The Many Purposes of God in the Work of Christ
When a person comes into a relationship with Christ, it is an amazing, wonderful and important event. Some people may find it more dramatic than others. My own experience of coming to Christ was realizing that God created me and actually loved me and had good plans for me that I not go to hell which I surely deserved. This in itself was revolutionary, I, having been inundated with the irrelevance of my life as presented by the evolutionary philosophy dancing around in my head. Looking at others around me, they all became more “precious” in my eyes... as I realized they had significance to our Creator as well.
Reading the Scriptures, we see so much about this subject of individual salvation. I do recognize it is front-and-center in a lot of the writings of the Scripture. I think it is easy to start to imagine this as the subject of almost every scripture. However, to do this is a mistake. The Bible is about a lot of things, not just the salvation of individual sinners. The Bible is about the Glory of God. God may glorify Himself in many ways. The creation of the world brought glory to God... and this was before man was on the scene. The worldwide flood glorified God… and it brought condemnation to man, not salvation. We need to find what the authors of the Scripture (and the Lord who moved their hands) were saying in each instance that we read God’s Word... and not jump to our own perception of how it might relate to us or other individuals. It could relate specifically to other purposes of God besides those regarding the salvation of "the elect" (to use my Reformed friends' phraseology). What is the author talking about, what is he trying to say? I believe this is called looking for the authorial intent.
Let's jar ourselves out of our limited view of God’s purposes.
Christ’s death on the cross and what it accomplished is so much more vast in significance than what we imagine.
50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. (Matthew 27)I can think of at least four things that Christ’s death did. If you continue to read this post, you will want to refer back to this numbered list:
Let's hone in on #2 for the rest of this post.1. Made the way for the whole creation to be redeemed and eventually restored.
2. Made the way for Israel, as a nation, to receive the promises that God had made to them. Christ’s death removed their corporate sin and fulfilled God’s justice.
3. Made the way for all people to be able to come to Him by faith and receive the life of God within them, by removing sin as a barrier between God and man. This life makes it so we can be compatible with God and not burn up in His presence. It would not be possible to receive eternal life if sin were still an issue.
4. Made the way for those who receive that life to become conformed to the image of Him who died and was raised in a) sanctification and b) glorification.
I have been camping on Isaiah 53 for a few days and I think that the main point of that passage has to do with this particular aspect of the work of Christ. He laid down his life and made Himself an offering for the corporate sins of the people of Israel. His death is part of His covenantal promise to this nation. He will make a New Covenant with them, based on His shed blood.
Isaiah 53 says of Israel: 3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
The bolded portions of that scripture are obviously about Israel, the nation, and I believe the non-bolded areas where the plural pronoun is used are also speaking of the nation Israel. He was despised by the nation of Israel; they said He was crazy (smitten of God), yet He took the penalty that made it OK for God to be at peace with them, eventually (the chastisement of our peace). As a nation, the people of Israel rejected the Messiah, but He removed this sin from their account. The nation has been reaping the consequences of the sin of rejecting their Messiah, but that sin will not prohibit God from doing what He says by bringing them to their land and setting up His earthly Kingdom there with them. He is able to do this because “he was stricken for the transgression of my people…” Isaiah 53:8. the Messaih fulfilled the justice of God for the nation as the high priest said (and didn't even realize it) in John 11:50.
Have a look at Isaiah 52-54 and see for yourselves if God is not specifically talking about the nation of Israel and the provision that He is making for them. Some say that ‘my people’ in Isaiah 53:8 is talking about the elect of all time, all the redeemed. They proffer that when the passage says that He was smitten for the transgression of “my people” that somehow this means he wasn’t smitten for the transgression of any other people. Therefore, for this view, “my people” has to be a larger group than just the nation of Israel, because they know that He, at least, also died for the Gentiles who are saved.
I propose that when the passage says He was smitten for the transgression of “my people” that He is talking about #2 above.
(God refers to the nation of Israel as His people in many places. Here are just two samples: Joel 2:18 and John 1:11.)
God will be just in opening the floodgates of His mercy and the fountain spoken of in Zech 12:9- 13:1. This is just one aspect of what Christ did on the cross, dying for the nation of Israel (not every individual in the nation, but as a corporate nation. In order to be individually saved, each Isarelite has to receive eternal life, and we know this is only done by individual faith in the Messiah.)
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not trying to take Isaiah 53 away from the Gentiles who love the Messiah. We are beneficiaries of what Christ has done as well. Isaiah 53 describes the Suffering Servant. As He suffered, He did many things. What He did for us, is similar to what He did for the corporate nation of Israel – he took away our sins!!! He was bruised for our iniquities as individuals as well. He took away of the sin of the world, and made available the gift of eternal life!!
Christ's death for purpose #2, I believe, is the main emphasis of Isaiah 53. However, He died for purpose #3 as well, which I, as a person, am a beneficiary of, and so are you. I pray that you are also a beneficiary of #4, having received the free gift of eternal life that the Messiah, Jesus, the only Savior, offers.
(upcoming posts will be about #3) :~)
Labels: atonement
posted by Rose~ at 11:23 AM
67 Comments:
Rose,
What would you say the nation of Israel's primary role was in God's unfolding plan of salvation?
By
Anonymous, at 2/16/2009 8:14 PM
I thought that was an excellent post Rose. We always seek to apply certain beautiful verses, whether OT or NT, to ourselves; and though it could be true that the principles of many verses can be applied to us, we lose the intent of their actual meaning. I totally agree with your views on Isaiah 53.
To be able to learn of the judicial workings of God through events like the Flood, the establishment of Israel, various OT life stories, etc. would give us greater confidence in how God has been working for His glory throughout history. That means that we're not simply trying to apply everything to ourselves, and eventually coming unstuck when such applications fail to make sense.
By no means do I understand, let alone am I able to articulate, God's reasons for using Israel the way He has and will. I've been taught many impressive truths about that nation, one truth being that God's purpose for creating earth was to rule on it. When man fell there needed to be a kingdom which could represent His holiness, His justice and His glory - a nation that would stand in contrast to the fallen sinful nations around it. Israel was such a nation.
And though they also fell, the Messiah came from them. And while He remains alive (as He ever will do) then Israel's hope of ruling as earth's Kingdom remains alive also. They have the King, they now just need 'a people'.
Most of the Bible's teaching on the Millenial Kingdom comes from the OT, and thus we should still view that Kingdom primarily through the eyes of the nation that God used to teach its future reality.
The great thing for us, of course, as the Church, is that the Jewish King who will rule in that Kingdom is also our Head. So there must be a special role for us then too!
But, to digress, I have often found it really helpful to my study of the OT to see if there is something that I can apply to the Lord Jesus - a 'type' or otherwise. Though even this can often be pushed too far (eg. we could read too much into measurements of the Tabernacle and its contents) I have found that there is a wealth of 'untapped' truths, stories and passages that illustrate what God would do for earth, for mankind, and - most of all - for God's glory, through the Man Christ Jesus.
God bless
Trev
(PS. I often read your blogs and enjoy the spirit as much as the content - I'm just not very good at posting my own thoughts).
By
Unknown, at 2/17/2009 7:03 AM
Hello Rose,
I hope things are well with you and yours.
I would like to point out the phraseology "the elect" that we reformed use comes from directly from the Bible just like the words predestined and chosen. The words "elect" and "election" appear 18 times in the ESV.
Thanks.
Wayne
By
jazzycat, at 2/17/2009 9:40 AM
Hi Rose.
Normally we would group all that Paul lists in Ephesians 6:12 under the heading "fallen angels" (principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this age, and spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places). This is a list of created beings - and to be precise, a list of created beings which are -not- going to be restored or redeemed ever. Christ did not die for Satan and his hosts, He did not redeem them, He will not restore them.
Yet if your point #1 is accurate, then when you say that ([Christ] ...made the way for the whole creation to be redeemed and eventually restored), you are saying that Christ is eventually going to redeem Satan and his hosts, and that He died for them also.
Because I am pretty sure that you don't really believe the inescapable conclusion your supposition demands, perhaps you will restate #1 in such a way as to reflect how Christ only made the way for a particular part of creation to be redeemed and (eventually) restored?
As a bonus, you could qualify why you limit Christ's work that way, and show that this limiting of Christ's work in no way limits His glory, or purpose.
I have much to say about the rest, but as much of what I am going to discuss will likely borrow from your restatement of #1, I can't really begin yet, because I cannot borrow your words to present a case until after you provide them.
Thanks in advance. ;)
By
Daniel, at 2/17/2009 11:26 AM
When I speak of the "whole creation" Daniel, I mean it in the sense that, for example, Romans 8:22 is using it. I would think this phrase is hearkening to that which is not cognizant of it's own will, but I am not certain on the technicality of it.
By
Rose~, at 2/17/2009 11:34 AM
Bobby,
Specifically, they delivered to us the oracles of God (Rom 3:1-3) which contain much info about the Lord (including, but not limited to, info about the unfolding plan of salvation). They also were also the vehicle through which the Messiah would be born, the one in whom that salvation is.
Bobby, Do you think Israel will be redeemed and go on as a nation in the Millenial Kingdom?
By
Rose~, at 2/17/2009 11:40 AM
Trevor,
Thank you so much for commenting. I think it was a good comment! I grasp your thoughts well and I appreciate the encouragement.
My husband and I like to do what you also do in the study of the OT.
By
Rose~, at 2/17/2009 11:42 AM
Hi Jazzycat,
We are fine; thanks for asking!
I know that the Reformed did not make up that word, :~)
When I said "to use my Reformed friends' phraseology I was referring to the way you use the word and your concept of "the elct" as it relates to God's "overarching purpose" to "save the elect," as exemplified in Covenant theolgy's "Covenant of Grace".
By
Rose~, at 2/17/2009 11:47 AM
Hi Rose, If I understand you correctly, what you are saying then is that when Paul writes "whole creation" in Romans 8:22, you recognize that Paul doesn't actually mean all of creation, but assumes only a particular portion of creation? Correct?
It would help me, I think, if you would identify (from scripture), how you determine what is [1] included in, and [2] what is excluded from, the notion of the "whole creation" Romans 8:22?
On a similar note, do you think it is right to compare the annihilation of this creation, and subsequent new creation to follow with the redemption of God's people? It strikes me that some part of God's people will survive this creation and be united with the next, but nothing of the physical universe will survive it, for this present creation will pass away entirely, and a new creation established in its stead. Not a "redemption" to be equated with or compared to the redemption of God's people - for such a formula however pleasant in poetry, is flawed in practice.
Or so I imagine.
On a different note, I hope your time is not so taxing lately as it has been.
By
Daniel, at 2/17/2009 1:43 PM
Rose,
Thanks. I knew what you meant and was just making that point for all that may visit your blog. BTW, I do not consider myself in the covenant theology camp. New Covenant theology would fit me much better.
wayne
By
jazzycat, at 2/17/2009 2:16 PM
Rose,
I think you need to talk about how you see the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants relating. What is the scope of the Abrahamic Cov. (universal)? How does the New Covenant fulfill or implement the intention of the Abrahamic? And what role, instrumentally and provisionally did the Mosaic play in mediating the reality that the New Covenant brought about as was framed by the Abrahamic (see Gal 3--4?
I think how you answer the questions will help clarify how you approach the issue presented in Is 53. And for my two cents, I really cannot agree with your approach :-). If the point of Israel (and I'll have to dig up some passages later, like from Numbers and Deut.) was to mediate the Savior of the nations to the nations; then once they did that (Gal 4) were they not superseded by "true Israel" (Mt 2 and Hos 11:1 Christ identified in corporate solidarity with the nation of Israel as Israel)? Was the promise given made with "many seed[s]" or with "one seed" (Gal 3)? I would argue the latter. Did ethnic Israel ever fulfill "their end" of the deal (relative to the Mosaic Cov. or even the Davidic)? No! Jesus did, and all the Law was intended for was not only to condemn the Jews (and hold them under sin); but also the whole world (Jew and Gentile alike cf. Rom 2:11ff).
It is interesting, your view actually has an qualified "limited atonement" embedded in it. Remember, in the past, my post on Deconstructing Classic Dispensationalism Through the Incarnation, this is exactly what that post was intending to undercut. I said in part:
. . . if we follow Classic Dispensationalism’s two peoples paradigm, we follow the Nestorian Heresy. We split Jesus into two people, one “divine” (i.e. God’s Heavenly people, the Jews), and one “earthly” (e.g. God’s earthly people, the Church). Furthermore, in this view, the incarnation does not allow for an accounting of how “all humanity” can be represented by Christ; since His Jewishness is limited to the Jewish nation, and not encompassing all humanity. This is contrary to the intentions of Gen. 3:15, the Abrahamic Covenant, . . .
This is still the problem that I see with your perspective here. The point is, is that the "humanity" of Christ (according to your view) would have to be "split" (a Jewish side and a Gentile side) --- but He is not, He is humanity (in general --- universal). I am using this as an analogy, Rose. While Jesus was indeed the "Jewish Man from Nazareth," and this was the vehicle through which He was mediated to the nations; His Jewishness was, and continues to be, "instrumental" for us (Jew and Gentile alike). What this illustrates, for me, is that "national identity" is not what is at stake; instead humanities' identity in relation to the LORD is. And more, He indeed is **The Jew** and the whole world is represented through Him (Heb 7:25). So while His "Jewishness" is the vehicle of mediation (and the ethnic, as far as inclusion, is superseded by "His Person"); we can never have Him apart from His "Jewishness" (and the whole framework provided under the Old Cov.), thus "all nations," in this sense can be said to be a "Son of Abraham" (remember the song "Father Abraham" ;-) --- because Jesus is that "promised seed" of Abraham. It seems like your view would require their to be "many seeds."
Do I see a hope for "national Israel?" Yes it is the same hope I see for all of us; salvation through the "seed" of Abraham (Gal. 3). Do I see ethnic Israel going on as a "nation" into the millennium --- argh why these tough ones Rose? I think Rom. 9--11 requires that we do see a hope for a "remnant of ethnic Jews" being saved in the "end" (and many are even now). As far as a "literal millennium," Rose, well if you've read my blog at all (as of the last year or so) you know that this has been a point of struggle for me (I've been going back and forth on this). Either way, yes I do see ethnic Jews going into the "Land" along with the rest of the nations under Christ's/David's reign (in fact I see us --- through the Gospel --- under David's reign "now" and of course "not yet" ;-). The referent is what is under consideration for me (I like the idea of the "Land" fulfillment to be found in Rev. 21--22, and I think Ez. 36--48 follows this line of thought well, set beside Rev. 17--21). Let me continue to think on this part of it, Rose!
Sorry for the length, Rose . . . I have a whole bunch more to say; but I'll save it ;-).
By
Anonymous, at 2/17/2009 5:12 PM
I haven't read any of the comments yet, cuz I have your post still fresh in my mind.
I loved it. I love the way that you are thinking. It is so fresh. And it is making distinctions.
So many people wish to equate things that ought not to be equated. They do not follow the hermeneutical rules of affirmation and non-contradiction.
I see what you are saying, and I agree. God loved his people Israel. This is the most evident and yet at the same time the most puzzling of things in the Bible. In God's love, He made every provision for them, and this included Christ's death for sin.
Some Scriptures came to my head, not necessarily directly corresponding to this post
Rom 15:8
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,
NKJV
Rom 11:28-29
concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable
NKJV
Rom 9:3-5
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
NKJV
Have a good day, Rose!
your free grace friend,
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 2/18/2009 12:34 AM
BTW,
I think that #1 is just fine as stated.
1) Made the way for the whole creation to be redeemed and eventually restored.
It is plainly legitimate to speak of someone's store that has been burnt to the ground, nothing surviving, to be redeemed and restored, when it is rebuilt.
"The store" would then be a type of synecdoche for "the business," which would be both redeemed and restored upon it being rebuilt and opened again for the initiation of new transaction.
*Synecdoche is a figure of speech by which one word receives something from another which is internally associated with it by the connection of two ideas.
The creation will indeed "be freed from the slavery of corruption" Ro 8:22 (redeemed).
The creation is a figure for the physicalities of the universe, and will indeed be restored: "Nevertheless, we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells" 2 Pet 3:13
Language is a beautiful and flexible vehicle for communication. It is often polymorphous, fluid, and poetical.
Not blaming anyone here: It is a shame when men and women cause the written and spoken word to pass through the narrow neck of their hourglass, wooden thinking. Language is rich in expression, that can expand, and morph, to meet the needs of particular articulations of thought.
Just my thoughts.
Hi Rose!
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 2/18/2009 1:09 AM
I must make a correction.
I said "God loved His people Israel"
This is a truth, but I would rather phrase it:
"God loves His people Israel"
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 2/18/2009 1:11 AM
Excellent post, Rose.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/18/2009 6:44 AM
Hi Rose,
I can't get into this debate at the moment.
However, here is a thought that is similar in nature, or (at least) related.
In Matthew
22:43, the Lord Jesus finished of a parable with these words:
" Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
Who do you think that this new "nation" is? Why are those who will be blessed identified as a nation?
I haven't really developed anty thoughts of my own on this one. But it is worth looking at.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/18/2009 9:13 AM
Colin, many Premillennialists hold that this 'nation' refers to a future generation of Israel.
As a generation, the generation of our Lord's day constituted the whole nation of Israel at that time.
God Bless
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/18/2009 10:25 AM
Talking about my generation, just because we get around.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/18/2009 10:25 AM
I would want to explore the "you" of Mt 22:43
By
Antonio, at 2/18/2009 11:34 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Antonio, at 2/18/2009 11:34 AM
Good Mourning Rose
To make a New Covenant with someone there had to be an Old Covenant and we know that the Old Covenent was never with the Church but with the house of Israel. Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-“not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a “HUSBAND” to them, says the Lord.
The nation Israel is God’s wife, Hosea speaks of when she will call God her husband again in that day (Hosea 2:16). Jesus came to the nation Israel to set up His kingdom but they did not receive Him. He told his disciples to only go to the lost sheep of Israel (Mat 15:24). Jesus said He would not come again until they said blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, He was speaking here to the house of Israel (Mat 23:37-39).
Israel has been set aside as a nation until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled (Rom 11:25), then all Israel will be saved, that generation of Jews at the end of the tribulation will receive her King. They will receive their King which means they will say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” This will happen at the end of the seven year tribulation, they will see Him whom they pierced. Jesus speaks of the tribulation in Matt 24 where He will be dealing with the house of Israel again because the Church is caught up (1 Thess 13-18). There is a rebuilt temple during that time and they will be keeping the law. Jesus Himself calls the place the abomination of desolation takes place is in the “holy place” (Matt 24:15,20). Paul tells us in 2 Thess 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the “TEMPLE OF GOD” showing himself he is God. Folks that is because the Church the temple of God the Lambs bride is GONE FROM THE EARTH.
Alvin :)
By
alvin, at 2/20/2009 5:30 AM
"Folks that is because the Church the temple of God the Lambs bride is GONE FROM THE EARTH."
Where does it say the church is gone from the earth?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/20/2009 6:57 AM
Roses # 2 concerning how you see the promises to the nation Israel which concerns the end times is I believe like a small window at the end of your house that looks into your beliefs.
The Barna poll showed that 70% of Evangelicals believe you’re saved by faith and works to get to heaven.
If I was a betting man I would bet that the majority of those people understand Matthew 24:13 “But he who endures to the end will be saved.” As getting into heaven.
If one sees that Scripture that way it’s pretty much impossible to believe that at the moment of faith in Jesus for eternal life you’ve passed from death to life and will never perish, or come into a judgement that will determine your eternal destiny.
If we look at the context there we will find that “the end” is used four times ( Matthew 24:3,6,13,14) and is talking about the end of the age. That is the end of the Tribulation, Daniel’s seventy weeks.
Matt 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and the end of the age?”
Note: What better place to talk about His return then the Mount of Olives the very spot He will come down to earth (Zech 14:4 also vs.16-21 speaks of the Millennium).
Matt 24:6 “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Matt 24:13 “But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
Matt 24:14 “And this gospel (of the Kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Note: That will be the same message that John the baptist was proclaiming, the gospel of the Kingdom. But this time the nation Israel will say blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. And the ones who endure to the end of the Tribulation will go into the Millennium Kingdom. During that time Satan is held in the bottomless pit but will be released one last time and many of the children will rebel against God and follow Satan (Rev 20:7-10).
Also Jesus said in Matthew 24:21,22 speaking of the last three and half years which is called the great tribulation “ And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved.
So in Matt 24:13 is speaking of physical deliverance, if those days had not been shortened there would be no one to go into the Millennial Kingdom in physical bodies and have children.
God’s promises to the nation Israel is as sure as the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars.
Jeremiah 31:35-36
Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And it’s waves roar (The Lord of Hosts is His name):
”If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the Lord,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
This is the same Nation that God made the Old Covenant with Jer 31:31,32
Alvin :)
By
alvin, at 2/20/2009 7:43 AM
"Folks that is because the Church the temple of God the Lambs bride is GONE FROM THE EARTH."
Matthew asked:
Where does it say the church is gone from the earth?
Jesus in Matthew 24:37-39 warns that His coming will be like the days of Noah, before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of man be.
Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken (paralambano, speaks of taken along with) and the other left.
“Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.
“Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.
Matthew 24:40 When it say’s “Then” it is speaking of the Church being caught up. Jesus is an antitype (1 Peter 3:20,21) of the ark, Noah was saved from God’s judgment by the ark. All who are in Christ the Church will not experience God’s judgement that is poured out on the world. Speaking to the church the body of Christ: ( 1 Thess 4:13-5:1-8,9,10). Peter also heard Jesus words concerning the flood and Jesus coming as a thief in the night relating to Matthew 24:37-39,43 thief) and spoke about it here (2 Peter 3:3-6 flood vs.10 thief).
Peter knew the coming (parousia) was linked to the flood, surprise!
Alvin :)
good~night
By
alvin, at 2/20/2009 8:29 AM
I am sorry to have left the conversation for two days like this. My busy-ness sort of overtook me. Work family, closet organizer installation project, sick husband...
2 year old... always...
Let me see if I can hit on a few of the responses directed my way. I hope no one thinks me rude to have disappeared like that.
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 8:57 AM
Daniel, you ask me to tell you what I think is included in, and excluded from, the notion of "whole creation". I have to say, I honestly don't know. I am not sure how that really matters anyways. Would you not stipulate to the fact that Christ's death did something to secure the lifting of the curse that came upon the creation because of the failure of the first Adam, He being the last Adam?
If so, my point #1 stands, albeit a little fuzzy about the details. That's OK with me that I don't understand what all is included and exactly what it means that He is redeeming the creation. I think what Antonio bears consideration in regards to the re-creating of the heavens and the earth. Either way, I know Christ's conquering death affects His ability to make this happen, I am sure of it, even if I can't find the Scriptural passages right now. That's what I was talking about in #1. God bless.
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 9:41 AM
Wayne,
I am sort of familiar with that - my brother and a couple of my friends are into John Reseinger's and Steve Lehrer's writings. You woldn't run with the "Covenant of works" and the "Covenant of Grace" as legit, then, if I am not mistaken.
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 9:56 AM
Hi, Rose.
I have no deep theological insights to add, but enjoyed reading the post and the four listed explanations.
Thanks.
By
Joe, at 2/20/2009 9:56 AM
Bobby,
Yes, I remember you were an Ammillennialist for about a week there last year. I think I wrote a comment on your blog, saying "another one bites the dust" (or at least I thought about it). heehee :~)
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 9:57 AM
I gotta come back to yours and the rest of the comments later.
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 9:58 AM
Hi Joe!!!!
Good to see you and thanks for visiting! I hope you are well.
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 9:58 AM
Bobby,
One quick thought:
and Daniel, too because I think he brought this up in the other thread, asking about "one people of God."
You seem to dislike the idea of more than one people of God.
I wonder what you do with the passages where God says "my people" referring to national Israel. This is talking about a group consisting of believers and unbelievers when it is used in the OT. Even in the NT, John says in chapter one of the gospel:
"11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him."
This is the earthly people (out of which comes the Israel of God) but it is called his "own," his "people."
What do you do with this, just curious. Surely we can't say that every time the phrase "my people" referring to Israel, in the OT, is talking about only the believers of that nation, the "true Israel" can we? The phrase is used of good and bad relating to them, believers and unbelievers within the camp of "my people."
I would love your specific thoughts on that if you would, both Bobby and/or Daniel.
Or anybody else! thanks!!!!!
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 1:39 PM
Rose, last comment first...
You will note that only one member of the Trinity was born to a race of people on earth. Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit, but only God, our Lord Jesus Christ.
I mention that because when we speak of God the Father's "own people" we cannot mean that race into which an incarnation of God the Father was born, since (obviously) God the Father was not born.
Not so with our Lord and Savior, God the Son. He was born into a family, a member of the Jewish nation.
I think John is referring to that specific aspect of the incarnation - the race into which the Christ was born. The Jews rejected their Messiah, I don't think anyone is going to come up with a sober argument against that - but I hasten to add, this same aspect that is appropriate for the incarnate Christ is quite inappropriate as a descriptor of God the Father.
In other words, I regard it as something of a non sequitur, to equate this passage which refers to aspects of the incarnation with passages which can not share that aspect.
Does that make sense?
By
Daniel, at 2/20/2009 8:01 PM
Rose, you ask, Would you not stipulate to the fact that Christ's death did something to secure the lifting of the curse that came upon the creation because of the failure of the first Adam, He being the last Adam?
I don't know if stipulate was the word you meant to use there... perhaps you mean ...concede?
I am going to assume you meant something like that, so, yes, I would agree that creation has been cursed, and that it will remain cursed until judgment day after which it will melt with fervant heat, and be replaced by a new creation.
But I wouldn't equate this sort of "redemption" with the redemption of God's people, at least not in the sense that Christ's blood purchases salvation for God's people.
The passage you are likely looking for, ... is it not Colossians 1:20? Let me know.
By
Daniel, at 2/20/2009 8:44 PM
Daniel,
Did I use the word stipulate in the wrong way? What I meant was "would you agree/enter into an agreement with me that this fact is true?" Isn't that what it means to "stipulate" to something?
I love words and I would like to just discuss the word "stipulate" for a moment with you or anyone else who wants to straighten me out on my mis/understanding of it.
I don't want to use a word the wrong way... oh no
:~)
By
Rose~, at 2/20/2009 9:20 PM
Good Morning Rose, anyway it's morning for me . . .ha!ha!
God will not turn again to dealing with the Nation Israel until the Church is caught up. At the beginning of the Tribulation the two witnesses will be on the scene also the 144,000 Jews will be evnagelizing the world. Judgment will come in like a flood just as it did in the days of Noah. The two Prophets will have power to turn the water to blood and stop it from raining. Many will die, but after three and a half years the two Prophets will be killed by the beast, and the whole world will be having a satanic christmas party. That is why this cant happen in the last three and a half years of the trib because the world isn't having a party but the whole world is coming against Israel, in Armaggedon. In fact the two Prophets lay in the street for three and half days past the half way point.
Jesus said He would not come again until they said "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" then all Israel will be saved. Their has to be a generation of Jews that will receive their king. And Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled" He was speaking of the Generation of Jews when "these things" start happening.
alvin :)
off to work I go
By
alvin, at 2/21/2009 7:07 PM
Rose, typically a stipulation is the sort of clause one adds as a caveat to a contract, I will agree to such and such as long as you submit to this and the other. That would be a "stipulation" - as in I agree so long as you accept my "stipulation"...
"Would you not stipulate to the fact that ..." doesn't follow any usage I am familiar with. Is this an Americanism? Kinda like Canadians say, "eh"?
Up here in Canada, we would say, I will agree with you if you agree to one or more stipulations - that is, when I stipulate, I am not simply agreeing with or to something, but setting some condition as being prerequisitional to my acceptance of some contract or agreement.
The abused wife, for instance, might agree to be reconciled to her spouse, providing he agrees to some serious 'stipulations' - which she would 'stipulate' up front, and he would have to agree with.
Is that not how the word is used down south?
Up here we call tennis shoes, "runners", because, frankly, most Canadians don't play tennis.
By
Daniel, at 2/22/2009 12:39 AM
Hi Rose,
A brief response to your query above.
For the LORD to say "My people," is exactly that, relative to His covenant with them. So in that sense there is a unilateral unconditional relationship to "His people." BUT, that does not mean that "salvation" is in view for "all" His people (as you note yourself); in fact to be rightly related to Yahweh as His people was contingent on obedience (per the Mosaic cov.), none of them could truly obey it, so the LORD had to "be" that salvation Himself. So the "Law" was intended to point to Christ --- true Israel ;-) --- and all people can truly be said to be "His people" as they come to Him through "Israel" (Jesus).
In Sum,
When the LORD says "His people" in the OT He is speaking to their Covenant role of mediating His salvation through the nations . . . they failed, but in spite of themselves, and as a result of the LORD's sovereignty He brought salvation to the nations through mediating Himself through the "nation of Israel" in Christ. And this was His intention all the time (see Hos. 1--2). So they were, and always will be, "His people" in re. to the promises (Rom 11:29); and the promises were all fulfilled in Christ, thus the referent of "His people" is inclusive of all identified with Him in Christ. The barriers and walls have been broken down between the Jews and Gentiles and we have "One people of God" in Christ (Eph. 2).
Sorry, that actually is a rather shabby response; I'm still recovering from the flu, but I'm tired of laying around on the couch :-).
You know, Rose, most people in the Church have never thought of "two people of God" (ontologically) until the last 150 yrs or so; the burden of proof is on those who want to say that there are. I'm not going to argue that there aren't different "roles" for the Jews juxtaposed with the other nations, relative to the unfolding salvation history of God --- because I think there are different roles; but I will argue against the idea that there are actually two distinct (ontologically) --- or categories --- people of God (you still have not overcome the dilemma that the incarnation presents your view with, the one I link to above). Rose, this is a product of eisogesis, and reading a "system" into the text; I don't think it is exegetically sustainable (I think Eph 2 is insurmountable for your perspective).
By
Anonymous, at 2/22/2009 7:39 PM
Bobby,
Good point about Eph. 2 and one people of God. I think Eph. 2 is very damaging to covenant theology as well in making a clear distinction between the Old and New Covenants.
wayne
By
jazzycat, at 2/23/2009 1:54 PM
Morning Rose
The Two Relationships!
Very simply put, then, national Israel and the Christian Church sustain different relationships to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. National Israel is His chosen race, the particular nation whose throne He will someday claim and from which He will rule the Gentiles as well (Luke 1:32-33; Revelation 12:5). The Church is His Bride (Ephesians 5:31-32), and therefore His Queen (Psalm 45:10-17).
This distinction has seemed to many to be an inappropriate dividing of the family of God, but human life has many built-in relational distinctions. Obviously a man’s father and mother are distinct from his children, and a man’s wife is quite distinct from both parents and children. All these people belong to the same extended family, but each sustains a special relationship to the man in question.
The effort often made to erase the distinction between natonal Israel and the Chritian Church is similar to saying that there is no relational difference between a man’s sister and his wife. It doesn’t really make sense. It is also unbiblical. . . .Our Lord’s prophetic teaching carries with it the clear implication of different relationships. One group of people will be “taken along” with Him AT THE BEGINNING OF His coming [parousia]. They will escape this whole period of divine judgment on the earth.
However, others, who subsequently believe in Jesus for eternal life, will live through that same period. This difference is easily understood if we know that those who are “taken along”—delivered—are part of the King’s Bride, the Church. But the people described in Matthew 24:15-22 are born again Israelis living under the law of Moses.
It is these people who will see the fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jewish nation. That nation reemerged as one of the nations of the world in 1948, after many centuries as a people without a homeland. Our own country was the first to formally recognize the new state of Israel.
(Zane Hodges “Jesus, God’s Prophet” page 54,55)
Also look at the two parables concerning the end times (1) the parable of the unprepared servant (Matthew 24:45-51) Is a picture of the Church in which the rapture comes as a surprise, and the parable of the unprepared women(25:1-13). They all are sleeping, the bridegroom delayed his coming, but then they hear a warning the “midnight cry” the abomination of desolation.
This need to flee is symbolized in the parable by the words “go out to mett Him” (25:6; see 25:1). So when Jesus faithful followers flee from Judea, in a spiritual sense they will be going forth to meet the Bridegroom. (ZH)
Other verses that come to mind: concerning John the baptist (John 3:29) “He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fiulfilled.
(Gal 6:16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
(emphasis mine)
alvin :)
By
alvin, at 2/23/2009 7:50 PM
Hi Rose
Bobby asked:
I think you need to talk about how you see the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants relating. What is the scope of the Abrahamic Cov. (universal)? How does the New Covenant fulfill or implement the intention of the Abrahamic? And what role, instrumentally and provisionally did the Mosaic play in mediating the reality that the New Covenant brought about as was framed by the Abrahamic (see Gal 3--4?
Hi Bobby,
I’m glad your feeling better. I haven’t studied the Covenants for quite some time. And do not have professional training as you have in the schools. I will just do a quick overview of the Covenants you have listed. I see in the Abrahamic Covenant an unconditional covenant of what God will ultimately fullfill in the seed Jesus Christ. The covenant is conditional in the sense the promises concerning personal blessing and the land, if the children of Israel were obedient they would enjoy dwelling in the land, if they weren’t they would be driven from the land. (Gen 12:1-4; 13:14-17; 15:1-7; 17:1-8 promise of the land 12:7 13:15; 15:18-21; 17:7-8 blessing to the entire world 12:3). Note: promise to generations, and in each generation there are saved and lost but the one that receives their King they will all be saved. (Gen 17:7 My covenant between Me and you any your descendants after you in their generations).
In the Mosaic Covenant the law was given, the sacrificial pointed to the Lamb of God for the entire world (John 1:29). The law showed that no one could keep the law therefore they needed a righteousness that could only come from God (Rom 10:1-3). The Mosaic law pointed to the seed of Abraham and as a schoolmaster was to bring them to Christ (Gal 3:24). The Old Covenant Law has not passed away (Matt 5:18) but has been temporarily set aside. It will not pass away till the New Heaven and the New Earth (Rev 21:1). The nation Israel will rebuild the temple during the tribulation period and will be doing sacrifices and observing the law (Matt 24:15,20; 2 Thess 2:4). Also during the Millennium Jesus will be ruling with a rod of iron (Rev 19:15) and the complete law will be carried out (Zech 14:16-21). I believe this will be to show that even with Christ reigning on earth man will still rebel in a perfect environment.
The Davidic Covenant is an unconditional covenant which God promised David an unending rule and ultimately the son of David (Son of Man) would sit on. God did reserve the right to chastise and remove Kings if they rebelled against God (2 Sam 7:14-15,17). Everlasting nation (Jer 31:36) everlasting possession of the land (Gen 13:15; 1 Chron 16:15-18) everlasting throne (2 Sam 7:16) everlasting King (Jer 33:21. And this all relates back to God’s promises to Abraham. And not only did the seed enjoy these promises but also those who were by physical birth descendents in their generations if they were obedient.
The New Covenant was also a unconditional covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer 31:31-33). This covenant will not be fullfilled fully until the Millennium Kingdom when they will no longer say know the Lord, because they will all know Him. It will be that generation of Jews who are saved physically (Matt 24:13,22; Rev 20:7,8) at the end of the tribulation who go into the Kingdom they will all know the Lord (Rom 11:25-28).
The Church is a partaker of the New Covenent and enjoys it’s blessings. The New Covenant is God’s ultimate fulfillment in the seed of Abraham the Lord Jesus Christ.
By the rejection of the Nation Israel of their Messiah blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles come in then God will be dealing with the nation Israel again as a nation. And by the end of the Tribulation that generation of Jews will receive their King.
Alvin :)
By
alvin, at 2/24/2009 12:25 AM
For you who believe as I do that He could come at anytime, here is a song for you.
HERE
For you who are looking for the signing of the seven year peace treaty and the rebuilding of the temple before He can come, I'm sure you will like the song too but it just won't be as good.
The first trump the dead will rise and the last we go!
The Lord Jesus Christ had kept His promise to His Church. Before the 70th week of Daniel began, or just as it began, He had suddenly decended "from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God (1 Thess 4:16). Two blasts on that trumpet had accomplished the operation "in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor 15:52). When the first trumpet blast had sounded, the "dead in Christ" were raised first (1 Thess 4:16). But at "the last trumpet" blast, the living believers were changed ( 1 Cor 15:51,52) and were "caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air," from then on to be wherever He is (1 Thess 4:17).
(ZH)IS THERE WAITING WITH OUR SAVIOR!
By
alvin, at 2/24/2009 3:18 AM
I’m sorry HERE
By
alvin, at 2/24/2009 3:42 AM
Just go to YouTube and put in Gaither Vocal Band "I'll Meet You In The Morning" if this doesn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycV_XGwegoY
By
alvin, at 2/24/2009 3:55 AM
more to chew on:
Jer 3:8 "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Isarel had commited adultry, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.
Jer 3:14
"Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and will bring you to Zion.
(Ps 103:10-12;137:5; Isa 44:22; 49:15)
God did not consider the marriage ended due to the bill of divorcement other wise He would not have said later "For I am married to you." Jer 3:8 is temporal and temporary.
Israel is God's wife and not the bride of the Lamb, the bride was never given a bill of divorcement. But God is faithful to His wife Israel. And that final generation will be faithful to Him, and at the end of the Tribulation will receive Her King and Husband (Hosea 2:16).
By
alvin, at 2/24/2009 6:08 AM
clarification: I said: and at the end of the Tribulation will receive Her King and Husband (Hosea 2:16).
Israel's King is Jesus Christ, He will sit on the throne of David. But Israel is called God's wife. The Church is The Lord Jesus Christ's bride.
good~night
By
alvin, at 2/24/2009 6:20 AM
Hey Daniel,
The word "concede" seems like it is weighted on the opinion of one party - like I am saying soemthing and you "concede" to it. Teh word "stipulate" is used here is our courts like this:
During the course of a civil lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or any other type of litigation, the opposing attorneys may come to an agreement about certain facts
So both parties are agreeing to certain facts so they don't have to waste the court's time establishing those facts. that was how I meant the word "stipulate" to...
I was thinking that you would readily agree that Christ's death did something to secure the lifting of the curse that came upon the creation because of the failure of the first Adam, He being the last Adam. I was asking you if this was not a given so that I would not have to argue that point.
Maybe we could then have argued the specifics about what it is he DID do, but that was not really the point of the post.
It may not have an international appeal, this term. :~)
Does the phrase "rabbit trail" mean anything in Canda?
:~)
By
Rose~, at 2/24/2009 10:14 AM
sorry for the sloppy typing and hasty posting of that comment. I am not going to delete and correct because I already accidentally sent through two of the comment. Who wants to read it a third time, even if the mistakes are corrected???
By
Rose~, at 2/24/2009 10:18 AM
Bobby,
I would agree that it is obvious that in the church there is one NEW PEOPLE - of both Jew and Gentile with no distinction. I would "stipulate" to that. heehee
By
Rose~, at 2/24/2009 10:19 AM
Rose, a stipulation is something we must agree upon up front before preceding beyond it - if we both understand it that way, then it was your wording (the seemingly superfluous preposition?) that threw me off (...stipulate to the fact...).
Either way, I think I understand what you meant now.
As I alluded to in a previous comment, I find I cannot easily convince myself that it is intellectually legitimate to compare the redeeming of a sinful soul to the its creator, and the coming destruction and consequent recreation of this present creation. I think scripture speaks in phenomenological language when it describes the restoration of creation, that is, I don't think that Christ's blood redeemed the rocks and stones of this earth - rather I think that all of creation labors in birth pangs (if you will) for the final redemption of man, at which point the old creation can be done away with, and a new creation begun. This is not a "redemption" but a recreation, and the nuance strikes me as significant.
I may need to read more about it, but the idea that Christ is going to redeem the grass I walk on with His precious blood is,... well,.... new to me.
Unless I am grossly misunderstanding what you are saying. Let me know.
By
Daniel, at 2/24/2009 2:28 PM
Jesus indict’s the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 why?
Because they sat in the seat of Moses!
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
Saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat.
“Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do,
but do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do. V.1-3
Then Jesus goes on to say to them “woe” eight times:
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men;
For you neither go in yourselves,
nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. v.13
The nation Israel had been “elected” to be a nation of priests
to the world! (Ex 19:6)
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! V.14
Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! V.15
“Fools and blind! V.17
“Fools and blind! V.19
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! V.23
“Blind guides,
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! V.25
“Blind Pharisee v.26
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! V.27
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! V.29
“Serpents, brood of vipers! V.33
How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Why?
They were the sons of the ones who had murdered the prophets v.31
“Therefore I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes:
some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge
in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
“that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth from the blood
of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered
between the temple and the alter.
“Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. V.34-36
Why?
Because they were held responsible for the “elect nation Israel” which is the whole nation of Israel for not receiving her King!
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!
How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wing,
But you were not willing! v.37
This is God’s heart for the nation Israel!
The result:
“See! Your house is left to you desolate;
“for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say,
“Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! V.38,39
Elect Israel the nation will receive her King in the future, there will be a generation of Jews who all
Will be delivered from the Great Tribulation!
(Matt 24:22 elect’s sake; 24 the elect; 31 His elect)
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till these things take place. V.34
I tell you the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
That I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethern,
My countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory,
The covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all,
The eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:1-5
Brethern, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Romans 10:1
This is speaking of the whole nation of Israel God’s chosen nation who had been elected for service!
For I do not desire, brethern, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins. Romans 11:25-27
It was the whole nation of Israel who were given the law to make them any less is no different then making world in John 3:16 less then the whole world! Remember Paul was willing to be accursed from Christ for his brethern according to the flesh and Jesus died for all, that all men might be saved! (1 Timothy 2:3-6; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor 5:19)
Hi Rose!
note: God bore the nation Israel on eagles wings (Ex 19:4) and He will again during the Great Tribulation for a time, and times and half a time.(Rev 12:14).
By
alvin, at 2/25/2009 3:15 PM
To just give you an idea how I see this coming together. That is when the “elect nation Israel” and the “seed of Abraham” are the same. So that the nation that is on this earth when Jesus comes back to set up His kingdom will be comprised of believing Jews and all will be saved (delivered) from the tribulation. (Matt 25:31;Rom 11:26-27; Rev 1:7)
Jesus warned that generation of Jews that would be living during that time in (Matthew 24:14-22,34). I believe that generation of Jews will see all the things Jesus is talking about in Matt 24 take place. (Notice 70AD is not talked about in Matthew 24 because Jesus is talking about His second advent (coming) the parousia [pronounced, par-oo-see-ah].
If that generation was the generation that was born in 1948 when Israel became a nation again, those ones born in 1948 would be around 60 years old. Jesus said that His coming would be like the days of Noah when they were eating and drinking and giving in marriage, pretty much like it is now in the world. I believe the world feels that there is something about to happen but they don’t know what. God’s judgment will come in like a flood after Noah and his family was safe in the ark! I believe the two Prophets will be in the first three and a half years. Because they are killed by the Beast after three and a half years and their dead bodies lie in the street for three and a half days. The world is throwing a big party because the two Prophets made them suffer so much with the power to stop the rain and turn the water to blood. And also they had the power to destroy anyone that tried to stop them. (Rev 11:3-13)
The 144,000 Jews along with the two Prophets were proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom, just as John the Baptist had “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.”(Matt 24:14) We can’t proclaim that gospel today because what is at hand for the church is the rapture and then the seven year tribulation before Jesus sets up His Kingdom. At the time the two Prophets are killed Satan is cast out of Heaven and it says that he persecuted the women who gave birth to the male child. But the women was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. ( Rev 12:13,14)
That is the last three and a half years which is called the Great Tribulation. The women is Israel, and they are all believers who are in Jerusalem who flee, they are the ones who heeded Jesus warning about the abomination of desolation to flee and not go down and try to take anything but run! (Matt 24:15-20) Many will not heed that warning and will be caught and executed. At this time the 144,000 will be all over the world evangelizing and when Satan cannot catch the Jews who fled from Jeruslem on eagles wings he will make war with the rest of her offspring who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Christ. Which is the 144,000 (Rev 12:17). We also see in Rev 13:14 “And he deceives “my own people” who dwell on earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast."” That is the Majority Text reading, the apostle John said that some of his own people were deceived. That tells me that many unbelieving Jews will be deceived and take the mark. By the end of the Tribulation the nation Israel will only be made up of believing Jews who will be the generation that receives their king. Jesus said He would not return until they said “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” Matt 23:39 Jesus will no longer be weeping over Jerusalem but will come back as her King! (Matt 23:37,38)
This is what I believe and am still studying out, but no one knows the day or the hour Jesus will come!
But, I wouldn’t want to be caught sleeping (thinking mid or post trib) when He comes!
Alvin :)
By
alvin, at 2/26/2009 12:55 AM
Daniel,
superfluous preposition???
Quit picking on me about my word choice! ;~) I have heard the phrase "stipulate to" used plenty on Law and Order. ;~)
(I am reduced to this in blogging - leaving a smart remark and having no time to discuss anything deeper than a single word and a superfluous preposition)
God bless you. I have more to say and I would love to further delve into this, but I have no time. I will try to get back to it later and hope you are still there to read my response.
Thanks for all your fine comments, Alvin. I agree with your view mostly. We think of it the same way.
By
Rose~, at 2/26/2009 10:00 AM
Hi Rose,
I miss your various posts. We get "Law and Order" over here, but it is not a programme I've ever really got into. (I'm sure that there might be a pun waiting to bloom in there, but they all escape me at the moment.)
Matthew and I have been raving about the British Shipping Forecasts on his blog. Which is even sadder than using L&O as a dictionary :o)
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/26/2009 11:05 AM
Hi Colin, heeehee, yes "L&O" is one my very favorite shows.
(I miss the L&O blog too) :~)
Well, as to the phrase "stipulate to" - if a Cambridge District Court judge, Dyanne J. Klein, thinks it is an acceptable phrase, then why can't I?
The judge said, "All right, you're willing to stipulate to the facts?" Defendant: "Yes, I am." Judge: "And you understand, sir, by doing so, and by entering a plea of guilty, you are admitting that the facts so stated are true."
Find Law
I would think that I could use this as a dictionary of common usage, finding it recorded, and on record, that a judge in the USA used the word this way and did not consider "to" to be a "superfluous preposition."
I'll be looking for that apology for throwing me off my responses, running me down this (rather interesting) rabbit trail by excessively questioning my word use, Daniel. :~)
:~) This is fun.
By
Rose~, at 2/26/2009 11:45 AM
Rose, although "stipulate to the fact" rings clumsy in my ears; yet because it seems that there is some precident of its usage in your crass American justice system, I will concede that your usage, however bourgeois to my delicate tastes, is nevertheless acceptable on your own blog. In short, please accept my heart-felt, Clintonian apology.
By
Daniel, at 2/26/2009 1:03 PM
Daniel,
I can't help it if your ears have problems with coordination, but I would imagine that where you live you suffer from the effects of near frostbite on the exposed parts of the head, cluminess notwithstanding.
By
Rose~, at 2/26/2009 1:41 PM
:~)
By
Rose~, at 2/26/2009 1:42 PM
Oh, and by-the-way,
You said:
yet because it seems that there is some precident of its usage in your crass American justice system...
but I think you meant:
yet because it seems that there is some precedent of its usage in your crass American justice system...
By
Rose~, at 2/26/2009 2:05 PM
Rose, Clearly you are not familiar with the noun precident. It is a presidential precedent.
By
Daniel, at 2/26/2009 2:17 PM
Deep intake of breath
In short, please accept my heart-felt, Clintonian apology.
I think I can see the doctrine of repentance slipping in here. It may be still a million miles off but I think I can see it.
:0)
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/26/2009 2:19 PM
Colin,
in order for that to happen, we would have to figure out just what "repentance" means... and I don't have time for that. :~)
Daniel,
You are very creative ;~)
By
Rose~, at 2/26/2009 2:22 PM
Hi Rose,are you asleep?
I was a good boy today and had my hearing aid turned on in church. Not! Who needs a hearing aid anyway as long as I can hear all that ringing in my ears I don't need one yet! Where was I? Yah church! My pastor is a real BIG brain, he has published a Lexicon, Hebrew at that! Wow! Anyway he said that in Proverbs 16:4 the Hebrew word for "made" is never used for creation.
I thought I would enlighten you with that little morsal of information. Because I know you have many battles in the galixisies with the Caladeans. That's a code word and I probably didn't even spell it right, but ah ha! That is part of the code!
alvin your fellow Galatic battle partner :)
Say hello to Mom!!!
alvin :)
By
alvin, at 3/01/2009 10:47 PM
Alvin,
Do I have to chase you around everywhere? You're like an unruly schoolkid with ADHD.
The good news it that you spelled "Lexicon" correctly. You get a gold star.
Now, for the bad news (I don't know if you get a "switch" or "lump of coal" or what, yet):
"morsal" = morsel
"galixisies" = galaxies
"Caladeans" = Chaldeans
"Galatic" = galactic
Remember, you are on Rose's turf now, Alvin; she doesn't put up with any nonsense.
Actually, Rose kind of reminds me (and now I'm giving away my age) of "Miss Kitty" in the TV series, "Gunsmoke" with James Arness (Marshal Matt Dillon): She ran a saloon where everybody was allowed to have a good time, but she didn't put up with any nonsense (and I really think she had a thing for Marshal Dillon, but I digress.)
By
agent4him, at 3/02/2009 9:39 AM
Rose: Do you feel like "Miss Kitty" today?
:o)
I know Granny out of the Beverly Hill Billies, ("If you don't get out of my kitchen, I'll hit you so hard, you'll ride half fare.") but "Miss Kitty," I never had the pleasure to meet.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 3/02/2009 10:43 AM
Well, imagine my surprise when ai checked back in on this deep theological thread, only to find out that Rose is like Miss Kitty! Yep I remember good ol' Marshal Dilon, & Festus was my fave. But I also liked Doc, with that squint-eyed look. It made him look like he knew what he was doing anyway! I think I'll try that, even if I'm clueless (which I am 74% of the time), I will just give 'em that squint-eyed Doc look on Gunsmoke, & they'll be convinced I'm right! OK, I guess I've made my contribution & my work here is done. Certainly nobody'll recognize this thread now! (I know I'm not as funny as bro. Alvin, but did I even get honorable mention?)
By
David Wyatt, at 3/02/2009 9:23 PM
You guys, those last few comments made me laugh! Thanks!
By
Rose~, at 3/03/2009 10:54 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home