Fall 1999), Pg. 249 https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj10p.pdf; 2 Samuel 6-7 lesson, by Dr. Bob Utley, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9EWr3nHbM&feature=youtu.be; 2 Samuel 7:24
[8] 1 Kings 5:1-6 NIV,
[9] Every Prophecy of the Bible, by John F. Walvoord, Kindle Edition, Pg. 52-58, Pg. 319- 322; Zechariah 12:10-14, 14:9-21

Saturday, 25 February 2017


Launceston City Council to pay $40,000 Legal Bill


The Launceston City Council has once again wasted ratepayers money. Here is a great article on the recent cost order against the City Council.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4491147/court-costs-for-preacher-total-40000/


Why doesn't the City Council learn from other Councils? If Adelaide spent $750,000 trying to stop preachers in the city mall and failed then why does the Launceston City Council think they can et a better result? The High Court ruled clearly that permits can only be rejected if preaching cannot be accommodated having regard to the safe and convenient use of roads. 

Its worth repeating the words of the High Court Justices in 2003 on the matter of public preaching. In Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (2013) where the High court upheld the validity of the Adelaide by-law Justices Crennan and Kiefel JJ, with whom Bell J agreed, stated;

Given that the discretion must be exercised conformably with the purposes of the By-law, it may be assumed that permission will be denied only where the activities in question cannot be accommodated having regard to the safety and convenience of road users.

And Hayne J said;

On the proper construction of the impugned by-law, the concern of those who must decide whether to grant or withhold consent is confined to the practical question of whether the grant of permission will likely create an unacceptable obstruction of the road in question.





Saturday, 1 October 2016

Street Preaching In Launceston


Last Friday I had the privilege of obtaining a permit from the local council to preach in the Launceston City Mall. The Local Council did not willingly grant a permit but they were forced to by the Federal Court after I had appealed their initial decision refusing me a permit.

I attended the Launceston City Mall with three other Christian brothers. We had a great time sharing the Gospel one on one and preaching on a milk crate. The shop keepers were upset, as expected, however their was no legal reason to stop us from preaching. I look forward to the next opportunity to preach and plan to be in the mall on a regular basis.

 Check out the video below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vr15unhsH0

http://streetchurch.com.au/

Street Preaching In Launceston


Last Friday I had the privilege of obtaining a permit from the local council to preach in the Launceston City Mall. The Local Council did not willingly grant a permit but they were forced to by the Federal Court after I had appealed their initial decision refusing me a permit.

I attended the Launceston City Mall with three other Christian brothers. We had a great time sharing the Gospel one on one and preaching on a milk crate. The shop keepers were upset, as expected, however their was no legal reason to stop us from preaching. I look forward to the next opportunity to preach and plan to be in the mall on a regular basis.

 Check out the video below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vr15unhsH0

http://www.hrla.org.au/corneloup


Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Follow Up of Launceston Victory

The Launceston City Council has recently granted permits for persons wanting to preach in the main City Mall. This is an opportunity for local churches to be obedient to the Gospel Commission that it has been avoiding for so long.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4195797/public-preaching-win/?cs=5312


https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/public-preaching-federal-court-finds-local-councils-decision-to-refuse-to-issue-a-permit-to-preach-in-a-public-mall-was-beyond-power

Monday, 22 August 2016

Corneloup -v- Launceston City Council and Anor (‏‏ (2016
Federal Court Case Results 


Written by Caleb Corneloup


A few years ago the High Court made a ruling on an Adelaide City Council By-law prohibiting preaching on public roads without permission. The media reported the case as a victory for the Adelaide City Council and a loss for the Adelaide Street Preachers. However the High Court actually ruled substantially in favour of the Street Preachers.

In Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (2013) where the High court upheld the validity of the Adelaide by-law Justices Crennan and Kiefel JJ, with whom Bell J agreed, stated;

Given that the discretion must be exercised conformably with the purposes of the By-law, it may be assumed that permission will be denied only where the activities in question cannot be accommodated having regard to the safety and convenience of road users.

And Hayne J said;

On the proper construction of the impugned by-law, the concern of those who must decide whether to grant or withhold consent is confined to the practical question of whether the grant of permission will likely create an unacceptable obstruction of the road in question.

Recently the Federal Court has handed a decision which has confirmed the fact that although City Councils may create By-laws prohibiting preaching without permission, they cannot simply refuse permission at their whim. Caleb Corneloup was again a plaintiff in the recent Federal Court decision.


In Corneloup -v- Launceston City Council and Anor (2016), Tracy J, in the Federal Court stated;

Even had the Guidelines been applicable to the exercise of the power to grant a permit under cl 12 of the Malls By-Law they would have been inconsistent with the By-Law because it (the by-law) contemplated that preaching and political addresses might take place in the malls if a permit were granted.

Further down he continues to say;

Her (the decision maker) resort to the Guidelines was also errant because it led her to have regard to a material and irrelevant consideration, namely, that preaching and public speaking were not permissible in the malls.

This decision confirms the fact that the very existence of the by-law prohibiting preaching without permission assumes permission can be granted. Therefore City Councils can expect to have to give permits and conform to the statements of the High Court quoted above.



http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2016/2016fca0974

http://www.kelledyjones.com.au/lg-alert/2016/08/30/back-law-basics/

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/10/14/stone-corneloup/








Bridgewater Evangelical Church - New Church Plant In Adelaide

One thing that has been on my heart for quite some time is to plant a church in Adelaide South Australia. The obstacle I faced is that I had...