1015. Christ taught out of the Scriptures, Luke 24:27
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
This verse is found in the account of that most fascinating encounter of two weary and discouraged disciples who were headed home on the road to Emmaus. An apparent stranger joined with them as they were walking, and joined in the conversation.
This is one conversation I wish we had the details in full. There are those who claim to have “the rest of the story,” and assert we must accept the tradition preserved by their church, because the Bible does not give the full record of all Jesus said and did.
I have publically challenged those who make this claim to give full proof of it by sharing with the rest of us poor benighted souls that information their church possesses which they claim we do not. Furnish a link to that recorded Tradition, so I and I’m sure many others who are most interested can read “the rest of the story.” Since this message of our Lord Jesus Christ was given twice on that day, surely the “One True Church” has not lost the full account so briefly given by Luke.
No one has ever yet furnished me that all-important link. To me that is proof enough that this church does not have what it claims to have, “The Rest of the Story.”
But Luke does furnish an amazing key to what the rest of the story must have been on that Road to Emmaus in Luke 24:26,
Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
The lesson our Lord Jesus Christ taught out of the Scriptures that day can be given under a two-point outline: (1) First the suffering, (2) then the glory.
This is the divinely provided key that unlocks Messianic Prophecy.
Peter makes reference to this crucial key in his first letter,
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
A careful study of the Messianic Prophecies alluded to by Christ and Peter fully substantiates the validity of this key. The key comes straight out of the Bible itself in what we call the Old Testament. I have given those references most fully in Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at this very passage. A number of the prophecies specify exactly this order–first the suffering, then the glory–in the context of a single literary unit, such as Psalm 22, where verses 1-21 speak of the Suffering Messiah, but verses 22-31 speak of the Glory of the Messiah. Again, in Psalm 69, verses 1-21 speak of the Suffering Messiah, while verses 30-36 speak of His future Glory. You can learn much more by consulting the cross references given at 1 Peter 1:11 in either The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible.
Very clearly, the Bible is a self-explanatory Book. It is understandable. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can learn just what it is that our Lord Jesus Christ must have taught the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus from the Bible itself.
Have you ever noticed that Christ appeals to the Bible, the Scriptures, as the basis for His teaching? He never appeals to Tradition. We need to be sure that we follow His example.
Make sure you are deriving your spiritual food from the right source! Any other source outside the Bible itself is spiritual poison, and most definitely will lead only to spiritual death.
I have used strong words because this is a most crucial issue. It is a matter of spiritual life or spiritual death. You must choose spiritual life if ever you are to have it. If you disagree with me, please leave a comment and I will be most pleased to discuss this further. If you agree, you are also encouraged to leave a comment if you wish.
And this fits Daniel’s 70 week prophesy how? Christ’ triumphant entry came in the middle of the week, at the time and caused sacrifice to come to an end because HE was the sacrifice. This this is the middle of the 70th week. So you gap theory fall fails because your gap comes at the beginning of the week.
Daniel 9:27 AKJV And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured on the desolate.
The Bible is clear. There is no basis for splitting the 70 week prophesy. NONE.
God’s Law: God tells us that He altered the original Covenant and made “a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6). But you will note that nothing is said about it being established on different laws. The law stayed the same. There was however a weakness or fault in the original covenant. That fault was with the people, NOT with the law. “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:” (Hebrews 8:8). It was “because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” (Hebrews 8:9).
In the Old Covenant, God wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone. It was external and not part of the thinking and motives of the people. It was in their literature but not in their hearts. With the New Covenant, God writes His law “into their minds.”. (Hebrews 8:10.)
Dear A. Way,
I think you have your covenants a bit mixed up, and your position about the Law I believe I have shown to be untenable.
To arrive at the truth, you cannot ignore and suppress and refuse to take into account significant Revelation that does not agree with your position.
I think if you study the October archives for 2010 here you will see that this is a violation of Rule 6 and Rule 7:
6. Interpret a particular passage in harmony with ALL other passages which may have a bearing upon the subject. This is exceedingly important. You cannot cherry-pick your evidence. All relevant evidence must be taken into account to come up with the correct interpretation. Groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Seventh Day Adventists, the Church of Christ, and many others flagrantly violate this rule and come up with very mistaken interpretations of the Bible. To successfully find ALL the relevant passages about a subject, you MUST do Real Bible Study and make full and careful use of such tools as an exhaustive concordance to the Bible (Strong’s Concordance is a good choice) and a source of full and complete cross references to every verse in the Bible (such as The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible). If you haven’t made full use of these resources don’t kid yourself into supposing you have properly considered ALL the passages pertaining to the subject, issue, or doctrine you are considering.
7. Be sure to include all relevant passages upon a theme before determining the interpretation of any particular passage. This principle is violated by every denomination or religious group. Jehovah’s Witnesses think they understand such Bible terms as “soul,” “spirit,” “hell,” and other terms more accurately than others do. Their problem is that they have failed to make a full induction of all the evidence before arriving at their conclusions about the meaning and use of these terms in the Bible. I have presented a full induction of all the evidence on these issues in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible starting at the notes at Genesis 2:7.
It looks now to me that those who emphasize the Law and Sabbath-keeping are more off-base than what I had ever previously supposed.
As for Daniel 9, the time gap is there. But there are many sincere, godly interpreters “who don’t see it that way.” Since the issue is not a salvation issue, they surely are welcome to hold such a view. Nevertheless, that is the Amillennial view, which is absolutely an example of full-blown error in Biblical interpretation.
In The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge I retained the cross references in Daniel developed by Amillennialists to support their mistaken view. I also introduced more correct cross references which take the Bible literally in a consistent manner and so lead to a more correct understanding.
I also paid careful attention to obeying Rule 10 by properly taking into account the grammar of the original language text at critical points.
The flaw in the Amillennial viewpoint is that Amillennialists do not and cannot apply a consistent literal method of interpretation to prophetic texts; they must “spiritualize” them, which proves they are in error.
I placed rather full notes on page 959 of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge for Daniel 9:26, 27.
I am still very interested in your remark regarding the “trinity.” You’ve been awful silent on that matter since you brought it up. Kindly expand on your remark. I promise not to eat you alive, regardless what view you might hold!
No Jerry – You have agreed that there is still LAW in the New Covenant. I argue it is the SAME law. You take out one precept from the law, because you find it somehow arbitrary.
My quote in not taking another’s opinion about the Bible applies to many study guides, because these guides are biased to that of the author.
Christ came because man had broken his law. Christ death did not do away with the law. If somehow the law could be done away with, then why did Jesus have to die? It is Christ that gives us the power by His grace to be obedient to the law. My personal attempt to keep the law in my own power will fail. But by Christ, I can keep the law. And the law will be written on the heart. I will not even want to murder. I will not even want to commit adultery. Jesus spoke on these things. I will want to keep the Sabbath because it is a delight to do so, as Isaiah said.
Dear A. Way,
Your comment sure hits the nail on the head and arrives at the most crucial issue when you said:
I need to make a minor correction to your statement to make it true:
Furthermore, as I most truthfully and carefully asserted in my listing of the Ten Commandments earlier in this discussion, the Fourth Commandment is NOT repeated anywhere in the New Testament as a directive to believers under Grace.
Thus I don’t take out the Fourth Commandment. It clearly is not there!
By your system of belief, that ought to be a hauntingly strange omission indeed, especially when one considers the great stress you place on the issue.
Now mind you, I don’t in the least mind you bringing up this issue. You have directed me into some very profitable study of the Word I would otherwise likely have missed! Furthermore, your challenges have helped me see gaping holes in the cross references provided in The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and my expansion and correction of these references in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible. I am now much better prepared to correct this major problem, thanks to your input.
Now I have a sneaking suspicion that the following comment of yours might be aimed at me:
I do not think that Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible can be found to be a biased work. It simply contains cross references for almost every verse in the Bible.
The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge does contain about 300 notes which I have written. Some people think those notes are biased, because those notes do not agree with their viewpoint. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if my opinion is not shared by them, that should be no problem. First, I identified just which notes I wrote. Second, when there was more than one possible valid viewpoint, I gave both viewpoints, each in its strongest form. Third, those interested in Real Bible Study ought to be thrilled to have access to a resource that provides the strictly Biblical evidence that supports each of several viewpoints. Then they can compare the views, and arrive at their own conclusion. As an example, study the notes I placed in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge about the Sabbath, about tithing, about ritual water baptism, and so forth.
Other reference sources often fail to do this. I think it is a mark of my even-handed approach that I provided the information I did in the way that I did.
Now I have noticed that you in practice do not quite adhere to your stated principle or preference. You have cited the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on a couple of occasions. It seems you also have recommended some of the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White, recently mentioning a title something like The Great Controversy, I think it was (forgive me if I mis-remembered the title). Now I am sure there are profitable things which can be learned from these resources, but of course they are not entirely without bias, yet you use them. I do not fault you for using them. But I would remind you that on this site I have frequently stressed the need to start from a plain text Bible, then use scholarly unbiased reference works like concordances and major collections of cross references to assist in further study directly from the Scripture without utilizing an intervening human commentator to slant our understanding of what we read in their favor.
I do not represent any denomination. I have no denominational affiliation. It is my position that all denominations are, to one degree or another, in error about what they believe the Bible teaches. Most of the time the error waxes most flagrant in the very issues–the doctrinal distinctives–most stressed by any given denomination.
I have attended many different Christian churches of different denominations. When I attend such churches, I do not take it upon myself to try to convince them to change their beliefs or doctrinal statements. But if they come right out and ask me what my viewpoint is on some such issue, I will not compromise what I know to be the Bible truth about a matter when I answer them. But I try very hard not to get boxed into such situations.
Dear A. Way,
May I kindly repeat my sincere request:
I am still very interested in your remark regarding the “trinity.” You’ve been awful silent on that matter since you brought it up. Kindly expand on your remark. I promise not to eat you alive, regardless what view you might hold!
Define trinity.
Dear A. Way,
When I use the term “Trinity,” I use it to label the Bible doctrine that in the Bible itself states that God the Father is God and is a Person, the Son (our Lord Jesus Christ) is God and is a Person, and the Holy Spirit is God, and is a Person. They are all the same God, but God is three separate Persons.
The problem with that definition is that it conflicts with the definition used by the largest group that calls themselves Christian.
Oh, does it really?
Too bad.
At least my definition corresponds to what is found in the Bible, and that is what counts.
Truth is not determined by its antiquity. Nor is it determined by majority vote.
Truth corresponds to what the Bible tells us.
“Nor is it determined by majority vote.” AMEN