| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 948 Registered: 5-2007 |
I realize that the word Rapture is not in scripture, though many Christians believe it is taught. I have read several outlines on the rapture theory and have realized that it involves another debate about tribulation periods. In my current understanding. I do not see a rapture taking place, but instead that we will go through a period of tribulation just prior to Christ's return and the general ressurection that includes the gathering of Christians still alive. To me the context of those remaining alive indicates that they have been through something. Also that promise that no plague shall come nigh thy dwelling is redundant if you are not even there to witness it. It is not my purpose to defend a preconcieved notion here. So please don't react defensively. I want to understand what I might be missing. Thanks, Jim02 | ||
| Sharon3 Registered user Username: Sharon3 Post Number: 39 Registered: 2-2010 |
I'm interested as well. Bring it on. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11085 Registered: 12-2003  |
Well, Jim, to be honest, the Bible isn't explicit about any of this. Christians disagree about the timing of the rapture. (Rapture simply means "caught up", so we will all be raptured at some point--it's just a question of when.) I do know that taking seriously the words of Paul in Romans 9 through 11 and of John in Revelation 20, and reading the OT prophecies with a perspective that God will still keep His promises to Abraham—which predated Israel— for seed, land, and blessing, and also His unconditional promises to David for an eternal reign, dynasty, and throne, it starts to look possible that the tribulation will have a lot to do with Jews being "unhardened" and coming to know Jesus. Revelation with its accounts of the two witnesses, its references to the 144,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, etc etc does support a reading of it that looks very different when seen as a continuation of the OT prophecies. Whatever the case, however, we're just not sure when the rapture will occur—and that question should never be a point of division among believers. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 949 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen , I agree, it is not a point of contention. I have been listening to Pastor David Jeremiah on the radio in the mornings. He just completed a series on Heaven and now he is on Revelation. This topic of the rapture plays big in his presentations. You hear about it a lot. About the Jewish nation. Evidently they will also be brought in again before Christ returns. Though I am not sure by what circumstance. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1957 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi Jim, It's a much-recycled topic, but three passages are actually very explicit in clearing up the matter: The only reason that the matter is not clear to some is because it is part of an entire system of theology constructed only 200 years ago. Rather than admit to what Scripture says, many prefer to be veiled on the topic. It's exactly the same as in Adventism when we were afraid to face our cognitive dissonance, afraid to look at errors and admit what they were... because if we did, it would mean something was wrong with the entire system, and that's just too traumatic for us to consider. It is exactly like seeing errors in EGW and not wanting to say that a potato is a potato. One of the reasons many don't let go of EGW (even though they see problems) is because it seemed like EGW got "Sabbath" right, and if she got Sabbath right, then there's a possibility EGW was right after all about other things. EGW was tethered to the Sabbath (which seemed true at first look, but upon better Biblical inspection turns out to be an error as well). In the exact same way, the pre-trib rapture is tethered to dispensationalism. Because it seems like dispensationalism got "Israel" right, many are unwilling to write off the pre-trib rapture. However, just like "Sabbath", closer inspection of "Israel" in Scripture also reveals error. The promises to Abraham are fulfilled in the Seed, Jesus Christ. Galatians 3 declares that all who believe in Christ are Abraham's children and are heirs to the promises God made to him. Since Hebrews 11 declares that Abraham himself looked forward to a heavenly city and admitted he was a stranger on earth, it is incongruous to imagine that God's promise to him was about "land" when the New Testament reveals the land was a shadow of heavenly reality (see Hebrews 3-4... the "entering His rest" originally refers to the promised land before it later refers to Sabbath rest). God's promises to Abraham are fulfilled according to the Christ and His Spirit, not according to the flesh (circumcision). Jesus happens to love His people so much that He explained to them many difficult things that would come upon the earth. He told His disciples what would happen to Jerusalem, and because His disciples believed His words, they did not suffer or die in Jerusalem when those words were fulfilled. It is tragic that today we are quick to try to re-interpret (and largely nullify) His words by splitting up His "comings", because if Jesus said that difficult things were ahead, He had a darn good reason for it just as He had a darn good reason to tell the disciples what would happen to Jerusalem. While this is not something to forsake loving one another over by any means, at the same time it's not something that we need to talk about as if it were uncertain, because the New Testament is very clear. But the reason that this cannot be seen is that just as there was a spiritual veil in Adventism which prevented people from seeing what was clearly written, in the same way there is a spiritual veil in dispensationalism which prevents people from seeing what is clearly written. Additionally, for the same reasons that people were afraid to call a potato a potato in Adventism, in the same way there are also things "at stake" if you dare to speak in certainty about the errors of the pre-trib rapture, dispensationalism, and dispensationalism's re-erection of the dividing wall (the separation of the one new man in Christ). Bless you in Jesus, Jim! Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on March 30, 2010) | ||
| Lifeanew Registered user Username: Lifeanew Post Number: 232 Registered: 10-2007 |
Romone, Once again, thank you, thank you, thank you. My husband and I thought we were all alone on this. We'll post more later. | ||
| Javagirl Registered user Username: Javagirl Post Number: 707 Registered: 6-2005  |
I think it speaks of the arrogance of the western world that many believe in and preach a pre-trib rapture--guess it is a more crowd friendly message. As if we are somehow above the coming tribulation, when others are already experiencing great persecution throughout the world for faith in Jesus Christ. I am not afraid however///not anymore anyway  . | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 564 Registered: 11-2005 |
Here are some foundational features of Dispensationalism: 1. Hermeneutical approach that stresses a literal fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel. 2. Belief that the unconditional, eternal covenants made with Israel must be fulfilled literally with the nation of Israel. 3. Distinct future for the nation of Israel. 4. The church is distinct from Israel. I really haven't studied enough about eschatology to know exactly where I stand with everything yet. But I do admit that the "rebirth" of the Israel as an independent nation in 1948 makes me think that the dispensationalist's view of eschatology may be correct. The Scriptures prophesied that Israel would be dispersed among the nations and then God would restore them. It seems like history really fits Scripture when you look at it literally. Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the Lord, have spoken and done it,' declares the Lord." (Ezekiel 37:12-14). Grace | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 953 Registered: 5-2007 |
Ramone, Dispensationalism is yet another example of theory clusters. I have tried to come up with strategys that might help me break this all down to learnable pieces of useful information. What I tended to do was to look at the rule applied to a proposed theory. Then see if it stood solid or could be misapplied. Or watch and see it used by both sides to form two different conclusions. For example: The SDA: The Law is divided into the Moral (10C), Ceremonial, Health ,and Civil. Rule: Division of type of law. Rule: Perpetuity of the specified law. Conclusion: 10c Moral laws are perpetual. Protestant: The 10C is divided into Shadow(4th C) and Moral law (The other 9). Rule:Division of type of law. Rule:Perpetuity of the specified law. Conclusion: 9 of 10 is Moral and perpetual. Same rules, different conclusions. Which explains why, when listening to either side making a presentation, it seems plausible. They used the same rules to reach their position. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1959 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Grace, I know there's a lot of good dispensationalists who do approach various parts of scripture in very sound ways. However, beginning at the separation of Israel & the church nullifies/disregards Ephesians 2, where God said He had made them one in Christ. The promises given to Abraham about the physical land were promised to His seed -- who is Christ. Now in Christ, according to Galatians 3, we are *all* heirs of Abraham. If we take the "land" promises to Israel literally, then we must also admit that Christians have just as much a right to the "land" of Israel as flesh-circumcised Jews do. But Hebrews 3-4 and 11 are explicit about the land having been a shadow what was to come in Christ. This is exactly the same problem we had in Adventism -- we looked at Sabbath as if it were continuous despite what the New Testament said; now in dispensationalism they look at Israel & land as if they were continuous, despite what the New Testament says. It's a case of not abiding by Hebrews 1:1-3, of interpreting the New according to the Old. There is a lot of history behind the formation of the state of Israel, which I shouldn't get into now because I've written so much in the past about it here. But it's a very destructive situation which the dispensational/zionist churches often unintentionally excaberate. The best way I can sum up the spiritual (eternal) side of the situation is with a picture and poem: http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/oh-jerusalem.html Bless you in Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 566 Registered: 11-2005 |
Thank you, Ramone. I've never looked at the separation of Israel and the church as nullifying Ephesians 2 before. That's an interesting thought. I'm going to have to go through and read the Hebrews references you referred to see what you mean about the land being the "shadow". I must have missed the earlier discussions you had on the history behind the formation of the state of Israel. I'll have to search it out and see if I can find those old threads--you've got me curious now! Grace | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1961 Registered: 10-2002 |
Bless you in Jesus, Grace! Hebrews 11 where it talks about Abraham (to whom the original "land" promise was given in Genesis, but Galatians 3 says we are all his heirs now). Hebrews 3-4 where it talks about entering His rest -- which originally meant entering the promised land if you compare with the parallel passage in Numbers (don't have the chapter at the moment, but it's when God had the last straw with Israel's rebellion and told them they'd be in the wilderness for another 40 years, so that not one of those who tested Him would enter the land). | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1963 Registered: 10-2002 |
Grace, The chapter I referred to in the last post: The main passage is Psalm 95, which is quoted in Hebrews 3. Compare that passage with Numbers 14:11, 14:22-23, and Deuteronomy 1:34-35. This is one thing, though. There are countless others all over the NT, particularly what Paul said about being "Jews" if you are in the faith of Abraham (Romans, Galatians, etc.). The Ezekiel "dry bones" passage refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit because of the finished work of Jesus Christ. Ezekiel is written in quite a lot of shadow language most of the time (it's easiest seen when examining "millenium theory" -- which collapses entirely upon contextual examination of the latter parts of Ezekiel). | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 694 Registered: 8-2008 |
Corrie Ten Boom said that the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture left European Christians completely unprepared for the persecution they faced under the Nazis. She was a strong opponent of the pre-trib doctrine. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1964 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Grace, The relevant passage from Ephesians 2 is worth posting: Notice these points: (1) Gentiles were excluded from "Israel" citizenship prior to Christ; but now in Christ they are citizens of Israel. (2) (6) Prior to Christ, Gentiles were foreigners to the covenants of the promise. This is interesting because Paul did not say "covenant" in the singular but rather in the plural, "covenants" (compare Romans 9:4). In other words, the covenants and promises given to Israel apply to all who are in Christ Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. As Paul said in 2nd Corinthians 1:20, no matter how many promises God has made, they are all "yes and amen" in Christ Jesus. In Him we are co-heirs, inheriting His inheritance. In the Old Testament God calls Israel His inheritance, thus if we are co-heirs with Christ, we also inherit Israel. Just as Galatians 3 says, we who believe (whether Jew or Gentile) are heirs of the promise made to Abraham and his seed. (3) (4) (5) God has made Jew & Gentile "one". (7) Interestingly, the building of God's "people & household" is built upon not only the prophets of the Old Testament, but also upon the testimony of the apostles. This parallels with Romans 11 which includes the Gentiles in "Israel" but says that the natural branches (literal Jews) have been "cut off" because of unbelief (but can be grafted back in again). Being "in Israel" rests wholly upon being founded upon the cornerstone of Christ Jesus. If we are "in Christ", we are "in Israel". If we are not in Christ, we are not in Israel. ***** Someone here might note that this dovetails with "Replacement Theology". This is true. Replacement Theology is the original view of the early church because it is what the Scriptures teach if they are read contextually, and if the New Testament is allowed to interpret the Old. And it is still the view of the ancient churches today. However, half the ancient church (the Catholic side) missed Hebrews 11:10,13-16 and 40 which say that Abraham was looking forward to a heavenly country, not an earthly country, and that only "together with us" would Abraham and his descendants inherit the promise (in other words, even though they inherited Canaan, they did not inherit the promise -- just as Hebrews 3 and 4 say, even though they entered the land & kept the Sabbath, people did not enter His rest). In a nutshell, half the ancient church lost sight of the fact that Christ said "My kingdom is not of this world." They thought our inheritance was land. Many, many Christians today have a kneejerk reaction against "Replacement Theology" because they remember the abuses of the Crusades, etc. The problem with the Crusaders' theology was not the Replacement part, but the abandonment of the gospel of the Kingdom for an earthly kingdom, and the abandonment of God's love & grace as the means for spreading it. Strictly speaking, however, "Replacement Theology" can often have too narrow of a definition by saying that "the church" is now "Israel", because this focuses on the Old Testament shadow (the nation of "Israel") instead of the New Testament reality in Jesus Christ. The point of the Kingdom is not to point out who "God's people" are and who are not; the point is to point out Jesus Christ as the King. Jesus said that all people would know His disciples not by the titles they gave themselves nor by the they spoke, but rather by His love in us for each other. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11105 Registered: 12-2003 |
I tend to agree that a pre-tribulation rapture seems dubious--although I can't be dogmatic--but it seems dubious. Timing aside, however, I don't see Ephesians as negating that God will yet bring the remnant of Israel chosen according to His grace to Himself in His time. Of course, there are Jews all through history who have come to Jesus, but Romans 11 does describe a time when the Israel (meaning Jews) will be unhardened. No Jew will be saved differently from any Gentile. Salvation is by Jesus alone for all people. All come to Him directly through the Son. Yet time-wise, I can certainly see epochs or differences. The olive tree of God in Romans 11 is not "Israel". Contextually, "Israel" in Romans 11 refers to Jews. The olive tree is God's plan and purpose. The roots are the patriarchs (11:16). Both believing Gentiles and believing Jews are being and will be grafted in. And Paul is clear that the grafting will be from the same "platform" for both Jew and Gentile: it will be on the basis of belief (11:23-24). And the nation of Israel WILL be for all believers. The millennial kingdom described in Revelation 20 has resurrected believers reigning with Christ over the nations. And according to Revelation 20, there will still be unbelievers in the world. Glorified believers will reign with Christ over the nations. Of COURSE Gentile believers are inheriting the land...but so will Israel. The fact that God will yet unharden Israel an graft them into His tree doesn't mean there is a wall of distinction between them and Gentiles. On the contrary, there is NO wall. God is simply keeping His unconditional promises. The current nation of Israel is obviously "unbelieving". It is not the fulfillment of the prophecies. But Christ reigning from Jerusalem will be! At the same time, the idea that God would begin to fulfill His promises in political ways tends to shock us...yet He has always worked this way throughout history. God has used pagan kings and powers to accomplish His purposes. He calls all of us while we are in sin. Every good and perfect gift if from Him. And the issue with Israel isn't Jews—it's the faithfulness of God. God isn't establishing secular Israel because the Jews deserve it. He's doing what He's doing because He is faithful, and His faithfulness is consistent even when people are faithless. God's message to people who don't know Him is the same now and forever: "I am God. I will do what I do, and your machinations will not prevent me." As I see it, the issue isn't Zionism; the issue is God will have His way no matter what we humans do or think. RE: Hebrews 3 and 4: I see an explicit exposition of "rest", but I see no explicit reference to "land". I don't see Hebrews 3 & 4 saying anything one way or the other about "land". He's just saying the nation of Israel never entered the promised rest. Yet they did inhabit the land. Same for Hebrews 11. You're right, Ramone, that Jews and Gentiles alike share the promises made to Abraham. But God isn't destroying the recognizable ethnic realities. Jesus is not ceasing to be humanly Jewish. God is saying that He will do what He said He'd do--and He has preserved a remnant of Israel according to His gracious choice. One more textual comment: Ephesians 2:20 is likely not referring to OT prophets. The church is a strictly NT phenomenon birthed at Pentecost. The word "prophets" in v. 20 is the same as that used in 3:5 where Paul is clearly referring to NT prophets who speak forth the truth of God revealed by Jesus. It was the apostles and prophets of the NT during the apostolic era who founded the church. The OT prophets did not found the church. They prepared the way for Messiah. This whole issue clears up a lot when we stop thinking God is treating Israel differently from the Gentiles in terms of salvation or inheritance. But Paul is clear that to Israel belongs "the adoption as sons (as do also Christians--Rom. 8:14-15), the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple service and the promises; theirs are the fathers, and from them is the Christ who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (Rom 9:4-5). There truly is no wall of division between Jew and Gentile. The fact that God will keep His promises to Abraham and to the Jews (the land promises were not made only to Abraham--God made them also to David and promised him a reign, a dynasty, and a throne that is eternal--and He promised the King would sit in Jerusalem--and Revelation pictures the church reigning with Him. Talk about an inheritance! Eras are not a problem; one doesn't need to have walls of division or "haves" and "have-nots" just because God has business He is still finishing. For sure Paul is clear that the Gentiles grafted in are NOT the natural branches. And he's also clear that the natural branches can be re-grafted in in an unnatural way: by being made alive from death. Sounds like the same "formula" for both Jews and Gentiles! Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1967 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Colleen, That the olive tree in Romans 11 refers to the patriarchs is not in the text, Colleen. The root is actually not defined in the text at all. If anything, by looking elsewhere it would be more correct to say that the root is Christ (the root and offspring of David). Contextually in Romans 11, Israel often refers to Jews, but not exclusively. Just as in Romans 9, Paul said, "Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." And again, "It is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." Philippians 3:3 is another witness that adds to the chorus in Paul's writing: "It is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh." Because 11:25 (and the rest of the chapter) speak of Gentiles "coming in", the next sentence saying "all Israel" includes Gentiles as part of "all Israel". Just as elsewhere Paul said that Gentiles are fellow citizens with God's people, included in the promises (to Abraham & Israel), and are heirs of Abraham. In Christ Jesus, all that was promised to Abraham is given to all who believe in Jesus Christ. Romans 11 includes both Jew and Gentile in "All Israel." By saying that "Israel and church" are separate, dispensationalism basically makes two Israels. It effectively says to Gentiles, "Well, you're Israel, but you aren't Israel." ***** Colleen, you wrote that "the nation of Israel "WILL be for all believers", indicating the future. But the Bible says that we are NOW Abraham's heirs, doesn't it? Or does it say that we will "become" Abraham's heirs "later on"? So why shouldn't the land of Israel be for the church to inherit TODAY? ***** Revelation is a debatable mixed bag and not a good place to make guesses about these things, especially when things are clearly written about in the epistles. Very little is written about the millennium even there, and there are no specifics of location mentioned in the chapter or of Israel or anyone else finally getting to inherit the land. In contrast to millennium theory, the gospel declares that the inheritance of God's people is eternal, imperishable and kept in heaven for us (1st Peter 1), but that the present earth (which includes earthly Jerusalem) is awaiting its destruction by fire (2nd Peter 3). This begs the question: Will Israel inherit the land only for a thousand years? Is that what the "forever" means in the Old Testament verses that promise Israel will receive the land? This is the problem that comes when we try to interpret the New Testament by the Old Testament. The New Testament simply says that our inheritance (both Jewish and Gentile) is in Christ, and is a new Jerusalem from above which can never fade, perish, or be destroyed. We weave a complex, confusing, and cognitively dissonant web when we try to fit the New Covenant to match the letter of the words of the Old Covenant prophets! ***** The fulfillment of God's promises to Israel is IN CHRIST, not in perishable land. The re-taking of the land of Israel is not part of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. At all. God promised Israel a King and a Kingdom, not a perishable land. He promised that when they returned to the land, they would have rest and no one would make them afraid. This is not the state of Israel today by a longshot. The "dry bones" passage is cited and the "land" is taken literally, but the rest of chapter 37 and Ezekiel 36 do not fit the description --even partially-- of the establishment of the state of Israel and its current condition today. The dispensational interpretation of the "dry bones" depends on part of one sentence, applying it literally, and then setting aside the rest of the chapter and the whole previous chapter for "later" or symbolic interpretation. For example, the rest of chapter 37 talks about the reunion of Ephraim and Judah. Dispensationalists are fond of citing Revelation's list of the 144,000 as evidence of dispensationalism, does anyone care that "Ephraim" is left out of the Revelation list?? Does anyone care that such an omission would negate a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 37?? No one asks these questions because the theory is already set, the die is cast, and proofs are sought to support the theory. "Kinks" such as these are glossed over, ignored, or hastily re-interpreted because they would disrupt an already-decided finished picture. After Adventism, I've had quite enough of that kind of hermeneutic, thank you! ***** I'm curious, Colleen. You've always mentioned prophecies about "Christ reigning in Jerusalem". I'd actually like to look at those. Can you list some of the texts you're thinking about? And we'll take a look at the contexts to see if they line up. I'll wager that just like the whole "Eastern Gate & Messiah's Return" idea fell apart when the context of Ezekiel was examined, that the contexts of the prophecies you're thinking about might not squeeze so nicely into the dispensationalist picture, either. ***** The issue of Zionism is critical. Christians had an integral part in aiding the formation of the state of Israel by supporting the Zionist cause, even when it used terrorism (and defended terrorist methods) to try and establish the state in the early 20th century. Jews today are often baffled at how many Christian Zionists are more zealous for Jews to have the land than they themselves are! This is not a mere case of Jewish Zionists desiring and taking the land; Christians have been involved from the beginning both in material support and in unwavering, "yes-man" encouragement to the Zionist cause. Christians are called to give people Christ's love in the world. Yet the cries of displaced peoples meet ears of Christians who say, "It's God's will that they have the land... it's the fulfillment of God's promise". Does that reflect God's love in His professed people? The violence of Zionism should be ignored by any serious Christian. That Zionism is a potent, powerful force inside of Anglo-American Christianity is plain to see to the world, particularly when people like Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell say loudly that God struck Ariel Sharon down because he was trying to make peace with the Palestinians and divide God's land. While God did use nations in whatever way He pleased in the Old Testament to accomplish His purposes, at the same time He judged them for their unrighteous actions. Why is no one sounding the trumpet to Israel today that she is storing up judgment for herself by many of her actions? Is this part of "God's faithfulness to Israel", Colleen? To restore her to the land and say it's the fulfillment of God's promise, and then judge her later because of the way she shed blood to do it? One of the shameful fruits of the dispensationalist --even the mild dispensationalist-- view about Israel is to basically stand back, say it's God's will, pray for peace, and do nothing to offset the violent actions or comments of Jewish and Christian Zionism. In complete contrast, the gospel declares an eternal inheritance that will never perish or fade--the inheritance of Abraham who looked forward to a heavenly city instead of an earthly one--and calls all descendants of Abraham to look to the same heavenly inheritance that he himself looked to. ***** Speaking of that, Hebrews 11... Verse 10 says Abraham "was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God." Verse 13 says that he admitted he was an alien and stranger on earth. (Compare this to Philippians 3:20 "Our citizenship is in heaven"!) Verse 39 says that he and his descendants did not receive what was promised, even though they dwelt in the land! This means that the promises given to Abraham and his descendants (which again, by faith, we are) for the inheritance of the land were not fulfilled by their dwelling in it. Abraham looked to a heavenly city, just as we do. In other words, the promised land was a shadow of heaven. As Paul said in Galatians 4, Jerusalem that is below represents Hagar, but Jerusalem that is above is our home. ***** Hebrews 3-4... Have you ever compared Psalm 95 with Numbers 14? Most paraphrases (TEV, NLT, CEV, etc.) recognize the obvious: that "rest" in its original context refers to the land, and later is expanded to include Sabbath as well. The original passage from Psalm 95 refers back to Numbers 14: Didn't you ever wonder why "Joshua" is mentioned in 4:8? It's because he was the one who led Israel into the promised land where they had "rest" (Josh. 22:4). The way Hebrews 3-4 speaks about the land is the same as the way it speaks about the Sabbath: although they kept the Sabbath they did not enter His rest, and although they entered the land, they did not enter His rest (thus, "Joshua" did not give them rest). ***** About Ephesians 2:20, you might want to look at the comments I put on this member's thread awhile ago: http://www.formeradventist.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?lm=1267692035&file=/4529/9696.html There is no record of NT prophets founding the church (notably, none of the ancient churches argue about "prophetic succession" like they do "apostolic succession"!). Continued mentions of apostles & prophets in the rest of the NT show that the foundation is Christ, and that we know about Him for two reasons: the prophets testified about Him in the past, and the apostles testified about Him because they had seen Him. Compare 2nd Peter 1:16-21, Romans 16:25-26 (note parallel language), 1st Peter 1:10-12, Acts 10:39-43, John 17:20 (the purpose of the apostles), 1st John 1:1-4, etc. But that was a different discussion. All that said, you didn't address the point that I cited the text for -- that being part of God's "people & household" depends upon being in Christ. ***** Okay, that's waaaaay more than I intended to write. Back to life now... Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11109 Registered: 12-2003 |
Here are the text notes from the ESV Study Bible re: Romans 11:16:
The NASB and the NIV Study Bible's notes say the same thing:
AGain, ESV Study Notes on Ephesians 2:20:
NIV and NASB notes are similar but less detailed;
Regarding rule and authority in Jerusalem:
Also read: Zeph 3:12-20; Zech. 12 through 14...and more, but I have to go do some stuff for Good Friday tonight! Compare the imagery of Ezekiel 47 and 48 with Revelation 21 and 22. There are definitely New Earth similarities--post millennium. As for Ephraim and the lack of his tribe in Revelation 7 among the 144,000: Ephraim received the firstborn-blessing from Jacob instead of Joseph. Two of Joseph's sons became two of the twelve tribes, and the OT frequently uses "Ephraim" to refer to Judah/God's people/Jacob/Israel. The twelve tribes in Rev. do include "Joseph". Dan, the first to fall into idolatry, is missing. Colleen | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 568 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow! This "study" is really helping me. Thank you, guys! Ramone, I have to admit that from what I've been reading in the last couple of days (I've been looking up the texts), I'm thinking that Israel and the Church are indeed separate. Hermeneutics need to be consistent, and if Israel received God's curses, then Israel will also receive God's promises. You can't say one is "literal" and the other is now "spiritual". It's not consistent. God will keep His promises because God is faithful. I think that's the lesson in Israel... God is faithful to keep His promises when God has "chosen" His people, He is faithful to hold them, preserve them, and keep them. If you look at the history of the Jews, it's quite incredible. The nation should have been obliterated by the Holocaust. Yet, they were preserved. Not only were they preserved, but they formed a nation just as Scripture said they would! I don't know... it's seems more "supernatural" than "zionist". At least to me. I admit though, I'm learning a lot with this. Gonna keep reading... Grace | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1971 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Colleen, I'll try to do some quick comments (although I'm traditionally horrible at being brief!)... ***** Re: the patriarchs & root thing -- it is a possibility--as your notes say--that the root represents the patriarchs, but it is not strictly spelled out in the text or anywhere else in scripture, which is why it is said to be "possible" instead of certain. However, assuming that it is the "patriarchs", think about that -- who are we talking about? Your ESV notes included Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These three names are interesting to look at. Firstly because we are declared to be Abraham's children in Christ. Second because we are declared to be like Isaac, children of the promise. Thirdly because Jacob was renamed "Israel". If he who was named "Israel" was one of "the root" that you say it refers to, then is it not incorrect to say that the Gentiles are "in Israel" if they are in "the root"? ***** Re: Ephesians 2:20 -- that works better in the separate discussion in the Member's area, where a whole thread was devoted to it. If anyone would like to discuss it, hop on over there and maybe someone shoot me an email 'cause I don't check it regularly. (Sorry!) ***** Now for the fun stuff... I'll save the Isaiah 2 & Micah 4 part for last because it's the most fun. Re: the twelve tribes in Revelation. Glad you noticed that "Dan" is missing. That is even more problematic for a reckoning of the twelve tribes than the Joseph-Ephraim problem. The mention of Joseph is somewhat redundant, since Mannasseh is also one of his sons. It would seem that both Ephraim and Dan were cut out and if there were those who were "in Ephraim" but repented, they were reckoned as being part of "Joseph". This is likely because of the golden calves in Dan and the various judgments pronounced against "Ephraim" (particularly in Hosea). In other words, the listing of the twelve tribes here has incredible prophetic significance. Each little detail has a meaning. The omissions are incredibly important: They build upon the spirituals lessons that come from the sins/judgments of Dan & Ephraim in the Old Testament. In other words, this shows why certain people are not included in the "twelve tribes". It speaks of faith in God, trust in Him and devotion to Him. What we have here is more of a spiritual make-up than a genetic one. We're looking at spiritual DNA, so to speak, at the matters of faith and 'un-faith'. What this illustrates is that the bottom line here is about faith being the criteria which includes or excludes people in Israel. (Oooh, doesn't that sound like Paul!) If we look at it like physical DNA then we're going to run into some difficulties (not to mention logistical problems -- even today in Israel they're trying to pinpoint who exactly is a Levite and who isn't so they can isolate Aaron's lineage of priests). But rather, the whole make-up of the list has spiritual implications which proclaim the truth of the gospel. It's not about Israel according to the flesh, but rather it's about faith. Those who are of faith are reckoned as the children of Abraham---the man of faith. ***** Gonna have to run really quick here... Zechariah 14 is interesting, Colleen. Do you believe we will celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in the new earth? Didn't Paul say that the feasts were shadows of Christ? After Christ has come, will we return to shadows? And doesn't Romans 14 say not to judge one another by keeping of holy days? Yet Zechariah 14 says that Egypt and other nations will be judged if they do not keep the Feast of Tabernacles. ***** Re: the Ezekiel texts... same problem as above. The "prince" makes sacrifices for the people and for himself! Is this a good description of Christ, Colleen? Doesn't Hebrews say something much different? Yes, there are many similarities in imagery. But the Old Testament references reek of shadows. It makes no Christological sense to read the passages according to a strict literal interpretation. We have to admit that they are fair and open game to symbolic interpretation. To read "Jerusalem" literally but symbolize other parts is inconsistent. Especially when Hebrews 12 says to all who believe that "You have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to the church of the firstborn." In other words, the gospel declares that in Christ and in His church, we have ALREADY come to "Mount Zion" and "Jerusalem". This, in turn, easily applies to and dovetails Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, because the exact same "locations" are used that are detailed as meaning "in Christ" in Hebrews 12. ***** On another note, the book of Revelation is not a continuation of Old Testament prophecies. It is different. Old Testament prophecies had shadows that looked forward to Christ. But Revelation has shadows which look backward to Christ. It is not sound to read either sets of prophecies in a strict literal sense. An example of this is how the "ark of the covenant" shows up in Revelation. Jeremiah 3:16 said that the ark would be forgotten and not remade. And Hebrews 8:13-9:4 says that the ark was the ark of the "old" covenant, which is obsolete. So what's it doing in heaven? Heaven opens and we see the OLD covenant ark which He said we would forget and not swear by anymore? The ark was simply a shadow of Jesus Christ, who is the ark of the New Covenant, containing the priestly rod of authority, the law of the Spirit, and who Himself is the bread of life. It is a picture of heaven opening and Jesus being seen. Revelation uses shadow imagery to point back to Christ. The Old Testament prophets saw through shadows looking forward to Christ. The point is Christ. In Him we are in Zion, in Jerusalem, as Hebrews says. We are grafted into Israel and are its citizens, as Paul wrote. Revelation is not a continuation or further explanation of fulfillment of OT prophecies about Israel, because those prophecies were written in shadows (if not, then we are all going to be feast-keeping in the millennium!). Gotta run! Blessings to you all in Jesus! Ramone |
