In Contempt Of Court

In Contempt of Court

            It is grievous enough to watch the many times when the Ten Commandments are stripped from the public arena, whether it be in Montgomery, Alabama, Cobb County, Georgia or Kentucky Public Schools rooms. It is even more grievous to know that the Supreme Court, the authority upon which all these actions are based, is more lenient toward pornography than it is toward the Ten Commandments.

            Miller v. U.S. is a Supreme Court obscenity case from 1973. In that case the Justices defined obscenity in three part test. The first, “whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…” The second part deals with state laws and does not concern us here. The third part is, “…whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” The phrase used twice in this definition, “the work taken as a whole” is the leniency shown toward the pornographer. Even though a publication centers on pornography, the publishers throw in articles on politics, or sports or a short story and Presto! Its legal, because the whole work is considered.

            But when it comes to the Ten Commandments, no such leniency is shown. The Supreme Court case that gives the Federal Government the authority to strip the Ten Commandments from government buildings is Stone v. Graham, a 1980 case. This case found that a copy of the Ten Commandments, required by Kentucky law to be posted in public schools, was unconstitutional. According to Stone v. Graham, Kentucky law required that underneath the plaque of the Ten Commandments would be a note saying the, “secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of the United States.” But the Justices threw it out. Why? “The Ten Commandments” they said, “are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness and  covetousness…Rather, the first part of the Commandments concern the religious duties of believers; worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day.”

             Trash such as Hustler and Playboy is allowed because, “you are not to consider detached or separate portions in reaching a conclusion,” and the publication must, “be taken as a whole.” Yet the Ten Commandments are not allowed because, “they do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters,” but also, “concerns the religious duties of believers.”

           

This of course is the contemporary interpretation of our Constitution regarding the Ten Commandments, but the majority of our Founding Fathers had a different view of the Commandments. For example, James Madison, fourth President of the United States and called the Father of our Constitution, fought hard for religious freedom. In 1785 Madison was a co-sponsor of a bill written by Thomas Jefferson called “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom”. Also, that same year, Madison presented to the Virginia legislature, “A Bill for Punishing …Sabbath Breakers”, that required a ten shilling fine for each offence. Another example is Oliver Ellsworth. He was a U.S. Senator, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and future Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Oliver Ellsworth believed that civil government, “…has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities…because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.”

           

These Founding Fathers, who participated in amending the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, including the First Amendment are 180 degrees apart from the present majority in the Supreme Court. James Madison and Oliver Ellsworth didn’t feel legislating some of the Ten Commandments violated the First Amendment, but the present majority of the Court believe we can’t even look at them within the public schools and within the Court House without violating the First Amendment.This is not our Founders America, neither is it the America I was born into.

   

            An interesting twist about this is when the Bill of Rights were first drawn up, before they could be amended to the Constitution, the differences between the House version and the Senate version had to be worked out. James Madison, at the time a U.S. House of Representative member led the House delegation and Oliver Ellsworth led the Senate delegation. What is so amazing about this is these men had such attitudes towards the Ten Commandments, even including them in our laws and yet they did not feel they were in violation of the First Amendment which both men had a hand in framing. If they were alive today and exhibited such godliness toward the Commandments, they would be considered unqualified for the duties they performed with integrity in the infancy of our nation.

Is America A Christian Nation?

Is America a Christian nation?

Recently, much has been written over the debate of whether America is a Christian nation. It really has gotten people fired up when they hear the statement that America is not a Christian nation, especially when our President, Barack Obama recently said so. Let me say at the start of this piece that I am a born again Christian, have been for almost 33 years. I love my country. America as a nation, Americans as groups and Americans  individually have done and are doing many wonderful things here in the states and around the globe, and there are there a lot of Christians in this country, but I have to agree with the statement that America is not a Christian nation. I want to add though, very emphatically that America, at one time was a Christian nation. It was because not only were a majority of its citizens Christian in name, but also in practice, and the Bible formed the bedrock of American law.

The first example I want to show is a quote from an obscenity case from 1956, Roth v. U.S. The case itself is a landmark case in that it redefined obscenity. In that case Justice Brennan wrote the following statement.

“The guaranties of freedom of expression in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. As early as 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish “any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon” in imitation or mimicking of religious services…Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offences.”

Some of the examples listed in footnote 12 are:

“Act Against Drunkenness, Blasphemy, Connecticut, 1737; Act for the Punishment of Profane Cursing and Swearing, New Hampshire, 1791; Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, North Carolina, 1700; Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness, Rhode Island, 1703.”

It’s pretty obvious that the colonial states based their laws on the Bible, the reason is because America was a Christian nation in practice, their laws were legislated because of what they believed. It is also obvious that the standard of early America was much stricter than what we have today. All those actions that were illegal in 17^th, 18^th and early 19^th century America, i.e., the swearing, the cursing, the blasphemy, the profaneness have been and are now “protected” in 21^st century America. In Massachusetts where it was criminal to publish a “filthy, obscene or profane song, [or] pamphlet”, it is no longer illegal.   All these actions and behaviors were included into the freedoms of the press and speech of the First Amendment in the last 50 years. In fact Roth v. U.S. the case from which we get the information on the early American laws was a landmark case in that it redefined pornography and opened the flood gates to allow “obscene and filthy pamphlets” such as Playboy and the like.

The second example is from the Supreme Court decision, McGowen V. Maryland, from 1961:

“In this same year [1785], [James] Madison presented to Virginia legislators "A Bill for Punishing . . . Sabbath Breakers," which provided in part:

"If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant, or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence.”

            James Madison was the fourth President of the United States, one of the writers of The Federalist Papers who is called the “Father of the Constitution” and who helped frame the Bill of Rights and he fought vigorously against the state instituted church. In the previous quote we see James Madison also successfully codified the fourth commandment into Virginia’s state laws.

The third example is Oliver Ellsworth. Mr. Ellsworth was the Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This essay and others written by him were to help the people of his state to understand the Constitution process our young nation was undergoing at that time. The U.S. Constitution was not ratified until 1788. This essay written on 12/17/1787 and printed in the Connecticut Courant and the American Mercury. Oliver Ellsworth was also nominated by President George Washington to be the third Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: He was nominated on 3/3/1796 and confirmed on 3/4/1796 the next day. Annals of America, Britannica.  In his essay against a religious test for office he wrote:

“But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.”

Explanation for these obvious Christian practices by American legislators comes from the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, published in 1992. On page 718, in an from an essay on Religion we find these words:

“…from shortly after the founding era until early in the twentieth century, church-state relations in the United States were governed by what legal historian Mark De Wolf Howe called the “de facto Protestant establishment.” Public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor, with teachers leading prayers and scripture readings from the King James Bible in their lessons. Customs like legislative prayer became widespread among the states, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter were officially recognized as holidays, and political rhetoric made frequent reference to the Almighty. States enforced prohibitions on blasphemy, levied civil penalties on atheists, enforced the Christian Sabbath…”

            Folks, those are the practices of a Christian nation, not Roe v. Wade that legalized child sacrifice, not Roth v U.S. that redefined and legalized pornography, not Lawrence v. Texas, that threw out all state laws punishing homosexuality.  

Lastly I want to quote portions from a Supreme Court decision from 1892, Holy Trinty v. U.S. This Supreme Court opinion was written long before the court adopted its anti-Christian view. Though it is a fairly long quote it is also very enlightening as to the mindset of those who were the justices of the Supreme Court in 120 years ago.

“But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation…

The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires."…

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611, and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."…

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst vs."…

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,"…

Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867: "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."…

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832: "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state."…

Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A. B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."…

Every one of the portions quoted in the above court case are historical documents declared by the civil officials within their particular time in history and within their individual spheres of authority. There is no denying that the colonies were founded upon Christian principles for the purpose of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Also, after America became a nation the individual states in their constitutions acknowledged that Christian principles guided their state.”

There is no denying that America was founded and was a Christian nation in practice for a long part of its history, but it is no longer. Yes there are many sincere Christians in America, people who love God and love righteousness and hate evil and have a sincere relationship with God, but I also believe that number is a minority. I don’t believe the Zogby’s or the Gallup’s or the Rasmussen’s that say 70% or 80% of Americans not only believe in God, but declare God is an important part of their life. Those words are hollow. If 70 or 80 % of Americans lived like God was an important part of their life, a woman’s right to kill her unborn child would not be the law of the land, and we would not vote into office the corrupt and ungodly men and women we elect into office. Let’s not forget, Scripture says the devil believes in God. No, in practice America is not a Christian nation.

The Erroneous Doctrine of the Eternal Son ship of Jesus Christ

The Erroneous Doctrine of the Eternal Son ship of Jesus Christ

1. Kingdom of the Cults, Walter Martin, p.130.

a. p. 103: “…the doctrine of eternal generation or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in 230 A>D>, is a theory which opened the door theologically to the Arian [Jehovah Witness] and Sabellian [Apostolic-Jesus Only] heresies which today still plague the Christian Church in the realms of Christology.”

b. p.101: The early Church fathers were in essential agreement that Jesus Christ pre-existed from all eternity in a unique relationship to God the Father. In the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea it was officially proclaimed that Jesus Christ was of the same substance or nature as the Father, and those who differed with this pronouncement which the Church had always held were excommunicated. Among them was Arius of Alexandria, a learned Presbyter and the Christological father of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Arius held that jesus Christ was a created being, the first and the greatest creation of God the Father, that He did not pre-exist from all eternity and that His only claim to Godhood was the fact that He had been created first and then elevated to the rank of a deity. Arius derived many of his ideas from his teacher, Lucian of Antioch, who in turn, borrowed them from Origen, who himself had introduced the term “eternal generation” or the concept that God from all eternity generates a second person like Himself, ergo the “eternal Son”. Arius of course rejected this as illogical and unreasonable, which it is, and taking the other horn of the dilemma squarely between his teeth reduced the eternal Word of God to the rank of a creation! It is a significant fact, however, that in the earliest writings of the church fathers dating from the first century to the year 230 A>D>, the term “eternal generation” was never used, but it  has been thisdogma later adopted by Roman Catholic theology which has fed the Arian heresy through the centuries and today continues to feed the Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

c. ditto: The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and he is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in prophetic passages in the Old Testament.  The term "Son" itself is a functional term, as is the term "Father" and has no meaning apart from time.  The term “Father” incidentally never carries the descriptive adjective “eternal” in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal (“the eternal Spirit” in Hebrews 9:14), emphasizing the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional as previously stated. Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical "eternal Sonship" or "eternal generation" theory of Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried over to some aspects of Protestant theology. Finally; there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship . . . . the word "Son" definitely suggests inferiority."

2.   God’s Plan for Man, Finis Jennings Dake, p. 383: “The truth then is this: there were always three distinct and eternal Persons unbegotten of each other from all eternity; that only one of these eternal Persons of the Deity became a man and the Son of another of these eternal Beings by the power of the third; one took the headship part, another took the meditative part, and the third took the part of the direct operation in the plan of creation and redemption of all things. It was in the plan of the Trinity to take these respective parts long before the plan began to be worked out.”

3. Don Costello: I personally believe the Scripture in Ephesians 1:11 can be applied to the statement of Dake, in particular the words, “…according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

a. Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

4. Old Testament References of the Son

a. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

1). Fulfilled: Matthew 1:21-23  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

b. Isaiah 9:6, 7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

1). Fulfilled: Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

2). Only the first 13 words of this prophecy have been fulfilled and recorded in Luke 2:7. The rest will be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom and the Eternal Age.

c. Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

1). Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.

a). Fulfilled: Ephesians 4:7-11  But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

d. Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

1). Fulfilled in his birth and life.

a). Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

(1). Arthur W. Pink (Calvinist), An Exposistion of Hebrews, “There the Apostle declared to the Jews that God had fulfilled the promise made unto the fathers, namely, that he had “raised up Jesus,” i.e. had sent the Messiah unto them. Acts 13:33 has no reference to Christ’s resurrection, but relates to his incarnation and manifestation to Israel…It was not until Acts 13:34, 35 that the apostle brought in his resurrection…Thus in Acts 13, Psalm 2 is cited to prove the Father had sent the Savior to Israel and His promise so to do had been fulfilled in the Divine incarnation.”

(2). In Acts 13:33 The translators added the word “again” in the text. It is not in the Greek text. Hence in the following translations it is left out.

(a). [NIV] he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: " 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

(b). [NASB] that God has fulfilled this promise *to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'

(3). Other examples of this terminology used in the Scriptures.

(a). Deuteronomy 18:18 “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”

(b). Acts 13:23 “Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.”

e. Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

1). Fulfilled in the Millennium and the Eternal Age.

f. Daniel 3:24, 25 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, [and] spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

1). Dake: There is no definite article in the original language, so it reads “a son of God”, that is an angel.

2). [Amplified Bible] Daniel 3:25  He answered, Behold, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt! And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods!

g. Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

1). The first half of the above Scripture is a Messianic prophecy first quoted in Psalm 2:7. It is quoted twice in the New Testament as a fulfillment, once in Hebrews 1:5 and once in Acts 13:33.

a). As stated previously, in Acts 13:33 The translators added the word “again” in the text. It is not in the Greek text, which thoroughly explains Pink’s correct statements below.

b). Arthur W. Pink (Calvinist), An Exposistion of Hebrews, “There the Apostle declared to the Jews that God had fulfilled the promise made unto the fathers, namely, that he had “raised up Jesus,” i.e. had sent the Messiah unto them. Acts 13:33 has no reference to Christ’s resurrection, but relates to his incarnation and manifestation to Israel…It was not until Acts 13:34, 35 that the apostle brought in his resurrection…Thus in Acts 13, Psalm 2 is cited to prove the Father had sent the Savior to Israel and His promise so to do had been fulfilled in the Divine incarnation.”

2). The second half of this Scripture is a quotation from 2 Samuel 7:12-17, in particular v. 14.

a). 2 Samuel 7:12-17 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

(1). Partial fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7:12-17 is found in Luke 1:30-33: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

b). The Book of Hebrews, Arthur W. Pink: “This second quotation is from 2 Samuel 7:12-17, which forms part of one of the great Messianic predictions of the Old Testament. Like all prophecy it has a minor and a major scope and receives a partial and ultimate fulfillment. Its first reference was to Solomon, who in many respects, was a remarkable type of the Lord Jesus. But its chief application was to Christ Himself. That Solomon did not exhaust its fulfillment is clear enough from the language of v. 13 itself, for, as Dr. Brown has pointed out, “It refers to a son to be raised up after David had gone to be with his fathers, whereas the person to be raised up, whosoever he is, was to be settled “in God’s house and kingdom” and his throne was to be “established forevermore”, words certainly not applicable, in their full extent, to Solomon.” “…I will be…” does not take us back into the timeless past”!