| Author | Message | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 823 Registered: 7-2000 |
Ramone, I've appreciated so much your posts on the supremacy of the New Covenant IN CHRIST. JESUS truly is the glorious fulfillment of every promise. "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God." 2 Corinthians 1:20 grace, cindy | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 460 Registered: 1-2006  |
Hi Ramone and friends I appreciated reading all the posts, very interesting! So I wanted to share this . . . I read an author recently who suggested that if you described the mark in the forehead or in the hand to first century Jews, they may have recognized it as a reference to the old covenant law of Moses. First, read Revelation 13:16,17, where the mark in the hand or in the forehead is described. The Bible gives three hints that refer to a sign (mark) in the forehead and the hand. The first is Exodus 13:9 “for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes (in the forehead),” pertaining to the days of Unleavened Bread associated with Passover. The second is Deut 6:8 “You shall bind them as a sign (mark) upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes (forehead),” referring to the statutes and judgments to be enacted in the land of Canaan. Note that the seventh-day Sabbath is given as a sign (mark) in conjunction with the tablets of the testimony (10 commandments) in Exodus 31:12-18. Similarly, the third reference in Deut 11:18, is again in reference to the 10 commandments (read the first verses of the previous chapter, Deut 10, to get the context). All three of these hints refer to the old covenant law (which Hebrews calls the ministration of death) and all three have to do with keeping the commandments, statutes, judgments, holy seasons, and the weekly Sabbath given to the Israelites in the time of Moses. Would God send a powerful deception? Is this just background noise? Needless to say, I'm a new covenant (not covenant) student as far as the law is concerned. Terms and labels get slung around a lot! There are many, many gaps in my understanding! Bob | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 216 Registered: 2-2008 |
Hi Grace, An interesting thing that gets revealed in Galations 4 is the allegory of the children of the bondwoman, and the children of the free. It is explained how we, as Isaac was, are children of Gods promise. We as brethren, are in a sense fulfilling the shadow of Isaac. Isaac was spared,and a substitute sacrifice was presented in his stead. Just as Jesus was sacrificed for us. Now the children of Hagar, are those who are in bondage to the covenant from mount Sinai, they are of the flesh, and are attempting to be self justified. Weather they be jewish, or muslim. This is pictured by Ishmael. So just as the promises of Abraham are accorded by Christ, and not by DNA. So too, the moniker of being Ishmael is not according to DNA either, but by rejecting Christ. So in a sense many in the nation of Israel by blood are of Isaac, but in reality they have become Ishmael. There are only two types of people , those who seek their own righteousness, and those who accept the righteousness of God, and the sacrifice of Christ in our stead. These are pictured by Isaac, and Ishmael. The children of Gods promise are not according to flesh, self justification, or DNA, but of Christ. Chris | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1982 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi Grace & others, Thanks again everyone. I've got to run right now and will try to write tomorrow or day after, but, Grace, I don't know much about the millennium. I can say that very quickly! There is so very little explicitly written about it in Scripture. Most of the millennial theology seems to have arisen as a convenient way of literalizing the ends of the prophets' books -- while overlooking the problems of shadows & sacrifices, and that the "new earth" starts earlier in Isaiah 65-66 than would be convenient for millennium theory. Christo, good comments, by the way. For everyone, one thing that smacked me over the head in prayer about these things last night is about circumcision. Remember when circumcision was given? Remember its connection to the promise given to Abraham's descendants to inherit the land? So what happened to "circumcision" in the New Covenant? And who were declared to be "the circumcision" in Philippians 3? If the "circumcision" half of that Abrahamic covenant is transformed, what happened to the other half of that Abrahamic covenant -- the promise his descendants would inherit the land? Etc. More tomorrow. Bless you all in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1983 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Grace, A few minutes here to answer a few of your questions... Like I mentioned briefly, I don't really know much about the millenium because there's just so little clearly written about it. It's nearly a footnote in Revelation between more detailed events. The things dispensationalists attribute to the millenium from the Old Testament don't fit well into the reality of the New Covenant because they are filled with shadows. Dispensationalists want to take the prophets literally but don't want to face the problem of the shadows, priests, etc. Traditional, historic church replacement theology is basically more consistent because it is free to read everything symbolically rather than making one thing literal and another symbolic. But that of course can have its problems as well. That's a big question! Jesus said there would be a great distress, or in Revelation's words, "the great tribulation". I don't really know where the idea comes from that it will be "seven years". I think they get that from Daniel somewhere. Pre-trib rapture theory & dispensationalism actually build quite a lot on specific, dubious interpretations of Daniel's prophecies -- the same thing Adventism did. So I'm naturally leery of that. But really, more than that, when praying it just doesn't resonate in the Spirit. Yes, there will be tribulation. No, it's not going to be seven years. That's a mistake. I believe it will be shorter than that. No "proof" here, but pray about it and see if He doesn't say the same thing to you.  Remember how in Adventism the big question is "how to fulfill the law?" How to keep the Sabbath? Okay, Christ has come, okay, maybe He is even our rest. But how do we fulfill the Sabbath now? That's how we thought. Dispensationalism does the exact same thing to the believer but with regard to the "promises to Israel": How will God keep the promises to Israel? Both Adventism and Dispensationalism fail to recognize fulfillment in Christ. Adventism doesn't see it with the law's shadows, and Dispensationalism doesn't see it with the prophet's shadows. The New Testament says that in Christ we have all come to Zion and the New Jerusalem. Psalm 2, which the believers quote in praying in Acts 4, says that God has enthroned in Zion His King, His Son. And Amos 9 which James quoted in Acts 15 says that David's house has already been rebuilt and restored. In other words, the King is already sitting on the throne! God's promises to Israel have already been fulfilled in Christ Jesus! The only one left is Romans 11, but Romans 11 says nothing about land, nothing at all. God will bring a remnant of Jews to rejoin His people. Colleen said that the "olive tree" in that chapter didn't represent "Israel" and that the "root" represented the patriarchs. But if it is the patriarchs, and the "branches" were broken off, then what about Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Elijah and Daniel? If the tree is the patriarchs, does that mean all those other people afterwards were broken off, too? Of course not! Who was "cut off" and why were they cut off? Because of unbelief. Paul is referring here to people who did not believe in Christ. In other words, the present generation of Jewish leaders and many of its people. Cut off from what? Just the patriarchs' tree? No, Moses, Elijah and David, too! Cut off from the people. It is in accordance with what Peter said in Acts 3:22-23, quoting Moses in Deuteronomy 18, What is happening in Israel today is not part of God's "fulfillment of His promises to Israel". His promises to Israel are already fulfilled in Jesus, in whom is already the Kingdom, the throne, the inheritance, Zion and the New Jerusalem. The New Testament makes this abundantly clear. The present Jerusalem is in bondage, and the land is reserved for destruction by fire (2nd Peter 3). Do you remember how Adventists were constantly looking for a "Sunday law" or actions of the Pope or US government to bring that about? It is the same way with dispensationalists looking at Israel. For the Adventist, whatever events come out of the Vatican or US elections seem to be prophetic signs that we are inching closer towards the fulfillment of things in scripture. The dispensationalist feels the same about whatever comes out of Israel or whatever happens there, that everything is a prophetic sign of fulfillment of scripture. Wow! Another big question! About "sequence" I don't know so much, I think. What I know is that Scripture says there will be a difficult time on the earth and God will shorten it for the elect otherwise no one would survive. After the distress of those days He will collect His people with a loud trumpet call, and the dead in Christ iwll rise first, and then those who are still living will meet Him in the air. It seems that the judgment of the dead will happen afterwards, with the millenium sandwiched in the middle (and the millenium being the least-described part). And afterwards, the new earth. Most of that "sequencing" is taken from the New Testament. Actually, all of it is. Largely from the gospels, and then a bit from the end of Revelation. But I'm not sure about the latter part of it -- the timing of the judgment, millenium and new earth. I have a sneaking suspicion that what's at the end of Revelation is similar to what's in the rest of the book: not exactly linear chronology, but more like different snapshot-perspectives of the same events. Keep praying and studying! The things in the Middle East aren't exactly a carry-over of Isaac and Ishmael. A quick reading would indicate that, but if we look at history, it hasn't always been that way. For example, at times Jews & Muslims fought together against common enemies, notably against Christian Crusaders! The difficulty is if we look at the current crisis in terms of who has "God's right" to the land. Because if we do that, we are no longer fulfilling God's call to be intercessors and peacemakers, but then we are taking sides against flesh and blood instead of against the authorities & principalities & powers of the spiritual realms. It is the spirits that are everyone's true enemies, not people! Remember how the Jews expected the Messiah to deliver them from Rome? But instead He knew they needed deliverance from their sins. Their true enemies were not the ones outside but the ones inside. It is the same thing today. Today Israel is fighting for land and looking at enemies as if they are people and nations around her. And the nations around her are thinking the exact same thing about Israel. They look at Israel as being the enemy instead of realizing that the true enemies are in their hearts. Both sides are blinded and need Christ. The promises are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Those who are in Him are the children of the promise, the "Isaac". Those who are below in Jerusalem today --both Jew and Muslim-- are in "Hagar" or "Ishmael" according to Galatians 4, because they are still in bondage to their sins. What's going on in the world is not explained by the Old Testament, Grace, it is explained by the New Testament! It is a cycle of unforgiveness, violence, and the result of not being freed from one's own sinful nature. It is a result of the absence of Christ, not the result of the fights of the Old Testament times. What's happening with the "church" in this (mainly in the US and UK) is that for about two hundred years she has been looking through they eyes of the Old Testament at these things instead of looking through the Cross! So she feels obligated to support one side of the violence instead of bring the gospel of peace into the midst and call people to heavenly inheritance. Ok, gotta run. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 825 Registered: 7-2000 |
Ramone, Yes! We are NOW in the Kingdom/Dominion of JESUS CHRIST. In the Gospel, God revealing a foreign-to-us righteousness in Jesus means that we have passed from the era of bondage to sin/wrath/death into the spiritual reality of a NEW eon of righteousness/faith/life in Jesus. I appreciate your words on seeing all the promises of God, and even the projections of possible future events, being continually filtered thru the New Covenant realities of the Cross of Christ...His death & resurrection for us truly has abolished the flesh & blood "wisdom" of this world. grace, cindy | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1984 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hey Christo, In re-reading your earlier comment I'm suddenly struck in my spirit and in the Spirit by the profound truth of what you'd said: Oh Lord!!! (>_<) God help us all see this, in Jesus' name! In His breaking heart, Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1985 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Bobj! Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Here's a few thoughts about the "mark of the beast" that I've felt in His heart over the last ten years or so... A Few Certainties about the "Mark of the Beast" The only thing I know for certain about the "mark of the beast" is that it begins in the heart and may possibly manifest in the form of receiving an external 'mark'. Or it may not manifest outwardly. The thing that is most important is the inward part, the 'mark' inside your heart, and I believe this is critical to understand. Here's why. Consider what happens if the mark is like an external mark, stamp or microchip or whatever. If people need only have that external stamp (etc.), then what happens if you have a family member who doesn't want to get it? Or would a parent make the choice for their child to get "the mark"? What happens if there's a prisoner in jail whose rights have been taken away because of their jail sentence? Wouldn't the prison have the authority to put a mark or chip in whichever prisoner they wanted to? (Especially if it served as a sort of tracking-device!) The point of this line of thought is to illustrate that the "mark" is essentially something that you cannot force anyone to receive. The way Revelation puts it is that if you don't receive the "mark", then the beast wants you dead and will make sure you get killed. In other words, the beast wants to make you so afraid that you choose to get the mark to save your own skin. (By the way, notice the direct parallel to Rev.12:11 -- "They overcame the dragon by the blood of the Lamb, the word of their testimony, and because they did not love their own lives to the death.) In other words, again, the beast can't "mark" you as his if you are unwilling to receive his mark. Yet it is a very easy thing for any government, police or army, neighborhood gang or 'loving' family to drug you or pin you down long enough to put a stamp or microchip in you. That's no difficulty. But in God's view that would not be "receiving the mark". Otherwise the beast's police could just round up Christians and force the 'mark' on them, and Christians would be lost and suffer in the lake of fire & sulpher. But that is not how it works. The mark of the beast is something that has eternal consequences because it is internal at the core. Perhaps it will eventually manifest in an outward way, perhaps not. The Christian really does not need to worry about how or if it manifests externally or not. That is inconsequential! The important thing is to have your heart in God's hands, and... Seeing Through the Eyes of the Cross The other important thing is to receive His heart for the people around you, especially including your enemies (whom He also died for). In times of persecution there is always a lot of "blame" going around. The persecuting authorities usually find some way to blame some kind of suffering or hardship on a group of people, usually a minority. What enables persecution (and things like xenophobia) is seeing the cause of suffering as being people, specifically a certain group of people. The solution then becomes disciplining and/or eliminating these "bad apples", with the illusion being that their removal will make things right and peachy again. It's completely false and unbiblical because the Bible says in Ephesians 6:12 that our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers, principalities & authorities of the spiritual realms. Our enemies are ultimately spirits, not people. Our physical enemies are simply people deceived (to one degree or another) by spirits. Christ died for all people. The enemy is just trying to mess with us to get us all killing each other or blaming each other (and wishing that the other people were gone, thinking everything would be okay if only those people were not in the picture, etc.). But if we know that this is the enemy's game, and if we look through the cross of Christ at our fellow people --even terrorists and the like-- then we stay spiritually awake. To forget to look through the eyes of the Cross is to fall asleep at the wheel spiritually. This is why in Matthew 24, Jesus said that "the love of most will grow cold." The word for love there is "agape" -- the love with which Christ loved us by laying down His life for us while we were even still His enemies: "Agape one another as I have agape'd you." Jesus said that the agape love of most would grow cold and many would leave the faith. Why? Because of the increasing wickedness in the world. First He said that there would be pains like labor in the world -- disasters, earthquakes, wars and rumors of wars. Wickedness (and obviously violence) would increase in the world. And as a result of that increasing wickedness in the world, people who had known His agape love would let go of it and thus leave the faith. People who had once looked through the eyes of the cross at fellow man would be offended by the increasing violence; they would begin to see each other as the cause of the problem. They would forget that Christ died for all people, and would forget that their enemies are not flesh and blood. Their love would "grow cold" because in order to try and protect their own people or make justice in the world, they would try to attack or eliminate "flesh and blood" (other people) whom they thought were the cause of the problem. Staying Spiritually Awake By forgetting God's agape love, forgetting that He died even for our enemies, forgetting that our true enemies are spirits instead of people, and that our real war is against spirits -- by forgetting these things we subtly begin to forget what the Cross was all about. Because we were His enemies! By forgetting these things, we fall asleep at the spiritual wheel, so to speak, and we begin to veer off the Road -- out of the Way of Christ, out of walking as He did in His love, and thus out of the faith itself, no matter what is in our professed "statement of beliefs". That is how "persecution" starts, and that is how the beast will get his persecution rolling. (It is how every prior 'beast' began its persecution, too!) But what is important here in avoiding that beast is remembering that it is all about the heart -- having your heart in Christ and in His love for our enemies. The 'mark' is one that has eternal consequences, and therefore it is one that happens in your heart. Just as it is only with the heart that one believes and is saved, so it is only with the heart that one may disbelieve and be lost. By staying spiritually awake (see Romans 13), we remember that Christ has loved us and so we must love one another. We, His enemies, could do nothing to save ourselves. It was all His grace, free and undeserved. In the same way He has called us to walk in His love to those who do not deserve it from us, either -- our enemies. It is no good for us to proclaim that we thankfully receive His grace if we fail to give the same grace to others who are as equally undeserving as we are. Remembering these things is staying awake. Seeing spiritual reality through His eyes -- through the cross and through the Spirit of Christ -- we remain spiritually awake. And so when anyone comes telling us our enemies are flesh and blood, we know that a beast is speaking lies to us through them. When someone tells us we have to worship some thing or in some way or at some time --anything like that!-- in order to live or be saved, then we know it is not God because God has called us to love Him freely and willingly, in Spirit and in truth. God has not made our salvation dependent upon external forms, times or whatever. When someone says that such and such person or group is making God unhappy & bringing suffering because they don't worship the way we do and therefore need to be forcibly stopped or made to submit, then we know it is a beast speaking lies to us through them. By staying in tune with God's heart (as revealed in the gospel for us and for our enemies), we stay spiritually awake and discern the times we're in, and what's going on around us and in the world. The Spirit shows us what's going on in the spiritual realms and how the enemy is trying to sway peoples' hearts with the goal of making them hate & attack each other instead of realizing that he (the enemy) is behind things. If we stay in tune with the Spirit then we don't need to worry about what the "mark" might or might not "look like". The Spirit reveals all things and intercedes for us in accordance with God's will. We are safe in Him -- safe in the Cross and safe in His Counselor for us! Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1987 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hey Bobj & others, I just put that "mark of the beast" post on a new thread here: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/9920.html?1271088070 And I added this to the end of it, too:
| ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 217 Registered: 2-2008 |
Thank you Bob for your comments, and thanks Ramone for starting another thread on this topic. Chris | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 461 Registered: 1-2006 |
Ramone and Chris It's probably obvious to most formers that Ellen's investigative judgment is one of many forms that might describe the mark. Standing before God without Christ as Mediator (on the basis of our own worthless merits) puts us and our works in the place of Christ--the very definition of antichrist. | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 573 Registered: 11-2005 |
Chris--Your post #216 was really good... It really put everything into a new perspective for me, and for the first time, I actually caught a "glimpse" from another direction. Ramone--Thank you for all your thoughts and answering my questions. Well, after this discussion, I can honestly say that I'm now at a place of "not knowing". And that's okay... It's not a completely comfortable place to be, but that's my old Adventist self speaking (where you like to have everything neatly in a box) . It has definitely prompted me to really study this out more, though. If anything, I've realized that you can't just pick a "theory" and go with it, or go by what others believe. It's really about discovering it for yourself and trusting the Holy Spirit to lead you into Truth. And to also accept those things which are meant to be a "mystery"! So much to learn! Thank you all for your thoughts! Grace | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11129 Registered: 12-2003  |
I just want to say that believing there may be literal fulfillments of God's promises to Israel based on Paul's words in Romans 11 (note especially Romans 11:28)
does not mean the church is supposed to take a political stance in support of the nation of Israel. The current nation of Israel is in apostasy. But believing God will yet do what He said He would do—sometime in the future and in ways we cannot identify in detail—is not disbelieving the new covenant. You can't say that just because many Christians are supporting Israel with political and monetary support, the idea that God will fulfill His promises cannot be both physical as well as spiritual. Our redemption is both physical and spiritual. I don't know how to interpret the eschatological prophecies of Ezekiel and Isaiah in advance. I do know they suggest many things that we can't simply dismiss as no longer valid. They haven't happened yet, and they don't all seem to point to a New Earth. I don't pretend to be able to explain it. It's just not wise to say these things can't happen. Yes, details are as yet obscure. But the shapes are given, and we shut ourselves off from seeing reality when we decide in advance what God "would not do". No, secular Israel isn't the Israel of God. Yet the existence of the state of Israel was a shocking reality—and the juxtaposition of its formation, of the development of a completely archaic language, Hebrew, into a modern language—with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls was an astonishing thing. For sure there is attention on this place in the world where the entire history of God's story intersecting with humanity has happened. Classic dispensationalism has grave problems. There are variations of it that make more biblical sense. But we can't dismiss all the ideas of God's faithfulness and the fact that He has both historically and prophetically revealed His singular deeds on this earth in one small triangle of the world just because a human system of theology doesn't make complete sense. Of course Jesus has come once for all. Of course He has already made the one sacrifice for sin. Nevertheless, we have to see that even Paul doesn't allow us to see Israel as dissolved and assimilated with the Gentiles. Romans 11 is clear that, even though it will be only a remnant, Israel will yet experience God's appeal to them in a time-frame separate from that of the "time of the Gentiles". The ultimate body of believers will include the full number of Gentiles and of Jews, to be sure. But God is dealing with them in some distinct time-frames. The plain words of Paul have to mean what they say. They are limited in description, but they are clear, and they make the OT prophecies and Revelation make sense in some new ways. Colleen | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 219 Registered: 2-2008 |
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that I heard an sda legend contained in one of the sda pastors sermons, that pictured Isaac as Jesus, and the animal that was sacrificed as the scapegoat, which they errantly say is satan. Once again assigning the roles of Jesus to Satan, so this story implied that Jesus escaped the punishment, and the punishment was given to satan. This replaced us as Isaac, with Jesus as Isaac. Putting us equal with Jesus, and denying him as God. I once had a man give me a one on one ministry, and the thing he impressed upon me was that when you hear a bible story, ask yourself where is Jesus in this story. It seems more corrupt, and devious, and more easily deceptive to ; rather than deny Jesus, to just mischaracterize, or misplace him, or misrepresent him. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11130 Registered: 12-2003 |
I've been memorizing Romans 9 through 11, so I've been repeating these chapters, adding one verse at a time, almost every day for about four months. I'm currently up to Romans 11:13. Several things have imprinted themselves in my mind. 1. God's sovereign choice is non-negotiable, and we can't explain it. Furthermore, we're told not even to question it:
2. God called both Jews and Gentiles—Romans 9:24-26 3. Isaiah even prophesied that even though the "sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved" (Rom. 9:27). 4. God has preserved a remnant from Israel. If He hadn't/hasn't, they would be obliterated like Sodom and Gomorrah (Rom 9:29). 5. Gentiles have obtained righteousness, but Israel hasn't because they pursued it by works, not "as if by faith". The definition of not pursuing righteousness "as if by faith" is "stumbling over the stumbling stone" laid in Zion by God: the Lord Jesus (Rom 9:30-33). 6. Paul's heart's desire and prayer is for Israel's salvation (Rom 10:1-2). 7. "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4). 8. When it comes to salvation, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all and abounds in riches for all who call on Him—and all who call on Him will be saved (Rom. 10:11-13). 9. Both Moses and Isaiah declared that God would make Israel jealous and angry by the Gentiles who would come to know Him, but the Israelites have been disobedient and obstinate (Rom 10:19-21). 10. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew among Israel (Rom 11:1-2). 11. Just as God sovereignly preserved for Himself 7,000 men who did not worship Baal of whom Elijah knew nothing, so at the present time God has preserved for Himself a remnant of Israelites (ethnic Israel) according to His "gracious choice" (Rom 11:3-5). 12. Israel as a nation has not obtained what it has been seeking, but those whom God has chosen have received it, and the rest were hardened (in context this verse is referring to Israelites, not to Jews and Gentiles combined) (Rom 11:7-10). 13. Israel did not stumble so as to fall; rather, their transgression delivered salvation to the Gentiles in order to make Israel jealous (Rom 11:11). 14. The Jews' transgression resulted in riches to the Gentiles/world. "How much more will their fulfillment be?" (Rom 11:12) Paul is carefully making a case to show that those who obtain righteousness do so by God's gracious choice, and those who are saved are, at this time, largely Gentiles. God's children are named according to His promise, not according to genetics (Roman 9: 8). Nevertheless, God loves Israel on account of the patriarchs, and His calling and gifts are irrevocable (Rom. 11:28-29). Paul is not teaching that Jews will be saved any differently from Gentiles. He is teaching that God will yet have a time when He deals with them again, after the full number of Gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25). Moreover, God never says He will eradicate the significance of or distinction between Jews and Gentiles as race. What IS destroyed is the separation between them concerning salvation and access to God. In Revelation 21-22 the New Jerusalem has foundations of the 12 (Jewish) apostles, and its doors are the 12 Jewish tribes. Moreover, Jesus Himself stated that "salvation is from the Jews" (Jn. 4:24). The fact that salvation is by faith exclusively and that God's children are named from among those who believe, never on the basis of race, does not exclude God's promises and prophecies from being literally true. If in the New Covenant God's promises to Israel were spiritualized so the physical parts of the promises were no longer pertinent, then Jesus would not have made the point to the Samaritan woman that "salvation is from the Jews". To be sure, He was referring to Himself...but He identified Himself as the fulfillment (literal) of God's promises to Abraham. In that same conversation in John 4, Jesus destroyed the concept of sacred places and sacred time, saying the time had come when true worshipers would worship in Spirit and in truth--no more Jerusalem as a specified "Holy Place" for worship. But He did not eradicate His Jewishness or the fact that Israel was the God-appointed source of salvation. The Jewish identity of both the foundation and the doors of the New Jerusalem is also significant. Jesus is eternally physically a Jew, and the Holy City of God is built on believing Jews and is entered by doors opened by Israel. Gentiles absolutely inherit all the blessings of God's people. There's no doubt of that in Romans. There's also no doubt that God still sees Israel as Israel, and He still has future plans for Israelites—not to give them "higher status" but to graft a believing remnant of them back into His olive tree in His own time and way. We just don't have to destroy the distinct identity of Israel because the Gentiles have been grafted in. No, Jews will not be "more than" the Gentiles. But Jews will still be Jews, and even though God has grafted Gentiles into His olive tree as wild branches tamed by the patriarchal root and by His Spirit, nevertheless He will still keep His promises to Israel—and there is no reason to think the prophecies about "the land" won't happen in "the land". Again, today's Israel is not God's nation. But the identity and circumstances of the totally secular state that is there cannot be said to be an accident of Zionism, nor can we safely conclude God won't keep His promises regarding the land in some way we haven't yet been able to identify. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1989 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Colleen, Thanks for your posts... I will take some time to pray and hope to post some questions afterwards. I put forth several questions in what I had written before alongside many points, most of which it seems you might not have noticed. So I'll try to outline some of those. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1990 Registered: 10-2002 |
Okay, for you Colleen, here are some questions (in no particular order) based on what I spoke of in earlier posts which your last two posts didn't touch on... 1) Where in Romans 9 to 11 does it talk about the "land" of Israel? 2) Where in Romans 9 to 11 does it talk about Jews being restored to the "land" of Israel? 3) How does the "restoration to the land" tie into Romans 9 to 11??? 4) If the Romans 11 "tree" represents the "patriarchs", does that mean that Moses, David and Elijah (etc.) were also "branches that were broken off"? 5) Could the "breaking off" of branches here be the same thing Peter spoke of (quoting Moses) in Acts 3:22-23, referring to being cut off from "the people" because of unbelief in the Prophet (the Messiah)? 6) Since Hebrews 12:22-24 reads, ...is it possible that when "Zion" and "Jerusalem" are used in prophecy, they might have symbolic meanings referring to what is above rather than what is below on literal land? 7) Since Daniel 2 pictures the Kingdom of Christ landing at the feet of the Roman Empire and growing & filling the earth, is it possible that Isaiah 2 and Micah 4's picture of the mountain of the Lord filling the earth in the last days might refer to the Kingdom of Christ which is already established now? And that the "Zion" and "Jerusalem" in these prophecies refers to the heavenly kingdom Hebrews 12 speaks of above instead of to an earthly kingdom set up in old Zion and old Jerusalem? 8) Beginning in Isaiah 65:17, it speaks of the new heavens and new earth and some "promises to Jerusalem"... and then immediately goes into saying that people will die there. Should "death" be read literally here? And if not, then why should "Jerusalem", particularly in light of the "new Jerusalem" in Hebrews 12, Galatians 4 and at the end of Revelation? 9) Since the passage in Isaiah 65:17 opens by speaking of the new heavens and new earth, how could any of this refer to "the millenium"? (Assuming that Revelation 20-22 is somewhat linear.) 10) Isaiah 66:20-23 says, A) If this is a promise to literal Jerusalem and/or literal Israelites, then why is it not speaking also of literal grain offerings, a literal temple, literal priests and Levites, literal New Moons and Sabbaths? B) How could any of this be in "the millennium" since it says "new heavens and new earth"? *********************************************** *********************************************** Colleen, I could go on and on (especially with Ezekiel!) but I'll stop here for now. I know you can't answer a lot of these questions, especially #10 from Isaiah 66:20-23. But I put these questions here to illustrate the fallacy of reading "Israel" or "Jerusalem" in a literal way and then spiritualizing or shrugging shoulders about the other parts which obviously cannot be allowed a literal reading under the New Covenant. Again, under the New Covenant, we know that shadows are fulfilled: We know that the priests & Levites have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The shadows of the New Moons & Sabbaths were fulfilled in Christ. Christ "tabernacled" in the flesh (John 1:14 in Greek) and referred to Himself as "the temple" that would be torn down in three days and rebuilt. And now all people in whom He dwells are called "The Temple of the Holy Spirit." So we know there is no way that the end of Isaiah (for example) can be read literally and still harmonize with the reality of the New Covenant. If you're going to say that Isaiah 2 or Micah 4 point to literal Jerusalem and literal Mount Zion, then you need to have a sound way of explaining why the "holy mountain" in those passages means literal Jerusalem yet the "holy mountain" at the end of Isaiah will not have literal grain offerings brought to it, nor will nations worship every literal Sabbath & New Moon with literal priests & Levites. The entire system of dispensationalism--any form of dispensationalism--depends on reading Israel's people and land literally in the Old Testament. The dispensationalist (even the partial dispensationalist) cannot explain why one part of a sentence is read literally and the other part is either spiritualized or is completely shelved. But the Bible says in Hebrews 12 (and in other places in the New Testament) that we can come to "Zion" now by simply coming to Christ Jesus. We have our home in the New Jerusalem now simply by being in Christ Jesus because we are seated in heavenly places in Him! (Eph.2:6) All of dispensationalism is looking toward a future fulfillment but the New Testament says it is fulfilled TODAY in Christ Jesus! Look at Isaiah 66:10-11, What is the imagery here? Isn't it a picture of people nursing at a mother's breasts? Is this for a future fulfillment when all nations will drink deeply from the spiritual breasts of literal Jerusalem? Or instead is it what Paul said in Galatians 4:26? Can't you see? The prophecy about "Jerusalem" in Isaiah 66:10-11 has already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ! We are already nursing from the comforting breasts of Jerusalem in Jesus Christ! Peace has not been extended to literal Jerusalem like a river, but in Christ we have been given a peace that passes understanding and which does not go away like the peace that is in the world! Zion already went into labor and produced her children-----2,000 years ago!!!! The "nation" that was brought forth in a day came forth on the day of Pentecost! *********************************************** *********************************************** Of course this feels like "spiritualizing" too many things. But the New Testament supports it because it declares that NOW you are IN ZION and are seated with Christ who is in the New Jerusalem! Not in the future but TODAY! Doesn't this give you deja-vu? Don't you remember how hard it was to see that we were in the Sabbath "today" instead of waiting until Saturday came around? Can't you see that in the same way that dispensationalism sees "the promises to Israel" as being in the future, in the same way they are blinded by an Old Testament veil from seeing the reality of the fulfillment TODAY? "Spiritualizing" things is not wrong at all because the apostles themselves demonstrated it beforehand for us. As Paul declared in Colossians 2:11-12, And he said in Philippians 3:3, Paul took the literal act of "circumcision" and gave it a spiritual interpretation. Rather, he saw it fulfilled according to the Spirit, not according to the literal. In the same way he also referred to Christ as "our passover lamb". All of this shows that Paul had no problem interpreting Old Testament rituals and festivals in a "spiritual" way. He saw them as being fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The author of Hebrews (among other writers) did the same thing with "Zion" and "Jerusalem". All of the promises given to Abraham are applied by the New Testament to every believer in Jesus Christ today! Will the "land" be given/returned eternally to Israel because of God's covenant with them, because of His promise to them? Look at the promises in Genesis 17:7-11, The literal sign of circumcision was a sign of the covenant -- in which God promised the literal land to Abraham's descendents. But the New Testament declares that literal circumcision is no longer necessary. Instead we are now circumcised in Christ and are now heirs of Abraham today! So why is it not possible that the other end of the covenant (the land) could also have a spiritual fulfillment in Christ instead of a literal fulfillment? Colleen, you also never reacted to the comparison of Psalm 95 (in Hebrews 3) with Numbers 14 as both referring obviously to the Sinaitic generation of Israelites not being allowed to enter the promised land. The "rest" in Hebrews 3 and 4 refers not only to "Sabbath rest" but also refers to the rest of a home, a promised land, an inheritance! In Jesus Christ we can proclaim that TODAY you have received your inheritance! But the dispensationalist --even an mild one like yourself-- says that this 'rest' is not yet but is in the future! Just like the Adventists have missed the fulfillment of Sabbath and are still looking forward to the "coming rest" of every Saturday, in the same way dispensationalism is looking to a future "coming rest" but has missed the fulfillment of Zion and Jerusalem and the King who is already ruling from the throne! TODAY the King sits on the throne in Jerusalem--the NEW Jerusalem! TODAY Zion is lifted up! TODAY we are in Zion! TODAY we are Abraham's heirs! TODAY the promise is already fulfilled that the King will reign from Jerusalem! TODAY God's promises to Israel in the Old Testament ARE FULFILLED in Christ! TODAY the faithfulness of God is ALREADY DONE AND FULFILLED in Jesus Christ! TODAY all who believe in Christ HAVE BEEN restored to the "land"! TODAY all who believe in Christ HAVE BEEN raised from the dead! TODAY all who believe in Christ HAVE HAD HIS SPIRIT OF LIFE enter their dead, dry bones! See it! Believe it! Proclaim it! Proclaim "TODAY!" in Jesus Christ! In Jesus TODAY! Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11134 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ramone, I wouldn't spend this much time on this subject if I weren't concerned about those who might be reading. I'm not opposed to understanding the new covenant as entirely fulfilled in Jesus—I think that's a given! But I am concerned with explaining away passages that don't make sense in our paradigm. We have to deal honestly and literally with the words of Scripture, whether they are really understandable or not. For that reason, I'll answer your questions in a couple of posts: Romans 9 to 11 does not mention "land". It does, however, repeat over and over that God's promises and gifts are irrevocable, that He chooses those who are His, and we are not to question. Romans 9:28 quotes Isaiah and applies it in the context of a remnant being saved—and that the remnant wouldn't even be saved if God didn't intervene and sovereignly preserve them:
The context is that God will do what He prophesied and promised. For example, Ezekiel has a long and detailed passage about a temple that has never been built. I asked Gary Inrig about that prophecy as we walked through Jerusalem a couple of years ago. His response fits this verse perfectly: "It will be built because God said it would. I just don't know when." The details are hidden. The promises are certain. 2) Romans 9 to 11 does not talk about Jews being restored to the land. The issue in Romans is not "land" per se, as you say. But when you look at the prophecies in the OT and the prophecies in Revelation, it becomes clear that Christ will reign on earth in a state prior to the new earth and new heavens. Not only that, but the church (composed of Jews and Gentiles) will reign with Him. This reign of Christ is not just for the Jews; the Gentile believers reigning with Him clearly have ownership and authority in the land. This isn't about Jews deserving anything. It's all about God and His sovereign plan and promises. Revelation 20:4-5:
1 Thess 4:14 describes this first resurrection further; all who remain alive will be caught up with those who come to life. Paul further comments on the future of believers reigning with Christ in 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 in the context of of taking this unruly bunch of believers to task for taking one another to court:
Paul is not talking about the world as we know it now. These comments begin to make sense when you read them in juxtaposition with Revelation 20. Clearly the righteous will reign with Christ over the nations...and this is not in the new earth. It's not that we have to try to inhabit "the land". Whether or not Jews have a state isn't even the issue. The issue is that Bible declares the Messiah will reign over the nations—and the OT prophecies state this reign will be from Jerusalem—not because anyone deserves it but simply because it is God's word. Moreover, this reign will be the reign of Jesus assisted by the church. The Seed of David will sit on both a literal and spiritual throne—just as God promised. We don't bring in the kingdom. The Lord Jesus brings in the kingdom—and it is HIS kingdom, not the Jews' kingdom. But we can't say that He won't be fulfilling His promises to Abraham and and David by reigning from Jerusalem. The focus is inside-out, Ramone. It's about the Lord Jesus, not about "Jews". He is faithful to His chosen people, both Jews and Gentiles. We limit God's word when we say that New Covenant reality excludes any of God's sovereign plans and purposes and promises to Jews—or to Gentiles. To dissect out the physical consummation of God's promises because we can't understand HOW is to deny the words God gave His prophets, both NT and OT. 3) The restoration of the land isn't the issue of Romans 9-11. The issue of Romans is that God will again deal with Jews in a time frame that follows the full number of Gentiles coming in. He has already chosen and preserved a remnant, just as He did when Elijah complained to God. They are not assimilated into non-existence; God will deal with them, and Revelation 7 clearly articulates that the 144,000—however we are to identify them—are from the tribes of Israel. It is no less legitimate to read "Israel" and "tribes" literally there than it is to read "tribes" and "apostles" literally in the gates and foundations of the New Jerusalem—and to understand that those are referring to spiritual realities accomplished by literal people of Jewish origin. Romans 9-11 confirms that God's promises and gifts are "irrevocable"—even to Jews. These passages do not give us permission to spiritualize away the existence of Jews. They confirm that God's people and the descendants of Abraham are identified by the Promise, not by genetics; belief, not the law. But Jews still exist, and God is still dealing with them in particular ways separate from Gentiles—and vice versa. 4) The patriarchal roots of the tree in Romans 11 simply refers to the fact that God's tree was founded with the call of Abraham. Of COURSE no believers are broken off that tree! Those broken off disbelieved God's promises and rejected Him. The generation alive when Jesus was on earth are especially guilty of apostasy. Unbelievers are broken off—and now Gentiles are being grafted in. Jews are "hardened in part (Rom 11:25) for a time. The tree is no longer defined exclusively by Jews as it was before the cross. Instead, today Gentiles are the primary people being grafted in, punctuated by the occasional Jew—in contrast to the picture before the cross when Jews were primary with occasional believing Gentiles coming in. The day is coming, however, when the Jews will be "unhardened", and the remnant chosen by grace will be grafted back in. 5) Of course the "breaking off" is the same thing Peter talked about in Acts 3:22-23! It's also the same thing Jesus talked about in His parable of the vineyard and the landowner who gave the vineyard to other people after the caretakers killed his representatives and finally His son. I'll finish in another post. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11139 Registered: 12-2003 |
Number 6 above: Can Zion and Jerusalem in prophecy be the same heavenly place named in Hebrews 12:22-24? Of course, and I believe that in many places, OT prophecy is certainly pointing forward ultimately to our heavenly destination and also to the New Earth. The context of Hebrews 12, though, is this present age when we moved from being under the old covenant to being in the new covenant. We are already seated with Jesus in heavenly places (Eph 2:4-6). But this Hebrews passage is not prophetic. It is not describing life after the resurrection. It is describing NOW. Revelation 20 and, I believe, many of the OT prophecies are describing Jesus reigning over the nations after the righteous have been resurrected but before the wicked. 7) Yes, of course Micah and Isaiah could be describing the same rock Daniel saw striking the image. But it is also possible they are not describing exactly the same event. I see the Isaiah and Micah passages as possibly having a "telescoping" meaning; a near fulfillment and also a far future fulfillment, as many eschatological prophecies have. The problem I have with seeing these prophecies totally fulfilled now by believers and Jesus is that there are places in these prophecies that simply are not realized on earth, either now or at any time since Pentecost. For example, Isaiah 2:4:
This sounds much more like Revelation 20 than it sounds like now. Moreover, it sounds also as if it could be referring even farther into the future: the new earth. Revelation 20 does end, after all, with one last battle. 8) This prophecy, like so many of the OT prophecies, may well have more than one fulfillment. Yes, I believe there will be death during the millennium. Revelation 20 describes "death" being thrown into the Lake of Fire at the end of the millennium before the new heaven and new earth. Jesus' prophecies in Matthew 24 also addressed at least two different times: the destruction of Jerusalem and also the end of the age right before He returns. Jesus made no distinction between the details of the AD 70 event and the still-to-come event. Yet we can look back and see that his prophecy was distinctly addressing what would soon happen when Titus destroyed Jerusalem as well as the far future. 9) See number 8. 10) Isaiah is using the language of the old covenant to describe the reality that had not yet been revealed. For sure Isaiah is describing the true sons of Promise, not only Jews. At the same time, there are aspects of this prophecy that we can't completely explain. The NT tells us that believers now are a kingdom and nation of priests. Priests, however, have the specific job of mediating God's righteousness and will to sinners. The fact that this passage has references to all the shadows of priesthood and Sabbath, it seems to me that it's possible that, again, the prophecy covers not only the New Earth but also the millennium. Taking the millennium seriously and seeing the two resurrections as bracketing it gives a great deal of perspective to the OT prophecies. Finally, Hebrews 4 is not talking about "being home", as you put it. It is talking about entering rest from our work in God's righteousness obtained through faith in the Lord Jesus. We enter that rest TODAY, whenever we place our faith in Him, and we live in it every day. To be sure, the writer of Hebrews is definitely referring to the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, saying they were disobedient and did not enter God's rest. But in Hebrews 4, "rest" is not describing entering the promised land. The comparison in Hebrews 4 is distinctly being contrasted with keeping Sabbath. To be sure, he does also bring in Joshua leading Israel into Canaan, but even then (v. 8), he argues not about "place" or "eternal rest" but "day". Hebrews 4 is explaining Sabbath rest. It is not discussing rest in the Promised Land primarily. In fact, we are NOT at home when we enter God's rest. Even though we come to the heavenly Jerusalem and approach God directly, we are only spiritually saved now. Ephesians 1:13-14 and Romans 8:14-15 explain that the Holy Spirit is our deposit which guarantees what is to come. We are not home until we receive our glorified bodies and are forever with the Lord face-to-face, as 1 Corinthians 13 describes. Right now we are given eternal life, but our bodies are still sinful flesh and die. Salvation is not only or even primarily spiritual. It is both spiritual and physical. Romans 8:18-25 describes the fact that God subjected all creation to decay, and creation is waiting for the "sons of God to be revealed" so it, too, can be released from its bondage to decay. Romans 8:24-25 even says,
God's plan and purpose is not, in the end, only spiritual. He redeems all creation. He created physical reality, and Jesus has a physical body. There is no Scriptural reason to see the OT prophecies as evaporating into spiritual reality only. The cross revealed spiritual reality and ushered in spiritual redemption. Jesus' return will bring with it physical redemption, and it is this promise that all creation is waiting for with the groanings of childbirth. The prophecies certainly have spiritual meanings we can see; Paul taught us to see those as He applied many of them to Gentiles being saved. But the prophecies also have physical meanings. I can't be more specific than the words of Scripture, because those times have not all yet come to be. But it is not contrary to the new covenant to see God being faithful both to the spiritual reality and to the physical reality of the words He gave His prophets. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1992 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks for your replies. I'll have to try to get to them in about a day's time. Really quick, however, I noticed you skipped over Hebrews 12's usage of "Zion" and "Jerusalem". Saying it's not "prophetic" doesn't get away from the fact that it means the "Zion" of God is ultimately not located on earth! (It juxtaposes directly with Galatians 4.) Anyway, I'll try to reply to each part tomorrow. The comment from Gary about Ezekiel is the most seriously problematic, though, and I could easily spend the whole post talking about that because of how it ignores that 1) God is in that future city & temple, 2) literal Levites & priests are making literal sacrifices, and 3) the literal Prince is also making literal sacrifices, and 4) they're all keeping Sabbaths and festivals. Gary's reading is severely inconsistent. I don't know how any former Adventist can fail to be disturbed by it. Later! Blessings, Ramone |
