Let's be reasonable with one another, shall we?

Friday, March 03, 2006

The Lamb is the Light!

Below is an excerpt by J. Vernon McGee from his Revelation studies.

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Revelation 21:22, 23)

God lights the new creation directly by His presence. After the entrance of sin into the old creation, God withdrew His presence, and "darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:2). Then God made use of the physical lights in His universe. He put them up like we put up street lights or lights in our homes. However, in the new creation sin is removed, and He again becomes the source of light. Today the Lord Jesus Christ is the Light of the World in a spiritual sense: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12).

In the new creation, He is the direct physical as well as the spiritual light. In the tabernacle there was the golden lampstand, which is one of the finest pictures of Christ. In the New Jerusalem, He is the golden lampstand. The nations of the world will enter the Holy City as the priests entered the Holy Place in the tabernacle for the purpose of worship. The nations of the earth, as well as Israel, will come to the New Jerusalem as the high priest of old entered the Holy of Holies. Instead of the blood being brought, the Lamb is there in person.

The temple, which supplanted the tabernacle back in the nation Israel, was an earthly enclosure for the shekinah glory. It was a testimony to the presence of God and the presence of sin. Where sin existed, God could be approached only by the ritual of the temple. However, in the New Jerusalem sin is no longer a reality but is like a hideous nightmare, even locked out of the closet of memory. The actual presence of God with the redeemed eliminates the necessity for a temple, although the whole city may be thought of as a temple. In the city of light, God is present and sin is absent; therefore, an edifice of a material substance is no longer necessary, The physical temple was a poor substitute for the presence of God. The New Jerusalem possesses the genuine article – God in person. It is probably the first place where God will make a personal appearance before man. What a glorious prospect this is!

New Jerusalem will be independent of the sun and moon for light and life. What a contrast to the earth, which is utterly dependent upon them. It may be that the sun and moon will even be dependent upon the celestial city for power to transmit light, since the One who is the source of light and life will dwell within the city. Neither will light be furnished by the New Jerusalem Light and Power Company. The One who is light will be there, and the effulgence of His glory will be manifested in the New Jerusalem unhindered.

From Edited Messages on Revelation by J. Vernon McGee

38 Comments:

  • Thanks for posting that, Rose~.

    I am glad to see that he does not imply that the sun and moon will cease to exist, which would be contrary to Scripture.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/03/2006 11:27 AM  

  • Excellent thoughts, J Vernon.

    I'm going to have my kids read this.

    I never heard the 'darkness upon the face of the deep' being a result of Satan's fall, which he seems to be getting at.

    I'll have to ponder all this :)

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 3/03/2006 11:49 AM  

  • So Vernon McGee believed in the Gap theory, did he?

    A lot of older Dispensationalists did- just read the first page of your Scofield Bible.

    I think Answers in Genesis probably have some helpful material refuting the Gap theory.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/03/2006 3:49 PM  

  • That is a great prospect.

    I agree with Jodie about the darkeness part, but Mcgee tends to be pretty good.

    Good Post,

    Doug

    By Blogger Doug E., at 3/03/2006 3:50 PM  

  • dsypraxic,

    Good source to point to. The gap theory seems to have it's gaps. :-)

    Doug

    By Blogger Doug E., at 3/03/2006 3:52 PM  

  • I think I missed that day of the show. I have been following it somewhat. I like him!

    By Blogger Dorothy, at 3/03/2006 4:18 PM  

  • I've got my ticket punched, I'm just "waitin' for the train to come..."

    By Blogger Jeff H, at 3/03/2006 4:29 PM  

  • You're right Matthew, many respectable teachers held to the gap theory. John has mentioned this to me about McGee since I have known him. That would be his main dispute with McGee, I think.

    Arnold Fructenbaum holds to the gap theory, too, but not for dinosaur space, just to allow for the fall of Satan. J. Vernon also held it to allow for the fall of Satan, not for dinosaur space.

    I don't know that it sounds right to me altogether, but I don't know how to refute it.

    Did you figure that out about him holding the gap theory just by reading this short article?

    Jodie,
    Ponder away! You have such a sharp mind.

    Doug,
    Yes, I get really excited when reading about the new Jerusalem and the way things will be when we get past this present age. It is thrilling to think of! You live kind of near Thru the Bible Headquarters, do you not? I went and visited it once when I was there in Claremont to see my sister. That was before he died, but I did not get to meet him.

    Dorothy,
    I am glad you listen to J. Vernon! He is a great teacher and will help you greatly! You should consider getting his edited messages on the bible and reading them. I have found them to be very helpful.

    Jeff,
    Chugga chugga choo choo!

    Are you familiar with McGee? He always says that he is driving a Bible Bus and says "get on board the Bible Bus as we go to ...(whatever book he is covering)"

    By Blogger Rose~, at 3/03/2006 5:18 PM  

  • Yes. Only a Gap theorist woul say that the darkness was cos of Lucifer.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/03/2006 5:30 PM  

  • It's hard to beat McGee.

    By Blogger Jonathan Moorhead, at 3/03/2006 6:48 PM  

  • I bet some of the AIG-friendly scientists might say that because time is moving at different speeds at different parts of the universe(!) that there would have been ample time for Satan to exist as the worship-leader (?) and then to fall after creation week.

    I've heard very hard science types discuss time in a very interesting way in AIG DVDs.

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 3/03/2006 7:50 PM  

  • But God did say the creation was good after He had finished it?

    I suppose angels are not mentioned as part of the creation week, so perhaps Lucifer's fall was not included in that evaluation.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/04/2006 6:44 AM  

  • Hi, Rose~

    Good Post. Good debate topic too!

    brother John

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 3/04/2006 12:19 PM  

  • Hi Jonathan,
    Welcome back to Texas!

    HK,
    We like AIG and yes, it is very interesting.


    Matthew,
    Intersting question. What do you think?

    J. Wendell!
    That is fun to recieve a comment from you when you are at work. You must be on break in someone's office somewhere. Very funny!

    By Blogger Rose~, at 3/04/2006 3:48 PM  

  • Thanks for posting that,rose~

    mark

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/04/2006 6:38 PM  

  • Rose,

    Unlike your husband, I waited to get home from work to comment. Yes I am covered with chromic acid,phosphoric acid and copper sulfate. And that is on a clean day!

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/04/2006 8:17 PM  

  • I think we may be in agreement on the fall of Satan timing...

    After creation week
    ~~~~
    before Adam's Fall

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 3/04/2006 9:01 PM  

  • Yes, I agree with Jodie. Those who see a Gap need to come up with some more reasons.

    However, I am afraid I have not read 'Earth's Earliest Ages' by G.H. Pember, so maybe I am ignorant.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/05/2006 9:21 AM  

  • Rose,

    Here is a thought:

    What if Satan's fall happened when he tempted Eve? This question was once raised by my pastor on another blog, so I can't take credit for it...Just a thought.

    Tainted

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/05/2006 1:59 PM  

  • Mark, if you take Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 to have reference to Satan (a view that trendy scholars seem to reject), Satan fell morally in heaven due to pride.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/05/2006 2:55 PM  

  • Hi Rose!!

    Hope you are having a nice Sunday!

    Matthew, I do look at Is.14 and Ez.28 as to have reference to Satan. What if his temptation of Eve was his way of "exalting his throne above God"?

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/05/2006 4:10 PM  

  • Possibly, but presumably he fell at the point that he harboured that desire rather than when he acted upon it.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/05/2006 4:17 PM  

  • Hi Rose!!!

    Once again the power of your blog has rocked blogdom with yet another thought provoking post. Oh, the power of RR! I shutter at the thought of commenting here.

    Matthew, Look at Is.14:12..."You who weakened the nations!". Then verse 13 begins with the word "For"...

    Rose,I enjoy your blog much.

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/05/2006 4:32 PM  

  • Isaiah 14 also has reference to future events as well as past. Remember, it concerns the defeat of Satan.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/05/2006 4:58 PM  

  • Hi Rose!!!!

    Please don't boot me out of RR for carrying on a dicussion with Matthew. I know that since I am one of those "tainted" guys and not part of the "inner circle" that could happen. :-) I like your new avatar. Hope you enjoyed church today.

    Okay Matthew, where were we?... O yes, Is. 14...Hmmm. good points you make. Thank you.

    Rose, have a good week. You too Matthew!

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/05/2006 5:12 PM  

  • Thanks, Mark.

    Inner circle?

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/05/2006 5:33 PM  

  • Hi Rose!!!!!

    Wasn't it a nice sunny day today? JVM was quite a teacher. Who could not love him?!

    Yes, Matthew, inner circle. You know, those who can get away with talking to others here without first addressing Rose. :-) I'M JUST JOKING HERE, ROSE. Please have mercy on me, please. I do not joke well.

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/05/2006 5:51 PM  

  • Hey guys!
    Go ahead. You are all part of the "inner circle!"
    (you are funny, Mark!)
    I would have joined in but I have had a very busy day. I just got in from visiting a nephew in the hospital. I will blog about it later as I wish for all of the "inner circle" to pray for him.
    You joke well, ECW!

    Now I have to make dinner and then get kids ready for school tomorrow (homework, etc...)
    Make yourselves at home!

    By Blogger Rose~, at 3/05/2006 6:26 PM  

  • Hi Rose!!!!!!

    I thought that since you were not responding that perhaps the rapture had taken place, leaving us "tainted" folk behind. Left Behind...Hmmm...

    tainted ecw

    PS-will pray for your nephew

    By Blogger bluecollar, at 3/05/2006 7:30 PM  

  • Hey all. Great discussion going here. Let me say (as a moderate dispensationalist) that I do not give credence to the gap theory. It simply isn't in the Bible.

    As far as the fall of Satan, I too believe it was after Creation week. We often read the second and third chapters of Genesis as if they happened in immediate or rapid succession, but the fact is, the Bible does not tell us how much time elapsed over that narrative. It could easily have been years, perhaps even over a hundred.

    This would allow ample time for Satan's fall to occur between Creation and the Fall.

    By Blogger Gordon Cloud, at 3/05/2006 8:35 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/06/2006 4:18 AM  

  • Good morning, Rose.

    Gordon, I am actually inclined to think that Eve was pregnant with a daughter at the time of the Fall (Cain was the first son, not necessarilly the first child). Just one of my pet theories.

    However, Adam and Eve must have had some big fertility problems if a hundred years managed to lapse between creation and fall.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/06/2006 4:20 AM  

  • (That has been a question for me too, Matthew. Why did they take so long to have Cain?? Isn't there evidence for this lag?)

    And about your theory, would that daughter have been fallen?

    I hope you elaborate.

    But if you're right I think that may key into the Nephilim...

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 3/06/2006 8:38 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/07/2006 5:08 AM  

  • Jodie, no idea what the Nephilim have to do with it. Are you suggesting the Serpent Seed theory? I certainly do not agree with that.

    The Bible does not say that Cain was the first child, only the first son, it is possible that a daughter was born first, possibly Mrs. Cain.

    As Adam and Eve had at least a couple of days to consummate their union and they would have been at the height of fertility, it seems reasonable to me that Eve was preganant with a daughter at the time of the Fall, which must have occurred very soon after the creation.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/07/2006 5:09 AM  

  • Hi Rose and Matthew,

    Sorry for the lag on this :)

    I hadn't meant to say Cain was the first born though that has generally been my assumption.

    I’ve pictured the fall of Adam being passed on almost physically since then through his descendants. But obviously that's not right. He was more the representative who caused the human race to be condemned, including Eve and any daughters that were born pre-Fall.

    About the nephilim. I think the very earliest people were perfect genetically and not only lived longer but were literally taller.

    Cain and his city, I suspect, had more than its share of these famous and impressive people.

    The people of Cain’s city weren't sons of God, but were sons of men in the sense that they were of the way of Cain and rejected the Creator and His worship.

    The descendants of Seth (who were the sons of God) should not have intermarried with these people because they would surely have resisted proper worship, the practice of calling on the name of the Lord. The blending of cultures that occurred would have over time thoroughly polluted God's people.

    In far later generations, at the time of Joshua, nations who were of great stature may have been, by way of a sort of international urban legend, associated with the ‘way of Cain’, even though they were then all descendents of Seth and Noah. I think they may have been thought of as the dangerous Nephilim.

    Whew... I see it this way anyway...
    not as cool as that funny website Matthew enjoys :)

    Jodie :)

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 3/11/2006 7:13 PM  

  • Jodie, so you take the view that the Nephilim are the mixed descendants of Seth and Cain?

    A popular view among historic commentaries. I held that view at one time. I do not find it terribly convincing, however. The biggest problem is justifying that interpretation of the term 'Sons of God' as juxtaposed with 'daughters of men'.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 3/12/2006 9:57 AM  

  • Hi Matthew,

    No, I don't take that view, I'm not even familiar with it.

    Haven't read into this but...

    I think the Nephilim were what the Israelites, irrationally, were afraid of, tall people who they connected (again irrationally) with Cain's descendents.

    I think there actually were people who lived longer and enjoyed greater stature because they were closer to Adam and Eve's better genetics, or for whatever reason ages were so long before Abraham's days.

    And this was the fodder for the urban legend that influenced the decision not to take the land in Numbers 13-14.

    Lord bless,

    Jodie

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 3/25/2006 6:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

Who Links Here