PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Rev 3:20 - Knocking On Doors



tango
May 24th 2008, 04:13 PM
I got to thinking about this verse. Jesus is saying:

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. " (NKJV)

It has an obvious application in the sense of reaching out to non-Christians and urging them to hear Jesus knocking and to open the door, but what about Christians as well?

I can't help thinking it applies equally to us. Using the door metaphors, we may have opened the front door and let Jesus into the living room but what about all the other doors? Are we willing to let him into the kitchen, upstairs into the study, the bedrooms, the cupboard where we store all the junk we don't want anyone else to see?

Are we willing to give Jesus everything, or are we keeping certain areas off limits, places where we like to hide away?

Just curious to know what others think.

IamBill
May 24th 2008, 05:18 PM
and In the less obvious-
Reaching to ALL (Christians also) who have not been baptized of the Holy Spirit

I think it silly if one were to think anything could be hidden from Him.

Frances
May 24th 2008, 05:20 PM
I have always assumed, because of the context - Jesus talking to churches - that He is saying He is knocking on the church door asking to be let in . . . a salutary thought . . .

Unfortunately, there seem to be some churches that actively exclude Him, and wouldn't notice if He never showed up again . . . .

brakelite
May 25th 2008, 11:57 AM
I got to thinking about this verse. Jesus is saying:

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. " (NKJV)

It has an obvious application in the sense of reaching out to non-Christians and urging them to hear Jesus knocking and to open the door, but what about Christians as well?

I can't help thinking it applies equally to us. Using the door metaphors, we may have opened the front door and let Jesus into the living room but what about all the other doors? Are we willing to let him into the kitchen, upstairs into the study, the bedrooms, the cupboard where we store all the junk we don't want anyone else to see?

Are we willing to give Jesus everything, or are we keeping certain areas off limits, places where we like to hide away?

Just curious to know what others think.

What is concerning about the context of this verse is the fact the Jesus had no criticism of the Laodiceans as far as doctrine is concerned. They had all the truth that God was so far willing to reveal to them, and they had accepted that. (And if you take an historicist approach then this church , apart from the literal church of Asia minor of the first century, applies also to the church of today). Despite having the truth, Jesus was outside!
And because Jesus was outside, then they were lost, despite having all the doctrines down pat.
How important is that old adage...

it is not what you know, it is Who you know.

talmidim
May 25th 2008, 07:03 PM
Hi Tango,

I thought your proposition intriguing and considered adding a little background information to the discussion. There is little doubt in my mind also that His love and grace have been for all those who would obey and love Him. So what I offer is to shore up that perspective, that you have observed and shared.

I sometimes tend to delve too deeply for some, so I will ask you indulgence and forgiveness at the outset.

The door metaphor is an especially rich one in the Hebraic culture. The foundation of this metaphor is found in the letter symbols that made up that ancient Hebrew pictographs. It is used extensively in the construction of Hebrew root words.

The Dalet is the fourth letter in the Hebrew alephbet. The pictograph resembles a tent flap. In the most basic terms it is a door. But in symbolic representation, it is symbolic of all different types of portals, including the portals of birth and death that lie between the physical and spiritual realms. An example of this would be the word Adam. In Hebrew it is spelled Aleph - Dalet - Mem. The Aleph was a pictograph of an ox head, depicting strength, leadership and unity (in that oxen were generally yoked together). The Mem is a pictograph of water and represented the life that comes with water, the power and chaos of wild rivers and floods and also the blood by which we are all filled. So the pictographs for Adam represented the head or leader of the bloodline that passes through the doorway between the physical and the spiritual. And in the word resides all of the concepts associated with life, death and familial relationships, defining who 'Adam' was.

The churches of the Revelation have names with definitions too, though not traceable through Hebraic root words or pictographs. But the symbology that came part and parcel with the culture, transcends language. And I believe that the Master left little to chance. There is always a reward for the diligent student of His Word.

NAME MEANING
Ephesus.........Desirable
Smyrna...........Myrrh
Pergamos.......Height; Elevation
Thyatira..........a perfume; Sacrifice of Labor
Sardis............Prince of Joy
Philadelphia....Love of a Brother
Laodicea........Just People; justice of the people

Laodicea is the last Church mentioned and many believe that the attributes of this church, speak of the state of the church now. The Lord said: Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: Laodicea means "Just People" or "justice of the people", but the Lord does not consider them so just. When we rely on our own judgment and justice we fall well short of the glory of the Father. But it was these five words which I bolded that caught my attention. Because they seem to be a racap of all the rebukes of the Lord to the previous churches.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; When we attempt to clothe ourselves in our own righteousness we are naked before the Lord.
Strong's G1131 γυμνός gumnos goom-nos' Of uncertain affinity; nude (absolutely or relatively, literally or figuratively): - naked. He is the faithful witness that sees all.

This next verse has an even more interesting link to the priesthood and the Temple service. Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. It was the custom of the priest in charge to come around and gently knock at the door of the inner chambers. All the priest were bare footed because they were on holy ground. And the Fall Feasts in the mountains of Jerusalem found the Temple to be cool, especially at night. It was not uncommon for the priests that were not required on the watch to gather in front of the fireplaces in these inner chambers. And some would fall asleep. So the gentle knock at the door was easy to miss unless there was someone awake and paying attention. As a special reward and to honor those that stayed alert over their brethren, the priest in charge would bring some bread to break and share with those who answered.

And consider this: Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. If a priest was found sleeping at his post in the Temple, there was two punishments that might occur. He might be "beaten with many stripes" or the more shameful, he might awaken to find his clothes on fire! And the only way to stop the burning was to strip naked. Both of these usually happened in the presence of the other Temple guards.

As a reminder, I wanted to offer this verse defining the initial reason that we were to eat with the Lord at the place of His choosing: Deu 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.

And as a counterpoint, I wanted to offer this tidbit is from "The Temple--Its Ministry and Services by Alfred Edersheim (http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/temple.PDF)" I thought it interesting due to the requirements in scripture for this offering and the comparison that Edersheim drew to the scripture that we study here. Pay special attention to the last few sentences and especially the last one.

The Peace-offering

IV. The most joyous of all sacrifices was the peace-offering, or, as from its derivation it might also be rendered, the offering of completion.*
*[in that] It always followed all the other sacrifices.

This was, indeed, a season of happy fellowship with the Covenant God, in which He condescended to become Israel's Guest at the sacrificial meal, even as He was always their Host. Thus it symbolised the spiritual truth expressed in Revelation 3:20, 'Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.' In peace-offerings the sacrificial meal was the point of main importance. Hence the name 'Sevach,' by which it is designated in the Pentateuch, and which means 'slaying,' in reference to a meal. It is this sacrifice which is so frequently referred to in the Book of Psalms as the grateful homage of a soul justified and accepted before God (Psa 51:17; 54:6; 56:12; 116:17,18). If, on the one hand, then, the 'offering of completion' indicated that there was complete peace with God, on the other, it was also literally the offering of completeness. The peace-offerings were either public or private. The two lambs offered every year at Pentecost (Lev 23:19) were a public peace-offering, and the only one which was regarded as 'most holy.' As such they were sacrificed at the north side of the altar, and their flesh eaten only by the officiating priests, and within the Holy Place. The other public peace-offerings were slain at the south side, and their 'inwards' burnt on the altar (Lev 3:4,5). Then, after the priests had received their due, the rest was to be eaten by the offerers themselves, either within the courts of the Temple or in Jerusalem (Deut 27:7). On one occasion (1 Kings 8:63) no less than 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep were so offered. Private peace-offerings were of a threefold kind (Lev 7:11): 'sacrifices of thanksgiving' (Lev 7:12), 'vows,' and strictly 'voluntary offerings' (Lev 7:16). The first were in general acknowledgment of mercies received; the last, the free gift of loving hearts, as even the use of the same term in Exodus 25:2, 35:29 implies. Exceptionally in this last case, an animal that had anything either 'defective' or 'superfluous' might be offered (Lev 22:23).
(Emphasis mine)

I hope you find this useful in your meditation on these verses.

In His Love,
Phillip

tango
May 25th 2008, 07:46 PM
I have always assumed, because of the context - Jesus talking to churches - that He is saying He is knocking on the church door asking to be let in . . . a salutary thought . . .

Unfortunately, there seem to be some churches that actively exclude Him, and wouldn't notice if He never showed up again . . . .

Sad but true. Some very good friends of mine recently moved on from a church that seemed to be getting more caught up in the rituals than in actually worshipping God.

tango
May 25th 2008, 07:47 PM
What is concerning about the context of this verse is the fact the Jesus had no criticism of the Laodiceans as far as doctrine is concerned. They had all the truth that God was so far willing to reveal to them, and they had accepted that. (And if you take an historicist approach then this church , apart from the literal church of Asia minor of the first century, applies also to the church of today). Despite having the truth, Jesus was outside!
And because Jesus was outside, then they were lost, despite having all the doctrines down pat.
How important is that old adage...

it is not what you know, it is Who you know.

Interesting comments brakelite, the idea of understanding the word at an intellectual level but completely missing the spirituality behind it all. Reminds me of Paul's comments in 1Co13 about lacking love.

Loved the adage on the end... very true :)

tango
May 25th 2008, 07:50 PM
talmidim - I won't quote your post because there's a lot of it. Don't worry about length, I like to understand and if that means some digging then so be it.

Lots to think about there, I'll need to re-read it a couple of times because at present I know virtually nothing about the Hebrew language. Thanks for taking the time to post it all, from a first reading it's definitely something I'll want to re-read and explore further.

IamBill
May 25th 2008, 08:03 PM
What is concerning about the context of this verse is the fact the Jesus had no criticism of the Laodiceans as far as doctrine is concerned. They had all the truth that God was so far willing to reveal to them, and they had accepted that. (And if you take an historicist approach then this church , apart from the literal church of Asia minor of the first century, applies also to the church of today). Despite having the truth, Jesus was outside!
And because Jesus was outside, then they were lost, despite having all the doctrines down pat.
How important is that old adage...

it is not what you know, it is Who you know.

Wow, well done :)

talmidim
May 25th 2008, 08:15 PM
Wow, well done :)I agree. Well done brakelite.

IamBill
May 25th 2008, 08:32 PM
chill talmidim :)

I too have to re read that, I can't find your conclusion.
very very interesting though

IamBill
May 25th 2008, 09:05 PM
or should I say chill Phill :lol: ;)

I still can't see (or perhaps is the point?) where that points directly at a church's door or to the 'personal' door ?

Both ?

Matt14
May 25th 2008, 09:23 PM
I got to thinking about this verse. Jesus is saying:

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. " (NKJV)

It has an obvious application in the sense of reaching out to non-Christians and urging them to hear Jesus knocking and to open the door, but what about Christians as well?

In the context of the passage, non-Christians are not in view. Jesus is talking to a church that needs to repent. These people are already Christians. So the only application the passage has is to Christians in need of repentance.

-

ProDeo
May 25th 2008, 10:16 PM
It has an obvious application in the sense of reaching out to non-Christians and urging them to hear Jesus knocking and to open the door, but what about Christians as well?

Bulls-eye, the text directly applies to lukewarm Christians in the first place. It hit me right into my face when I realized that.

Ed

talmidim
May 26th 2008, 12:47 AM
chill talmidim :)

I too have to re read that, I can't find your conclusion.
very very interesting thoughActually Bill, I left the conclusion for others to draw. But since I went this far, I may as well complete the thought.

No man can have revelation of the Almighty unless the Almighty reveals Himself. The same is true of scripture and anything in the spiritual realm. And considering the idiomatic reference to the priest in charge, the 'Chief Priest', the 'High Priest' - I was just wondering if anyone would make the connection. It was the High Priest or the Chief of the Watch that knocks at the door. And during preparations for the Day of Atonement - the Day of Judgment - it was most often the High Priest.

We know that Yahshua was attributed the office of a prophet during His earthly ministry. We also know that He assumed the office of High Priest upon His acsention to sit at the right hand of the Father. In these verses, He appears to be operating in both capacities. The office of prophet was to warn the people when they exceeded the safety of the Father's instruction and to call them back in repentance. How I see His operation in the office of High Priest requires a little explanation.

It is worthy of note that the High Priest has two sets of garments that he wears on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). There are the garments of beauty that is normally worn by the High Priest. They include the ephod, the tunic, the mitre and breastplate described in Leviticus. But there are also the white linen garments that are worn only once a year. They are only worn when entering behind the Veil of Life, when the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled before the ark.

When Yahshua absence from the sepulcher was discovered, His garments were found neatly folded. So what garments was He wearing after His resurrection? Where did they come from and what did they look like? We can only presume that the angels that attended Him brought them. What is interesting to me is what they looked like:

Joh 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Well, this scripture begs the question, how did gardeners dress in the days of the Messiah? It seems that gardeners to the wealthy (the kind that might tend the garden and sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea) wore simple white linen garments and a white turban to cover them from the Judean sun and reflect the heat. These garments are remarkably similar to the description of the garments the High Priest wore when bearing the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies. The following scriptures further substantiate this observation. First there is this:

Lev 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

They are by description, almost identical, and seeing the white garments of the High Priest outside the context of the Yom Kippur Temple service, could easily explain the confusion on Mary's part.

And then there is this:

Joh 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

No one could touch the High Priest while dressed thus and carrying the blood of the sacrifice lest both the High Priest and the offering be defiled. And this seems to be the main thrust of His admonition to Mary. So how is He described in the early chapters of the Revelation? Before we address this question, we must keep in mind that throughout the vision that John is seeing into the heavenly Temple, not the earthly one. For surely the things he saw are not manifest in the earthly Temple notwithstanding that the earthly Temple had, at this time already been destroyed.

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

This is particularly interesting because the Day of the Lord’s Wrath, the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord, the Day of the Lord’s Judgment, is most often simply understood as the Lord’s Day by first century Jews. The Day of the Lord, is also most often associated with Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) in ancient Hebraic texts. Plus this event was many years prior to any reference to the 'Lords Day' being Sunday. That event is clearly defined in history as later than this writing and firmly documented and claimed by the RCC. And after all, if the early church were already observing Sunday, then there wouldn't be a need for a decree to that effect centuries later. Especially one that carried the death penalty. But I digress...

I think the trumpet mentioned here is also of interest because the Jubilee is declared on Yom Kippur with a great trumpet blast and the Temple doors are opened for the morning service in the same manner. Either or both may be applicable. In any case, the popular assumption that John was in the Spirit on the Sabbath or on the first day of the week (the day that the Christians later chose for their day of worship) is presumptuous and probably in error.

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Here is an obvious mention of the Menorah, the seven golden candlesticks. And here is the Master dressed in the linen garments of the High Priest. His being barefoot is consistent with the priests in the Temple. They were required to go barefoot because the Temple proper was considered holy ground, as I am sure the heavenly Temple is too.

The notable exception in this description of High Priest dress is the golden girdle. The white headdress and garment certainly do. But the High Priest wore a white girdle that was sixteen or seventeen feet long. It was wrapped around the body seven times and tied in a knot in the front on each successive pass. But this too is consistent with Yahshua in the office of High Priest because, while white linen depicts the purity that the High Priest is to represent; with Yahshua, gold depicts divinity.

So yes, I see this door as being spiritual in nature. And I see a consistent theme. His command to watch for His coming is repeated. And to those that watch and listen, they will be rewarded. For in the Hebrew culture, to be invited to eat with someone, especially someone of superior office, was and still is a great honor. Because it is a sign of complete agreement between the two parties. This is why you will never see food of any kind on the table of an Israeli diplomatic delegation when meeting with another nation. So the invitation to eat with the Master is a great honor. But only one reserved for those that listen for His knock and watch for His appearing. That's my take on things anyway.

In His Love,
Phillip

brakelite
May 26th 2008, 12:52 AM
Just a further thought. If the Laodicean church is representative of the church of today, (which I am convinced it is), and that church is lost because it is miserable poor blind and naked, then when Jesus returns, will it be for an unrepentant church, or a church that did buy gold tried in the fire. How many today are so complacent that they believe that simply because one believes, then one is chosen and elected, as if that ends the matter. Not so. There is an infinitely (literally) important part for us to play in this life and death matter we call Christianty. It entails a response on our part to allow the person of Jesus into our lives and co-operate with Him in the much needed cleansing work to be done. We must open the door. We must buy that gold. His character to be formed in our lives.
Just like the cleansing of the temple. To make of us a house of prayer for all people.

Philip, your post reminded me of the fig leaves that Adam and Eve wore after the fall. When God came walking in the garden for a visit they still hid. Why? Because they knew, despite having a better covering probably than many of todays fashions, that they were still naked. When the scriptures speak of nakedness it does not necessarily mean without any clothes, but more often means insufficient clothes. As you said, the garments of our own making, our own righteousness, will get us thrown out of the wedding into the outer darkness. They are insufficient. What we all need is the garment s of righteousness provided us by the King Himself.
I love the passage in Zechariah which speaks of Joshua the High priest. All Joshua had to do was make himself available to be clothed. God did everything alse. He provided the clothing and had him dressed as well. That is so very very cool.

talmidim
May 26th 2008, 04:25 PM
Just a further thought. If the Laodicean church is representative of the church of today, (which I am convinced it is), and that church is lost because it is miserable poor blind and naked, then when Jesus returns, will it be for an unrepentant church, or a church that did buy gold tried in the fire. How many today are so complacent that they believe that simply because one believes, then one is chosen and elected, as if that ends the matter. Not so. There is an infinitely (literally) important part for us to play in this life and death matter we call Christianty. It entails a response on our part to allow the person of Jesus into our lives and co-operate with Him in the much needed cleansing work to be done. We must open the door. We must buy that gold. His character to be formed in our lives.
Just like the cleansing of the temple. To make of us a house of prayer for all people.How very right you are in this. In this age of 'universalism' where it is said that we should be accepting of different people with different doctrine, they only get it half right. We are to love all even as He did. And we are to pray for all even as you have so correctly pointed out. But the Master never told us to be more tolerant of 'loose' doctrine. Quite to the contrary. We are to be zealous, obedient, watchful and prepared. Hot or cold He can tolerate. Because the cold He can convince. But who can convince those that are already convinced, but slack in their faith or observance - the lukewarm?


Philip, your post reminded me of the fig leaves that Adam and Eve wore after the fall. When God came walking in the garden for a visit they still hid. Why? Because they knew, despite having a better covering probably than many of todays fashions, that they were still naked. When the scriptures speak of nakedness it does not necessarily mean without any clothes, but more often means insufficient clothes. As you said, the garments of our own making, our own righteousness, will get us thrown out of the wedding into the outer darkness. They are insufficient. What we all need is the garment s of righteousness provided us by the King Himself.
I love the passage in Zechariah which speaks of Joshua the High priest. All Joshua had to do was make himself available to be clothed. God did everything alse. He provided the clothing and had him dressed as well. That is so very very cool.I too love both of these portions of scripture, Brakelite. And the similarity has not escaped me either. For in the Genesis account, there is a wonderful revelation to be had. His son Adam and his wife are literally and figuratively naked before Adonai. And they have sinned. The wages of sin is death and life is in the blood as the scriptures teach. But rather than condemn them, Adonai makes garments of skins for them and clothes them Himself! And in the process, He has spilled the blood that would be their temporary spiritual covering for their spiritual trespass until they can be redeemed. And to this end, He will send another Adam.

Now jump forward to the account in Zechariah (Zekhari Yah - “Yah remembers” or “Yah is renowned”) where we have a similar story about Joshua (Yah Shua - “Yah is salvation" or "the salvation of Yah") the High Priest, remembering that we too have a High Priest named Yahshua (whom some call Jesus). And if we read the account carefully, we see that it seems to be set in the contemporary time frame of Zechariah AND in the latter days. And just as in the Genesis account, there is a foreshadowing of things that will come to pass through His Anointed Son both in the physical covering that represents the office of the man but the spiritual covering that represents His and our purposed end - eternal life with the Father. Whoo-hoo!

brakelite
May 26th 2008, 11:31 PM
Hey Philiip. Can I extend things a little further?
As Jesus now is in the heavenly sanctuary officiating as our High Priest, and through the ministry of the Holy Spirit He is clothing us now with His own righteousness.
Re 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Re 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

We are now a holy priesthood, we are to act as intercessors and ambassadors between the world and the Saviour. And we, like Joshua, have been clothed appropriately. (Christ's righteousness).

When Jesus returns, He will leave the sanctuary, His role as High Priest and mediator will cease, and He will take on the role as King of kings and Lord of Lords. Who are the kings
He is King of? It is us. We will then cease also our role as priests and take up our role as kings and reighn with Him forever. And the clothes we will then be clothed with?
Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

We are also clothed in immortality, the same raiment as our King, for our names will never be removed from the book of life.

talmidim
May 27th 2008, 12:02 AM
Hey Philiip. Can I extend things a little further?
As Jesus now is in the heavenly sanctuary officiating as our High Priest, and through the ministry of the Holy Spirit He is clothing us now with His own righteousness.
Re 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Re 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

We are now a holy priesthood, we are to act as intercessors and ambassadors between the world and the Saviour. And we, like Joshua, have been clothed appropriately. (Christ's righteousness).

When Jesus returns, He will leave the sanctuary, His role as High Priest and mediator will cease, and He will take on the role as King of kings and Lord of Lords. Who are the kings
He is King of? It is us. We will then cease also our role as priests and take up our role as kings and reighn with Him forever. And the clothes we will then be clothed with?
Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

We are also clothed in immortality, the same raiment as our King, for our names will never be removed from the book of life.Dear Brakelite,

While I agree with much of what you say, forgive me, for I must correct you on this one point. And even so, out of the verses in Zechariah, to which you pointed:

Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

You see, He never cease to be our Prophet, even when He became our High Priest. And when He ascends the throne of David, He will rule as Prophet, Priest and King!

We see a foreshadowing of this in the life of King David, who also prophesied of Messiah in His psalms, who offered sacrifice before the Ark of Testimony and ate of the consecrated bread. So no my friend and brother, He is our all in all - Prophet, Priest and King!

brakelite
May 27th 2008, 12:30 AM
Okay, we do see things a little differently. I see that temple spoken of that you quoted from Zechariah as being His body, the church. He reigns in the church which He has built. He is now on the throne of David and is our Priest.
Once He returns, I see no more reason for a priesthood of any sort. (I may be convinced otherwise). Once Satan is dead, and the wicked destroyed, and sin no more, what more need do we have for sacrifice? Jesus fulfilled the antitype of the Passover Lamb, and thus brought the sacrifice and oblation to an end as prophesied by Daniel. His role as High Priest now is past the altar and before the ark, the throne of God. He now sits on the right hand of God (the showbread), and ministers His own blood on our behalf. When He leaves the sanctuary to return for His bride, we will then stand face to face before the Father, fully adopted children of the Almighty. We will have no need of further sacrifice, no need of an intermediary, we will be one with Christ forever.

talmidim
May 27th 2008, 01:39 AM
So how do you read Revelation 20?

more excellent way
May 27th 2008, 01:58 AM
Rev. 3:20 is not referring to earthly entrance ways (it is speaking spiritually).

We must "enter by the door" (John 10:1) and "HEAR" His voice (John 10:27) by learning a "MORE EXCELLENT" devotion (1 Corinthians 12:31) and the "depths of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10).

We should first learn the introductory doctrine of Jesus (Hebrews 6:1) and then move on to deeper devotion/relationship ("sword of the spirit", Ephesians 6:17) than we learned in the "word of truth", 2 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 1:13, John 14:6).

Jesus did not come to bring everybody "peace" of mind so that everyone could continue doing whatever they wish regardless of it's merit, He came to cause a division in our minds between right and wrong...
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=sword&t=RSV&page=15

When we learn to clearly divide right from wrong (as with a sword) so that there is no middle ground ("no variation or shadow", James 1:17) and the change from right to wrong is sudden and and abrupt, we will know the "sword of the spirit" (Ephesians 6:17) and our conscience can be purified (Hebrews 9:14).

Adam and Eve ate of the tree of conscience, and we should learn how to use that knowledge properly (Hebrews 5:14).

We have to avoid the partisan hypocrisy that has been taught in the institutions of man so that we can receive living "water" (John 7:38) baptism from God's spirit so that we will "neither thirst" (Revelation 7:16) because simply "eating" of the bread of life is not enough for eternal life, we must 'drink' of His spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5, Ephesians 1:14).

"Abba Father" (DEAR Father, not 'master'/taskmaster, Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6)
"FRIEND" of God (not slave/servant, James 2:23)

'sin laws' (Ephesians 2:15)
law of liberty (James 1:25 and 2:12)
HIS works were completely sufficient (John 6:28 and 29)
we have been justified IN Him (1 Corinthians 6:11, Galatians 2:16 and 17)
REST in The Lord.

Faith should be borne out of love. God is not faith, God is LOVE. True Christianity is not a FAITH, it is a LOVE.

Enter by THE DOOR.

All verses are from the RSV (the most accurate and understandable).

brakelite
May 27th 2008, 04:19 AM
So how do you read Revelation 20?

:) I answered that very question just yesterday, here...http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1651794&postcount=38

talmidim
May 27th 2008, 04:53 AM
:) I answered that very question just yesterday, here...http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1651794&postcount=38So your take on verse 6 is that Messiah and His redeemed will reign together for a thousand year, just not from Jerusalem? ...or not from earth?

And the BRANCH in Zechariah that was snatched from the fire by the Almighty and ascends the throne to rule as both Priest and King - the Temple in those scriptures is the church and He is reigning now?

So you see the Revelation of Messiah as looking backwards?

brakelite
May 27th 2008, 05:05 AM
So your take on verse 6 is that Messiah and His redeemed will reign together for a thousand year, just not from Jerusalem? ...or not from earth?

And the BRANCH in Zechariah that was snatched from the fire by the Almighty and ascends the throne to rule as both Priest and King - the Temple in those scriptures is the church and He is reigning now?

So you see the Revelation of Messiah as looking backwards?


Hi Phillip. I'm not quite sure what you mean by" So you see the Revelation of Messiah as looking backwards?"
But yes, I see the millennium as being in heaven, not on earth. But we are getting way off topic here. If you like I would be happy to continue this on another thread? Just to keep the mods happy?

talmidim
May 27th 2008, 10:12 AM
Actually, that answers a lot. Thanks Brakelite.

9Marksfan
May 27th 2008, 10:35 PM
we have been justified IN Him (1 Corinthians 6:11, Galatians 2:16 and 17)
REST in The Lord.

Are we not justified by faith? Is not the Rest of the Lord the rest of faith?


Faith should be borne out of love.

Whenever faith and love are spoken of in the NT, it is always faith first THEN love - so love is borne out of faith, not the other way round.


God is not faith, God is LOVE. True Christianity is not a FAITH, it is a LOVE.

With such an emphasis in the gospels (especially John) on faith - and elsewehre in Scripture (Romans and Galatians in particular), how can you say that Christianity is not a faith? Actually, you're right - it''s not A faith - it's THE faith! But it's certainly not "a love". Although only true Christian faith can produce true Christian love - God's agape love.


Enter by THE DOOR.

How, if not by faith?


All verses are from the RSV (the most accurate and understandable).

Have you looked at the ESV (the revised and updated RSV)? It's extremely accurate and readable.

brakelite
May 28th 2008, 01:12 AM
Actually, that answers a lot. Thanks Brakelite.

Your welcome.:) We still friends????

talmidim
May 28th 2008, 01:33 AM
Your welcome.:) We still friends????Of course! :hug: