PDA

View Full Version : Does God Still Have Zeal for Zion?



the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:32 PM
In all of the discussions about Israel and the validity of the Old Testament promises to the Jews today after the cross and the overall Israeli rejection of the Messiah (percentage-wise) in the first century, I never see any discussion of God's zeal for Zion that transcends in some ways His zeal for the Jewish people (if He has any - but that's a debate for a zillion other threads).

In other words, the land (in some arguments) seems to be rendered as irrelevant as the people in the current debates that are happening within this forum - without scriptural precedent, in my opinion.

I think of Joel 2:18, for example - "Then the Lord will be zealous for His land..."

Is that a temporal reality? Is that zeal for the "land" a thing of the past? By what passage of scripture can we base that assumption on?

We see that zeal expressed yet again in Zechariah 1 and 8:

"I am zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with great zeal..." (Zech. 1:14)

"I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy, My house shall be built in it..." (Zech. 1:16)

"'I am zealous for Zion with great zeal; with great fervor I am zealous for her.' Thus says the Lord" 'I will return to Zion and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, the Mountain of the Lord of hosts, the Holy Mountain." (Zech. 8:2-3)

I guess my question, and the discussion I'm interested in, centers around the fact that God in the OT continually expresses His zeal for the land, or the geographic location of Israel. He chose that place to be born over every other place on earth. It seems as if one could argue fairly convincingly that, of all the places on earth, He has also chosen that geographic location as the place in which He will return. In my viewpoint, that logically flows to Israel then being the location from which He will exercise the fullness of His rule over all the nations of the earth (fulfilling every promise in detail in the OT).

Does the land itself still matter?

In light of God's expressed zeal and continual choice of that geographic location by which He chooses to have the two most important events in all of history take place (1st and 2nd Coming), whether or not we agree on what happens in Jerusalem after His return -

Why would the land still matter to God today?

And then finally, if there is disagreement about the value of the land to the Lord in our time,

What passages negate this idea?

Thanks in advance for participating!

Joe King
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:47 PM
What about Jerusalem being given to the Gentiles? Isn't that the period we are in before the return of Jesus?

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:02 PM
What about Jerusalem being given to the Gentiles? Isn't that the period we are in before the return of Jesus?

Perhaps, and there is probably something there to explore - but from the period of the Judges through, perhaps, to the Second Coming, Israeli land being "handed over" to Gentiles, the enemies of God, etc. does not seem to be a negation of God's zeal for the geographic territory.

"Losing" possession of the land does seem to be a continual affirmation of God's zeal that the Israelites inhabit the land in the spirit of Deut. 28:1-14 (the blessings that accompany the "careful" observance of the commands of God); but again, Israelite obedience to the law or Israelite rebellion seems to be an issue connected with (but not the same as) God's zeal for the land itself, i.e. Isa. 62:4. Yet regardless of Israel's obedience, God seems to maintain a zeal for the geographic region that I have not seen negated in scripture.

Jerusalem was in Babylonian hands in 587 for the next 50 years (or so) and then was in Persian (Gentile) hands when Zechariah restated God's zeal for the city and the land, for example.

David Taylor
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:18 PM
I believe the land was important as one of the means to the ends that was accomplished at Christ's coming. Once Christ came however, and the Holy Spirit began to go out and be received in all the lands of the world (for the first time), the focalized area's scope changed from a small limited area; to worldwide.

The useage of that small area and people, that was promised to Abraham, (the land and the descendents that would number throughout the nations as the stars of the sky), began to see it's fulfillment following Christ's resurrection and the outgoing into the nations; and their repentence found around the entire world for the first time....and ever since.

Israel (landwise) was the starting off point, which now encompasses the entire globe; or as Jesus explain:

John 4:21 "the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father."

and

Acts 1:8 "ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

God used the land between Abraham and Joseph/Mary to bring Christ into the world; then that land fulfilled it's role; and the land of importance became the Fields of Harvest, white and ripe for the reaping, reaching around the entire globe.

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:19 PM
I add to your list of passages about Zion - Isaiah 62

I agree with Isa. 62 (which is why I included it above) - I think that there are many, many passages that can be added to the discussion; I just wanted to begin with the most (IMO) irrefutable ones and go from there.

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:33 PM
Thanks for responding David. It seems as if you are either, IMO, taking those verses out of context to make your point or making them state something far more than what they were intended to communicate.


I believe the land was important as one of the means to the ends that was accomplished at Christ's coming. Once Christ came however, and the Holy Spirit began to go out and be received in all the lands of the world (for the first time), the focalized area's scope changed from a small limited area; to worldwide.

But the zeal that was expressed in Zechariah 1 and 8 (and Joel 2:17-3:21) and beyond) seems to have a "timeline" attached that transcends the 1st Coming. All three passages seem to have an end-times application and a 2nd Coming (and beyond) terminus point, since the drama of the judgment of the nations takes place in that "small limited area" that God expresses such intense emotions about. Why did God have such intense emotions about a geographic location?


The useage of that small area and people, that was promised to Abraham, (the land and the descendents that would number throughout the nations as the stars of the sky), began to see it's fulfillment following Christ's resurrection and the outgoing into the nations; and their repentence found around the entire world for the first time....and ever since.

So then, the zeal of God was related to "practical usage"? Not to trivialize what you are saying - I am going to ask this for my own understanding - but is it like having zeal for my car because it helps me accomlish my ministry? Then, once the job is done, I discard the vehicle and have no further use for it?


Israel (landwise) was the starting off point, which now encompasses the entire globe; or as Jesus explain:


But it seems as if Israel is also the "ending point", according to the book of Revelation (knit to the earlier passages I referenced).


John 4:21 "the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father."

As I noted above, you seem to be changing the context of this conversation a bit, as Jesus was talking about Samaritan worship practices versus the current Temple worship in Jerusalem. IOW, Jesus was speaking of a centuries old "rivalry" between Samaria and Judah related to the Temple location and the Davidic promises (i.e. Hosea 1 and Hosea's oracle about the disdain Israel had for David, etc.). Jesus was speaking of worship that would flow in "spirit and in truth" or love of God rather than human pride and competetiveness.

It doesn't seem as if Jesus was negating His Father's zeal for a geographic location in this passage; though He was negating human loyalty to current (in that day) worship structures and locations in the same manner He did in Matt. 24:1-2.

and

Acts 1:8 "ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

This speaks to me of human function or a divine mandate / mission - that they as a team would go out from Jerusalem and take the good news to the ends of the earth. How though, does this negate the earlier expressions of zeal that God has for Jerusalem and the land of Israel?


God used the land between Abraham and Joseph/Mary to bring Christ into the world; then that land fulfilled it's role; and the land of importance became the Fields of Harvest, white and ripe for the reaping, reaching around the entire globe.

So the role of the land is done? God has no more zeal for the land itself? What scripture states this? Why does the prophetic scripture seem to imply that the land has a role to play in events to come? Where does Jesus "come" to the 2nd time?

David Taylor
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:42 PM
Thanks for responding David. It seems as if you are either, IMO, taking those verses out of context to make your point or making them state something far more than what they were intended to communicate.


Probably so.



So then, the zeal of God was related to "practical usage"? Not to trivialize what you are saying - I am going to ask this for my own understanding - but is it like having zeal for my car because it helps me accomlish my ministry? Then, once the job is done, I discard the vehicle and have no further use for it?

Israel (landwise) is apart of the entire world mission now. It isn't discarded; but now then entire world has a useage it didn't have before.





But it seems as if Israel is also the "ending point", according to the book of Revelation (knit to the earlier passages I referenced).

Revelation shows the "ending point" for the entire planet in its present sinful and cursed condition.




As I noted above, you seem to be changing the context of this conversation a bit, as Jesus was talking about Samaritan worship practices versus the current Temple worship in Jerusalem. IOW, Jesus was speaking of a centuries old "rivalry" between Samaria and Judah related to the Temple location and the Davidic promises (i.e. Hosea 1 and Hosea's oracle about the disdain Israel had for David, etc.). Jesus was speaking of worship that would flow in "spirit and in truth" or love of God rather than human pride and competetiveness.

true....


It doesn't seem as if Jesus was negating His Father's zeal for a geographic location in this passage; though He was negating human loyalty to current (in that day) worship structures and locations in the same manner He did in Matt. 24:1-2.

Sure He was, He very matter-of-factly told them that the time was come that it didn't matter where (location-wise) people worshipped the Father. Jerusalem was no more special than Samaria.



So the role of the land is done? God has no more zeal for the land itself? What scripture states this? Why does the prophetic scripture seem to imply that the land has a role to play in events to come? Where does Jesus "come" to the 2nd time?

Jesus comes to the Earth and restores it all. Not just a small portion of it.
All the Land is restored for His people; and His people are the focal point of His return. The Prophets many time had their sights limited to Israel alone; and not the greater expanse that God had in mind that would include the restoration of all peoples of all nations (including all lands) to Him.

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:44 PM
Does the land itself still matter?
I do not think that it does. I suggest that one of Paul's central insights was that a number of the promises, ostensibly made to "national Israel" are in fact promises to another group "true Israel". Furthermore, I suggest Paul sees that the "thing promised" - in this case the land - is not really what was promised after all. In the case of the land, Paul discerns that the promise never really was about the land of Palestine, but about the entirety of creation.

Note the following text from Romans 8. Paul clearly identifies "true Israel" (a group containing both Jews and Gentiles) as the real heirs to the covenant promises. And he sees that those heirs do not simply get Palestine, but all of creation.

Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28123i)] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

John146
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:45 PM
In all of the discussions about Israel and the validity of the Old Testament promises to the Jews today after the cross and the overall Israeli rejection of the Messiah (percentage-wise) in the first century, I never see any discussion of God's zeal for Zion that transcends in some ways His zeal for the Jewish people (if He has any - but that's a debate for a zillion other threads).

In other words, the land (in some arguments) seems to be rendered as irrelevant as the people in the current debates that are happening within this forum - without scriptural precedent, in my opinion.

I think of Joel 2:18, for example - "Then the Lord will be zealous for His land..."

Is that a temporal reality? Is that zeal for the "land" a thing of the past? By what passage of scripture can we base that assumption on?

We see that zeal expressed yet again in Zechariah 1 and 8:

"I am zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with great zeal..." (Zech. 1:14)

"I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy, My house shall be built in it..." (Zech. 1:16)

"'I am zealous for Zion with great zeal; with great fervor I am zealous for her.' Thus says the Lord" 'I will return to Zion and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, the Mountain of the Lord of hosts, the Holy Mountain." (Zech. 8:2-3)

I guess my question, and the discussion I'm interested in, centers around the fact that God in the OT continually expresses His zeal for the land, or the geographic location of Israel. He chose that place to be born over every other place on earth. It seems as if one could argue fairly convincingly that, of all the places on earth, He has also chosen that geographic location as the place in which He will return. In my viewpoint, that logically flows to Israel then being the location from which He will exercise the fullness of His rule over all the nations of the earth (fulfilling every promise in detail in the OT).

Does the land itself still matter? No, I don't believe it does.


Why would the land still matter to God today?I don't know why it would. I don't believe it does.


And then finally, if there is disagreement about the value of the land to the Lord in our time,

What passages negate this idea?

Thanks in advance for participating!Hebrews 11
8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all knew that they were strangers on this earth. They realized that the land was not what mattered. So, they looked for a city whose builder and maker is God. They desired a better country, a heavenly one. Why should we be any different? Is it physical things like land that matters to God or is it a heavenly city, new Jerusalem, and a heavenly country, the Israel of God, that matters?

Hebrews 12
18For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

I believe the Zion for which God now has zeal for is the heavenly Zion rather than the mountain that can be touched. I believe His zeal is for heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of us all (Gal 4:26) and not the earthly Jerusalem which is in bondage (Gal 4:25). Notice that it says the city of the living God is heavenly Jerusalem, not earthly Jerusalem. I believe God is zealous for His people in His heavenly kingdom and not for earthly land.

2 Peter 3
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I believe Peter teaches here that we are looking forward to the appearance of the new heavens and new earth at His coming. I believe Peter tells us here that Christ is not coming to Jerusalem, but He is going to burn up the earth and remove all wickedness and the new earth will result from that. So it is the new earth that He will return to, a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness" and, IMO, a place wherein only dwelleth righteousness.

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:59 PM
Probably so.


Israel (landwise) is apart of the entire world mission now. It isn't discarded; but now then entire world has a useage it didn't have before.

Makes sense. So you would say that, like the peoples of the earth, the land no longer has any special place in God's heart - that what was true in Joel, Isaiah, and Zechariah's day is no longer true and that the geographic location is no different than New York City or London? What scriptures prove this assertion?


Revelation shows the "ending point" for the entire planet in its present sinful and cursed condition.


Sure, but a few questions:

1. It seems possible that the temple in Jerusalem in Rev. 11 could be the actual, physical location of the two witnesses at the end of the age.

2. It seems possible that the "Mount Zion" of Rev. 14 is the actual "Mount Zion" referenced dozens of times in the OT as a literal, physical location not a heavenly one.

3. It seems likely that the Valley of Meggiddo is the same Israeli valley referenced elsewhere as "the Valley of Jehoshaphat" in Joel 3, located near Nazareth northwest of Jerusalem.

4. It seems probable that the final conflict of Jesus with the nations is settled there in the manner in which Rev. 19:11-21 parallels Isa. 63:1-6, which places Jesus at His return in the land of Israel striding towards the literal Jerusalem to deliver her from the nations that are gathered in Meggiddo.

5. It seems likely that, when the New Jerusalem descends to the earth it will be located on top of the "Old Jerusalem" geographically; which then means that it is also likely that Jesus will rule the earth from that geographic location.

That's alot of attention in the book of Revelation given to a geographic location in the midst of a global scenario.


Sure He was, He very matter-of-factly told them that the time was come that it didn't matter where (location-wise) people worshipped the Father. Jerusalem was no more special than Samaria.

Yes, no more special in context to the Temple worship scenario that concerned the Samaritan woman. This doesn't render Jerusalem inconsequential in totality, nor does is negate the earlier passages noted expressing God's zeal.


Jesus comes to the Earth and restores it all. Not just a small portion of it.
All the Land is restored for His people; and His people are the focal point of His return. The Prophets many time had their sights limited to Israel alone; and not the greater expanse that God had in mind that would include the restoration of all peoples of all nations (including all lands) to Him.

Agree (with the first sentence) and disagree (with the rest). The prophets had a global view of God's restorative plan with a central focus on the "headquarters" of that global transformation.

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:02 PM
I do not think that it does. I suggest that one of Paul's central insights was that a number of the promises, ostensibly made to "national Israel" are in fact promises to another group "true Israel". Furthermore, I suggest Paul sees that the "thing promised" - in this case the land - is not really what was promised after all. In the case of the land, Paul discerns that the promise never really was about the land of Palestine, but about the entirety of creation.

Suggestion noted, but where does the broader view of God's plan negate the details of it's execution? In other words, why would it be either / or instead of both / and? The passage you reference below doesn't negate one reality - it affirms the other.


Note the following text from Romans 8. Paul clearly identifies "true Israel" (a group containing both Jews and Gentiles) as the real heirs to the covenant promises. And he sees that those heirs do not simply get Palestine, but all of creation.

Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28123i)] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

That promise was already clear in the Abrahamic covenant - but again, where does this negate the emotions God expresses in the passages I referenced earlier?

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:11 PM
Hebrews 11
8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all knew that they were strangers on this earth. They realized that the land was not what mattered. So, they looked for a city whose builder and maker is God. They desired a better country, a heavenly one. Why should we be any different? Is it physical things like land that matters to God or is it a heavenly city, new Jerusalem, and a heavenly country, the Israel of God, that matters?

Would it be more accurate to say that they understood that the "current" (in their day) configuration of the land was not the issue, but the "future" expression of the "better country"? Melchizedek blessed Abram as a priest representing the "Possessor of heaven and earth" with the understanding that Abram would, covenantally, also "possess heaven and earth". I mean, you do believe that heaven is coming to earth through Christ, don't you? This promise wouldn't negate God's zeal for Zion - it would clarify it.


Hebrews 12
18For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

I believe the Zion for which God now has zeal for is the heavenly Zion rather than the mountain that can be touched. I believe His zeal is for heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of us all (Gal 4:26) and not the earthly Jerusalem which is in bondage (Gal 4:25). Notice that it says the city of the living God is heavenly Jerusalem, not earthly Jerusalem. I believe God is zealous for His people in His heavenly kingdom and not for earthly land.

It seems as if you are confusing concepts here. Of course He would have a zeal for the "heavenly Zion" - but why and how would that negate His zeal for the earthly one? Didn't God have zeal for the heavenly Zion when He inspired Isaiah, Joel, and Zechariah? Was God being disingenuous to them or did they misinterpret God?


2 Peter 3
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I believe Peter teaches here that we are looking forward to the appearance of the new heavens and new earth at His coming. I believe Peter tells us here that Christ is not coming to Jerusalem, but He is going to burn up the earth and remove all wickedness and the new earth will result from that. So it is the new earth that He will return to, a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness" and, IMO, a place wherein only dwelleth righteousness.

I fail to see the relevance of this passage as proof that it negates God's zeal for Jerusalem / Zion. I also fail to see how this passage proves that Jesus is not returning to Jerusalem.

David Taylor
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:08 PM
Sure, but a few questions:

1. It seems possible that the temple in Jerusalem in Rev. 11 could be the actual, physical location of the two witnesses at the end of the age.

Revelation 11 doesn't mention the 2 witnesses within the temple, and it also tells me the temple being described is the heavenly temple.

Revelation 11 "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail."

So when I see John being told to measure the temple, and to leave out the Gentiles, then it is telling me that when John was given the vision, at the beginning of the NT Harvest 2000 years ago, the Gentile had yet to come in; and the holy temple in Heaven was not yet complete.




2. It seems possible that the "Mount Zion" of Rev. 14 is the actual "Mount Zion" referenced dozens of times in the OT as a literal, physical location not a heavenly one.


Revelation 14 tells me that Mt Zion is heavenly.

Revelation 14 14:1 "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. "



3. It seems likely that the Valley of Meggiddo is the same Israeli valley referenced elsewhere as "the Valley of Jehoshaphat" in Joel 3, located near Nazareth northwest of Jerusalem.


Actually that isn't so. Recheck your geography. The modern name for the valley of Jehoshaphat is the Kidron valley which runs southeast of Jerusalem between Jerusalem and Bethany.

The Valley of Meggiddo is as you say, northwest of Jerusalem in Galillee, just to the south of Nazareth.





4. It seems probable that the final conflict of Jesus with the nations is settled there in the manner in which Rev. 19:11-21 parallels Isa. 63:1-6, which places Jesus at His return in the land of Israel striding towards the literal Jerusalem to deliver her from the nations that are gathered in Meggiddo.


I have no doubt that John drew much from the grandious imagery of Isaiah when depicting the final return of Christ and great battle. However, for myself, I believe Paul and Peter was a little more simplistic in their description of His return and the subsequent results; showing that the wicked would be 'destroyed with the brightness of His appearing' and that the earth would melt with fire at His coming.

I'm not really expecting a final battle with spears, and horsemen, and chariots, and arrows as Isaiah and his contemporaries used to describe warefare....but I could be wrong.

I see Jesus' return as having an immediate worldwide effect; both for the righteous and the wicked; so his exact location really is meaningless to me. That the Earth will be restored and removed of Sin and the Curse really is sufficient for me. Maybe New Jerusalem very will descend right down ontop of old Jerusalem....or maybe that's just verbose figurative language describing the indescribably.



5. It seems likely that, when the New Jerusalem descends to the earth it will be located on top of the "Old Jerusalem" geographically; which then means that it is also likely that Jesus will rule the earth from that geographic location.


I don't see a 'rule of Jesus' (as in having subjects, and running an earthly government) in the manner that mankind's kingdoms and governments have been handled in the past. Again I may be wrong, but when Jesus returns, I see all sin and death removed from the planet; and therein dwelleth rightouesness; with the wicked severed from among the just and cast into the fire. What remains afterwards will be Jesus and His redeemed children only; and no rulership; just unity and everlasting life.




Yes, no more special in context to the Temple worship scenario that concerned the Samaritan woman. This doesn't render Jerusalem inconsequential in totality, nor does is negate the earlier passages noted expressing God's zeal.

Agree (with the first sentence) and disagree (with the rest). The prophets had a global view of God's restorative plan with a central focus on the "headquarters" of that global transformation.

I see Earthly Jerusalem as inconsequential going forward; I guess my eye is too much on Jerusalem from above; the heavenly Jerusalem to consider any special relevance for any earthly city once Christ returns. I really don't see a headquarters; other than the Earth and its inhabitants will be in perfect eternal harmony and peace with their Lord; seeing Him face-to-face, and being like Him; with all the wicked removed and cast into the fire.

John146
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:10 PM
Would it be more accurate to say that they understood that the "current" (in their day) configuration of the land was not the issue, but the "future" expression of the "better country"? Melchizedek blessed Abram as a priest representing the "Possessor of heaven and earth" with the understanding that Abram would, covenantally, also "possess heaven and earth". I mean, you do believe that heaven is coming to earth through Christ, don't you? This promise wouldn't negate God's zeal for Zion - it would clarify it.It is the new heavens and new earth that Abraham looked for, not a millennial earth where people would still be sinning and at the end of which a number as the sand of the sea would rebel.


It seems as if you are confusing concepts here. Of course He would have a zeal for the "heavenly Zion" - but why and how would that negate His zeal for the earthly one? Didn't God have zeal for the heavenly Zion when He inspired Isaiah, Joel, and Zechariah? Was God being disingenuous to them or did they misinterpret God? Neither. I believe you are misinterpreting Isaiah, Joel and Zechariah. ;)

I believe Hebrews 12:22 tells us the location and nature of the Zion and the Jerusalem for which God is zealous.


I fail to see the relevance of this passage as proof that it negates God's zeal for Jerusalem / Zion. I also fail to see how this passage proves that Jesus is not returning to Jerusalem.It's relevant because if the earth is burned up at the coming of Christ, as I believe, then that means earthly Jerusalem will be burned up at His return. I hardly think He would burn it up if He was zealous for the land. But 2 Peter 3:10-13 indicates, IMO, that the coming of the Lord brings with it the burning up the entire earth, including Jerusalem, and results in the new earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness".

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:33 PM
Revelation 11 doesn't mention the 2 witnesses within the temple, and it also tells me the temple being described is the heavenly temple.

Revelation 11 "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail."

So when I see John being told to measure the temple, and to leave out the Gentiles, then it is telling me that when John was given the vision, at the beginning of the NT Harvest 2000 years ago, the Gentile had yet to come in; and the holy temple in Heaven was not yet complete.

Sure, but that places the transmission of the vision prior to Acts 10, when John was still in Jerusalem - not Patmos. And wherever you place the temple in Rev. 11, John clearly places the two witnesses in Jerusalem (11:8) and so did Zechariah (4:11-14).


Revelation 14 tells me that Mt Zion is heavenly.

Revelation 14 14:1 "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. "

Sure, but it tells me that it's earthly. :lol:

When one reads it carefully, it's the "harpists" singing that are before the throne of God not Jesus or the 144,000. The phrase, as it appears the second time, (after "without fault") isn't in the original text.


Actually that isn't so. Recheck your geography. The modern name for the valley of Jehoshaphat is the Kidron valley which runs southeast of Jerusalem between Jerusalem and Bethany.

The Valley of Meggiddo is as you say, northwest of Jerusalem in Galillee, just to the south of Nazareth.

Maybe so, but then we have TWO locations of Israel figuring prominently in the end-time scenario, not one.


I have no doubt that John drew much from the grandious imagery of Isaiah when depicting the final return of Christ and great battle. However, for myself, I believe Paul and Peter was a little more simplistic in their description of His return and the subsequent results; showing that the wicked would be 'destroyed with the brightness of His appearing' and that the earth would melt with fire at His coming.

So you believe that Paul and Peter negate John's detailed description? You also believe then that their simplicity negates the earlier passages referenced?


I see Jesus' return as having an immediate worldwide effect; both for the righteous and the wicked; so his exact location really is meaningless to me. That the Earth will be restored and removed of Sin and the Curse really is sufficient for me. Maybe New Jerusalem very will descend right down ontop of old Jerusalem....or maybe that's just verbose figurative language describing the indescribably.

The question isn't whether or not the location is meaningful to you, the question is about what is meaningful to God.


I don't see a 'rule of Jesus' (as in having subjects, and running an earthly government) in the manner that mankind's kingdoms and governments have been handled in the past. Again I may be wrong, but when Jesus returns, I see all sin and death removed from the planet; and therein dwelleth rightouesness; with the wicked severed from among the just and cast into the fire. What remains afterwards will be Jesus and His redeemed children only; and no rulership; just unity and everlasting life.

Are you saying that Jesus won't be King after His return? That we won't be subject to His rule? What does the title "King of kings" mean? Will Jesus be located in any physical location after His return? Does the bible have anything to say about His physical location?


I see Earthly Jerusalem as inconsequential going forward; I guess my eye is too much on Jerusalem from above; the heavenly Jerusalem to consider any special relevance for any earthly city once Christ returns. I really don't see a headquarters; other than the Earth and its inhabitants will be in perfect eternal harmony and peace with their Lord; seeing Him face-to-face, and being like Him; with all the wicked removed and cast into the fire.

Again, I'm not concerned with what you see, I'm concerned about what the prophets saw and whether or not their observations are relevant for us today.

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:37 PM
It is the new heavens and new earth that Abraham looked for, not a millennial earth where people would still be sinning and at the end of which a number as the sand of the sea would rebel.

This discussion, so far, isn't about a "millennial earth". It's simply about whether or not the emotional descriptives given by the prophets about Jerusalem and the land still matter today, and by what scriptural precedent we dismiss those emotions.


Neither. I believe you are misinterpreting Isaiah, Joel and Zechariah. ;)

Sure, but I'm hoping you'll address those passages then if you're going to assert that. ;)

Until then, I'm going with my interpretation.


I believe Hebrews 12:22 tells us the location and nature of the Zion and the Jerusalem for which God is zealous.

That doesn't really answer my earlier questions.


It's relevant because if the earth is burned up at the coming of Christ, as I believe, then that means earthly Jerusalem will be burned up at His return. I hardly think He would burn it up if He was zealous for the land. But 2 Peter 3:10-13 indicates, IMO, that the coming of the Lord brings with it the burning up the entire earth, including Jerusalem, and results in the new earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness".

I agree - so perhaps there is more to the story than one passage of scripture?

David Taylor
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:52 PM
So you believe that Paul and Peter negate John's detailed description? You also believe then that their simplicity negates the earlier passages referenced?

Nope. I believe John was using OT grandious imagery to describe the indescribable that will occur at the return of Christ; using the most descriptive comparision he could do by drawing from Isaiah and the OT writers' already establish grand imagery.

I believe John agrees with Paul and Peter that when Christ comes, as John put it in chapter 6, noone (of the wicked who aren't his) will be able to stand.



Are you saying that Jesus won't be King after His return? That we won't be subject to His rule? What does the title "King of kings" mean? Will Jesus be located in any physical location after His return? Does the bible have anything to say about His physical location?

Jesus is King now. When He returns, everyone of all-time will have no doubt realizing that He was, is, and forever will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

To have the power and authority to remove the curse of sin and death from the entire Creation itself is a pretty Kingly task, if you ask me.



Again, I'm not concerned with what you see, I'm concerned about what the prophets saw and whether or not their observations are relevant for us today.

OK. :cry:

John146
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:53 PM
This discussion, so far, isn't about a "millennial earth". It's simply about whether or not the emotional descriptives given by the prophets about Jerusalem and the land still matter today, and by what scriptural precedent we dismiss those emotions.



Sure, but I'm hoping you'll address those passages then if you're going to assert that. ;)

Until then, I'm going with my interpretation.



That doesn't really answer my earlier questions.



I agree - so perhaps there is more to the story than one passage of scripture?Looks like neither one of us is answering each other's questions to our satisfaction. Not much we can do about that, I guess. I don't see that we'll ever be satisfied because our approaches to interpreting scripture are vastly different. I'll just have to let my previous posts speak for themselves and you can let yours speak for themselves and we'll have to live with being unsatisfied with each other's responses. ;)

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:01 PM
Nope. I believe John was using OT grandious imagery to describe the indescribable that will occur at the return of Christ; using the most descriptive comparision he could do by drawing from Isaiah and the OT writers' already establish grand imagery.

I believe John agrees with Paul and Peter that when Christ comes, as John put it in chapter 6, noone (of the wicked who aren't his) will be able to stand.

Hmmm - but Chapter 6 doesn't negate the emotions God expresses for Jerusalem and the land; nor does it negate the later passages that seem to give a geographic location for the return of Jesus, nor does it negate a physical location from which Jesus will rule?



Jesus is King now. When He returns, everyone of all-time will have no doubt realizing that He was, is, and forever will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

To have the power and authority to remove the curse of sin and death from the entire Creation itself is a pretty Kingly task, if you ask me.

Are you saying that this negates God's zeal for a geographic location or the possibility of Him ruling from a physical location? I'm confused.



OK. :cry:

:lol: Point taken. My point was that your opinion / view on how you see things going down isn't compelling enough to answer the worldview of the prophets.

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:06 PM
Looks like neither one of us is answering each other's questions to our satisfaction. Not much we can do about that, I guess. I don't see that we'll ever be satisfied because our approaches to interpreting scripture are vastly different. I'll just have to let my previous posts speak for themselves and you can let yours speak for themselves and we'll have to live with being unsatisfied with each other's responses. ;)

What questions have you asked me on this thread that I haven't answered to your satisfaction?

You haven't attempted to interpret or explain the scriptures I laid out in a manner that would express a "vastly different" approach? Are you saying that you don't utilize a grammatical-historical approach and that understanding God speaking about "returning to Jerusalem with mercy" as Jesus returning to Jerusalem with mercy is a poor approach to interpreting scripture?

I was mostly hoping you would answer the questions about God delighting in the heavenly Zion while speaking about the earthly one, as He did in Zech. 8:3 - unless your approach to interpreting scripture allows you to overlook the fact that God is going to "return" to Zion to "dwell" there, meaning that He couldn't have been speaking about the heavenly one - otherwise He would have to have been located somewhere else...

David Taylor
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:46 PM
Hmmm - but Chapter 6 doesn't negate the emotions God expresses for Jerusalem and the land; nor does it negate the later passages that seem to give a geographic location for the return of Jesus, nor does it negate a physical location from which Jesus will rule?


Hey, I agree 100% with you that John later in Revelation gave a geographic location and a physical location from which Jesus would rule at His return....I find it here (although I probably have a different expectation of 'rule' than you do).

Is this a good geographic and physical location for me to expect?

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it"

That's the physical Jerusalem I believe John was recoding God's emotions and physical location of.





Are you saying that this negates God's zeal for a geographic location or the possibility of Him ruling from a physical location? I'm confused.

No, God's zeal for geographic location in Revelation is fulfilled in the presentation of Jerusalem from above; not in the Jerusalem we have here on earth now.




:lol: Point taken. My point was that your opinion / view on how you see things going down isn't compelling enough to answer the worldview of the prophets.

In your opinion of course; but I'm not trying to sway you, just share my understanding of what I see the scriptures telling me.

I see Christ's reign at His return as being perfect; with perfected people; in a perfect Earthly Environment; wherein dwelleth righteousness. You have another transitional epoch of time between those two events; and thusly we see several scriptures differently.

the rookie
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:59 PM
Hey, I agree 100% with you that John later in Revelation gave a geographic location and a physical location from which Jesus would rule at His return....I find it here (although I probably have a different expectation of 'rule' than you do).

How so? I understand "rule" as "serving" and "teaching" while possessing ultimate authority over; expressing that authority with meekness and servant-heartedness, IOW. Did you have something different in mind for "rule"?


Is this a good geographic and physical location for me to expect?

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it"

That's the physical Jerusalem I believe John was recoding God's emotions and physical location of.

John didn't record emotions, Zechariah and Joel did. They knit God's emotions to a geographic location. Are you saying that the name of the city is irrelevant and that the geographic location it will inhabit is unimportant? By what scripture are you basing that assumption?


No, God's zeal for geographic location in Revelation is fulfilled in the presentation of Jerusalem from above; not in the Jerusalem we have here on earth now.

How so? By what basis are you rendering the geographic location (that the scriptures seem to grant importance to) unimportant? You can't jyst say that it is so, it would be helpful to prove it.


In your opinion of course; but I'm not trying to sway you, just share my understanding of what I see the scriptures telling me.

I see Christ's reign at His return as being perfect; with perfected people; in a perfect Earthly Environment; wherein dwelleth righteousness. You have another transitional epoch of time between those two events; and thusly we see several scriptures differently.

Then perhaps you can share those scriptures rather than just stating your opinion? I'm looking for scriptural proof that the geographic location is irrelevant. It seems to me that there is no scripture in the NT that negates the assertions of the prophets in the OT, regardless of how one interprets the scriptures.

David Taylor
Sep 22nd 2008, 08:50 PM
How so? I understand "rule" as "serving" and "teaching" while possessing ultimate authority over; expressing that authority with meekness and servant-heartedness, IOW. Did you have something different in mind for "rule"?

If ruling in the context of what Christ does following the second coming involves only people living on the Earth who are redeemed and glorified and sinless; then we have the same thing in mind.

If ruling involves ruling sinful wicked people following Christ's return, then I don't see that occuring at all.




John didn't record emotions, Zechariah and Joel did. They knit God's emotions to a geographic location. Are you saying that the name of the city is irrelevant and that the geographic location it will inhabit is unimportant? By what scripture are you basing that assumption?

Which city?


Earthly Jerusalem from 400 BC when Joel and Zechariah lived; or
Earthly Jerusalem now; or
Earthly Jerusalem at the time of Christ's return; or
Heavenly Jerusalem prior to its descent; or
Heavenly Jerusalem after it's descent?



How so? By what basis are you rendering the geographic location (that the scriptures seem to grant importance to) unimportant? You can't jyst say that it is so, it would be helpful to prove it.

The geographical location of which city? :hmm:




I see Christ's reign at His return as being perfect; with perfected people; in a perfect Earthly Environment; wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Then perhaps you can share those scriptures rather than just stating your opinion? I'm looking for scriptural proof that the geographic location is irrelevant.

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."


Matthew 13:30 "when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

II Peter 3:4 "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. "

Matthew 13:47 "a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."


II Thessalonians 1:7 "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."

Those are a few of the scriptures that I would 'base my opinion' on, when I said above, "I see Christ's reign at His return as being perfect; with perfected people; in a perfect Earthly Environment; wherein dwelleth righteousness."

That would be why my earlier opinion said, "I see all sin and death removed from the planet; and therein dwelleth rightouesness; with the wicked severed from among the just and cast into the fire."

My heart's Desire
Sep 25th 2008, 03:14 AM
I believe God still has a zeal for Zion. Sometimes I do wonder why He picked the land areas that He did, though that is probably not important. ;) What was it about the Land that made it special?

Nihil Obstat
Sep 25th 2008, 04:18 AM
The parable given in Luke 19:11-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:11-28&version=50) seems pretty straight forward that Jesus does not presently in heaven reign as King, but that His kingship would begin after His second coming, and that in Jerusalem. He had to go away to a far country (to heaven, not earth) to receive the kingdom (cp. Dan. 7:9-14; Acts 3:19-21; Rev. 5:1-7), and then once having received it, to return (to earth, not heaven), only then being able to reign. What are your thoughts about this; how do you interpret this parable?

John146
Sep 25th 2008, 04:46 PM
The parable given in Luke 19:11-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:11-28&version=50) seems pretty straight forward that Jesus does not presently in heaven reign as King, but that His kingship would begin after His second coming, and that in Jerusalem. He had to go away to a far country (to heaven, not earth) to receive the kingdom (cp. Dan. 7:9-14; Acts 3:19-21; Rev. 5:1-7), and then once having received it, to return (to earth, not heaven), only then being able to reign. What are your thoughts about this; how do you interpret this parable?He received the kingdom but doesn't reign over it? Sorry, but I'm not following your logic at all. If He received the kingdom (which He did) then that means He is reigning over it. Why would He be given a kingdom in which He had to wait thousands of years to reign over it?

Paul said in 1 Cor 15:25 that "He must reign" (present tense) "till he hath put all enemies under his feet". He was really saying that Christ must continue to reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. Peter said in Acts 2:34-36 that Christ is at the right hand of the Father in heaven until His foes (enemies) are made His footstool (are put under His feet). God made Him "both Lord and Christ". That shows that He was given a place of authority and power as King of kings and Lord of lords and He was also the Messiah, the Savior of the world.

Acts 5
30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

He was called "Lord" in Acts 2 and now "Prince" in this verse. When you look at the Greek, you can see that both terms describe His place of ultimate authority and power. He is the King of His kingdom, which is not of this world (John 18:36).

Ephesians 1
20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

1 Peter 3
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

He was placed "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named", was given "to be the head over all things to the church" with "angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him", but He does not yet reign as King? I wholeheartedly disagree.

Eric

David Taylor
Sep 25th 2008, 04:59 PM
Some other verses that show our Lord reigns....

Psalms 92:15 "the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. "

Micah 5:2 "Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Psalms 96:9 "O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth . The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory."

Psalms 99:1 "The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved. The LORD is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people. "

Psalms 146:10 "The LORD shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the LORD. "

Luke 1:31 "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

wpm
Sep 25th 2008, 08:05 PM
The parable given in Luke 19:11-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:11-28&version=50) seems pretty straight forward that Jesus does not presently in heaven reign as King, but that His kingship would begin after His second coming, and that in Jerusalem. He had to go away to a far country (to heaven, not earth) to receive the kingdom (cp. Dan. 7:9-14; Acts 3:19-21; Rev. 5:1-7), and then once having received it, to return (to earth, not heaven), only then being able to reign. What are your thoughts about this; how do you interpret this parable?

This Sovereign rule is not only a future hope but it is a current reality. Colossians 2:9-10 says, “For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.”

Hebrews 1:1-3 commences, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

The Hebrews writer reveals the omnipotent Divine nature of Christ and His absolute authority as the Son of God.

drew
Sep 25th 2008, 08:41 PM
Suggestion noted, but where does the broader view of God's plan negate the details of it's execution? In other words, why would it be either / or instead of both / and? The passage you reference below doesn't negate one reality - it affirms the other.
I agree that it is always possible that there is a double fulfillment. But I think Paul rules this out specifically in 2 Cor 1:20:

no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ

I suspect that many people read "promises" and do not connect it with the covenant. I think that Paul is specifically referring to the covenant promises, not vague, otherwise unspecified promises. I think that people often "miss" Paul's focus on the covenant and his promises. In fact, I would dare to suggest that the central theme of Romans is not "how you get saved and then how you live", but rather is Paul's exposition of the way that God has brought the Abrahamic covenant to its fulfillment in the work of Jesus.

But, to return to the matter at hand. In addition to the 2 Corinthians text, I suggest that Paul clearly sets forth a worldview where there is absolutely no distinctions among members of the "new covenant" family.

If there were still "outstandng" promises for national Israel, that would seem to run counter to his continual emphasis as to how we are one family.

drew
Sep 25th 2008, 08:52 PM
This Sovereign rule is not only a future hope but it is a current reality. Colossians 2:9-10 says, “For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.”
Finally, I have found a board where some people hold this view. With no intended slight to those of the opposing camp, I am actually quite amazed at how few people share my view that the scriptures tell that Jesus has already been installed as King. Perhaps some will say that this is because the Scriptures do not support such a position.

I will take a more cynical position that I hope I can express without seeming judgemental of those who disagree (although I fear this will be difficult to achieve).

I politely submit that the real motivation for denying the present kingship of Jesus is that we really want to "do business as usual" in this world, effectively "kicking God upstairs" so we can run the world according to secular principles and "make some real money".

Now that I have no doubt offended some, let me elaborate by saying that I am not suggesting that posters here (who think the reign of Jesus has yet to begin) are wordly compromisers. However, I put forward the possibility that you are innocent inheritors of the legacy of the reformation.

In response to the horrible religious wars that preceded the reformation, God was relegated to rule only over the "internal life" of the believer and effectively booted out of the public square. Some people seized on this because it suited their power interests. And we now live in that tradition.

So please understand, I am not accusing any of you of intentional collusion against the kingship of Jesus.

the rookie
Sep 25th 2008, 09:09 PM
I agree that it is always possible that there is a double fulfillment. But I think Paul rules this out specifically in 2 Cor 1:20:

no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ

I suspect that many people read "promises" and do not connect it with the covenant. I think that Paul is specifically referring to the covenant promises, not vague, otherwise unspecified promises. I think that people often "miss" Paul's focus on the covenant and his promises. In fact, I would dare to suggest that the central theme of Romans is not "how you get saved and then how you live", but rather is Paul's exposition of the way that God has brought the Abrahamic covenant to its fulfillment in the work of Jesus.

But, to return to the matter at hand. In addition to the 2 Corinthians text, I suggest that Paul clearly sets forth a worldview where there is absolutely no distinctions among members of the "new covenant" family.

If there were still "outstandng" promises for national Israel, that would seem to run counter to his continual emphasis as to how we are one family.

"Rules out" would be a strong, strong assumption that seemingly requires the context to be established prior to reading the passage - particularly in light of the immediate context of 2 Corinthians, speaking to a people whom would not be as excited about the covenantal promises as other groups.

I can say "yes and amen" to my son's request (age 5) to go to Australia without taking him that very minute. To establish a context within the hearts of the people to believe in the predisposition of God to say "yes and amen" though the current condition seems to indicate the opposite (related to pressure, trials, and trouble) was Paul's way (with other apostolic leaders) to bolster the people's hope and confidence in God despite a seeming delay in the fullness of those very promises being manifested in a manner they expected.

This message of hope forms the substance of most apostolic preaching; to say that "yes and amen" means "yes and already fully has" is to dramatically shift the context and the substance of the message in a manner that doesn't even line up with reality then - or now.

Regardless of the nature of Christ's reign in the light of time and eternity (IOW, "past? present? future?") one has to admit that the best is yet to come - and if that be true than there are still promises yet to be fulfilled in the heart of God for His people. If that is true, than one can rest in the "yes and amen" in the heart of God to bring those promises to pass in their right time.

ananias
Sep 25th 2008, 09:32 PM
I believe that regarding their meaning, three words have been blended into one in the understanding of especially the Gentile Christians (but not so much the Jewish Christians): nation; kingdom, temple.

Dualism taught that there would always be a separation of "the spiritual" and "the natural" because, according to Dualism, "the natural" is corrupt and cannot be sanctified. It is because of Dualism that one particular early heresy taught that Jesus did not really come in the flesh (since the flesh is corrupt, and "the spiritual" cannot be united with "the natural").

Not only did Jesus come in the likeness of sinful flesh, but His death and resurrection is the undoing of the separation of "the spiritual" and "the natural" which came about through death, which in turn came about through sin entering the world.

The word nation with regard to Israel refers to Abraham's descendants - those who are the natural seed and believe (who have not been broken off with the majority as in Rom.11: 17) + those who are the unnatural seed who are grafted in among the remnant, to share with them in the root and fatness of the nation.

The word kingdom refers to the promise which God first made to Abraham regarding the geographical land of Israel and later to David.

The word temple refers to the house where the Spirit of God dwells.

We know that the Old Testament temple has been forever superseded by the N.T temple, and we know that one must be a citizen of the nation or grafted into the nation in order to be part of the temple. The temple is made up of the individual citizens of the nation.

But taking this back to the separation of "the spiritual"and "the natural", we know that just as the citizens of the nation were not a "spiritual nation" in the sense that they were in the world, in natural bodies and not spirits floating around up there somewhre, so today the citizens of the nation are not a "spritual Israel" in the sense that we are not spirits floating around up there - we are still in natural bodies, and in the world.

Yet Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world - of present time, since the Greek word nun translated as now means "of present time" :

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now (Greek nun)My kingdom is not from here." (Joh. 18:36).

The same Greek word nun ("of present time") is also translated as now in the following verse:

"For Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now (Greek nun) is, and is in slavery with her children." (Gal.4:25).

So Jerusalem is clearly in slavery in this present time. But just as Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world of this present time, so we later read in the Revelation:

"And the seventh angel sounded. And there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ. And He will reign forever and ever." (Rev.11: 15).

In Heb.12: 18-24, the context is a distinction or comparison being made between being under the Old covenant (verses 18-21) and the New covenant (verses 22-24).

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect," (Heb 12:22-23)

We notice that "the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in Heaven" refers to those who are in natural bodies in the world, and in this sense, "Mount Zion" refers to the N.T temple, while "the general assembly" still refers to the members of the nation assembled together.

Yet the heavenly Jerusalem is said to descend from heaven to earth some day in the future, in the days when there will be a new heaven and a new earth:

"And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her Husband." (Rev.21:2)

And those who are in the world in natural bodies are called "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession, so that you might speak of the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were not a people, but now the people of God, those not pitied then, but now pitied." (1Pe 2:9-10)

royal priesthood relates to the N.T temple while holy nation relates to the nation of Israel into which we have been grafted.

None of these verses prove a "spiritual" kingdom of the son of David which has superseded the natural kingdom which is His inheritance, yet there are a great many facts and scriptures which point to a very literal, natural future Kingdom of Messiah, not least other N.T scriptures, such as:

"Then, indeed, these coming together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, do You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (Act 1:6-8).

There are so many other scriptures and Biblical types and shadows which point to a future, natural geographic kingdom of Messiah after His return that one needs a book to write about all of them. For example, even the structure of the prophecies of Ezekiel corresponds with the structure of the prophecies of the Revelation, when the millennium is interpreted literally:

First, the repentance of "natural" Israel, then the judgment of the nations which have sought her destruction (seven nations are listed for judgment), then a resurrection of the dead, then a prolonged period of total peace and prosperity in the land which ends with a final rebellion led by Gog of Magog, and finally, a new city and new temple in which flows the river of life and the tree with its leaves for the healing of the nations and bearing its 12 fruits each month.

But there is also the fact that Joseph is in many ways a Biblical type of Jesus - and he forgave his own family after he had taken a Gentile bride and after they had repented of what they had done to him.

The question, IMO, does not hinge on whether or not God will again have mercy on the natural descendants of Jacob, and favor them and bless them in the land, etc - the question, IMO, hinges on whether or not the Messiah is going to take His natural inheritance and reign the world from His throne in Jerusalem:

"then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power. for it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet." (1Co 15:24-25).

ananias

Nihil Obstat
Sep 26th 2008, 03:10 AM
He received the kingdom but doesn't reign over it? Sorry, but I'm not following your logic at all. If He received the kingdom (which He did) then that means He is reigning over it. Why would He be given a kingdom in which He had to wait thousands of years to reign over it?

I mean it the way Paul meant it in Eph. 1:9-14, that the will of the Father is to bring all things together in heaven and on earth that are in Christ to be in Him, and that in the mean time we are sealed by the Holy Spirit who guarantees our inheritance in this kingdom until the restoration of the purchased possession. You see, the fullness of the earth belongs to God (Ps. 24:1) - He never lost possession of it - but Paul is speaking about OUR inheritance, not God's.

By Adam's fall, WE lost OUR authority to reign over and subject creation with God as co-governors (cp. Gen. 1:26-28). By the cross, Jesus began the process of redeeming man back to their former / original state, but it is a process. We were saved by the cross (past tense), but we are also being saved by it (present tense). The author of Hebrews wrote that Jesus rules over creation as a Man, as it was intended of man, but that we have not yet attained this (Heb. 2:5-10).

We haven't attained it, because though Jesus bought the earth back from Satan, Jesus has not yet been given by the Father the title deed to the earth to give to us, and He will not until the bowls of incense are filled up in heaven with the new song John recorded (see Rev. 5:1-10). It is at this time that Satan is cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:7-12), for he presently is the prince of the air (Eph. 2:2).

Yes, Satan was triumphed over by the cross (Col. 2:15), but when you understand that Jesus is our Kinsman-Redeemer (cp. Ruth 3:8-4:12), you must understand that though the earth is no longer an acceptable place for Satan to dwell, as it is now purchased by Jesus for His bride and he has no right to it, he can still rebelliously remain until forced off by war, because the land is only purchased - it is not yet inhabited by Jesus and His resurrected saints. This is why it is said that we will reign on the earth with Him AFTER His second coming (Dan. 7:27; Rev. 5:10; 20:4-6).

Peter (and all the prophets, he says) also spoke of this in Acts 3:19-21, that Jesus must remain in heaven until it is time to restore all things. In this parable (Luke 19:11-28), even Jesus says this; His reign, as it was prophesied and so expected (cp. v.38), would not begin until after His return from the far country, being heaven, and it would only be then that His saints would rule over the cities of the earth with Him (vv.17, 19).

Bing
Sep 26th 2008, 09:13 AM
I guess my question, and the discussion I'm interested in, centers around the fact that God in the OT continually expresses His zeal for the land, or the geographic location of Israel. He chose that place to be born over every other place on earth. It seems as if one could argue fairly convincingly that, of all the places on earth, He has also chosen that geographic location as the place in which He will return. In my viewpoint, that logically flows to Israel then being the location from which He will exercise the fullness of His rule over all the nations of the earth (fulfilling every promise in detail in the OT).
My one worry is the ease of a semantic slip that could "logically flow" to Israel being the nation that exercises the fullness of rule over all the nations of the earth - rather than Jesus.

Otherwise, I think it is quite clear (to return reluctantly to the original question) that God's zeal and commitment to Israel is of the greatest encouragement to believers; that if He did not abandon the nation to which the most had been given and the most squandered, then surely He will not lessen in zeal for us.

To argue that God is finished with Israel, or to suggest that God's purpose for Israel was strictly utilitarian, is to skirt close to accusing God of inconstancy, cynicism and insincerity.

John146
Sep 26th 2008, 05:20 PM
I mean it the way Paul meant it in Eph. 1:9-14, that the will of the Father is to bring all things together in heaven and on earth that are in Christ to be in Him, and that in the mean time we are sealed by the Holy Spirit who guarantees our inheritance in this kingdom until the restoration of the purchased possession. You see, the fullness of the earth belongs to God (Ps. 24:1) - He never lost possession of it - but Paul is speaking about OUR inheritance, not God's.

By Adam's fall, WE lost OUR authority to reign over and subject creation with God as co-governors (cp. Gen. 1:26-28). By the cross, Jesus began the process of redeeming man back to their former / original state, but it is a process. We were saved by the cross (past tense), but we are also being saved by it (present tense). The author of Hebrews wrote that Jesus rules over creation as a Man, as it was intended of man, but that we have not yet attained this (Heb. 2:5-10).

We haven't attained it, because though Jesus bought the earth back from Satan, Jesus has not yet been given by the Father the title deed to the earth to give to us, and He will not until the bowls of incense are filled up in heaven with the new song John recorded (see Rev. 5:1-10). It is at this time that Satan is cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:7-12), for he presently is the prince of the air (Eph. 2:2).

Yes, Satan was triumphed over by the cross (Col. 2:15), but when you understand that Jesus is our Kinsman-Redeemer (cp. Ruth 3:8-4:12), you must understand that though the earth is no longer an acceptable place for Satan to dwell, as it is now purchased by Jesus for His bride and he has no right to it, he can still rebelliously remain until forced off by war, because the land is only purchased - it is not yet inhabited by Jesus and His resurrected saints. This is why it is said that we will reign on the earth with Him AFTER His second coming (Dan. 7:27; Rev. 5:10; 20:4-6).

Peter (and all the prophets, he says) also spoke of this in Acts 3:19-21, that Jesus must remain in heaven until it is time to restore all things. In this parable (Luke 19:11-28), even Jesus says this; His reign, as it was prophesied and so expected (cp. v.38), would not begin until after His return from the far country, being heaven, and it would only be then that His saints would rule over the cities of the earth with Him (vv.17, 19).You didn't answer my question, which was: He was placed "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named", was given "to be the head over all things to the church" with "angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him", but He does not yet reign as King?

Also, as far as us reigning with Him, believers were already made kings and priests unto God long ago:

Rev 1
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Nihil Obstat
Sep 28th 2008, 01:58 AM
You didn't answer my question, which was: He was placed "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named", was given "to be the head over all things to the church" with "angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him", but He does not yet reign as King?

Of course Jesus reigns now as King, but He does so in heaven, but the fullness of His kingdom has not yet come to earth, which Peter said all the prophets prophesied of (Acts 3:21). Just a side note: Believing this to be true has no real effect on the argument of the millennium, so don't let your beliefs on that be a stumbling block here; Jesus will rule on the earth forever after His return, despite one's belief about the millennium. Our citizenship is in heaven, yes, in the New Jerusalem, but the New Jerusalem is coming to the renewed earth (Rev. 21:2-3). It will be the same earth as this one, but restored; "Jesus came to make all things new, not all new things." The passage in 2nd Peter isn't talking about total annihilation by fire, because the earth wasn't completely removed and recreated by the Flood, but rather, as Peter said earlier, was baptized by the Flood (2 Pet. 3:1-2; cp. 1 Pet. 3:18-22), and in that same way creation looks for a future baptism by fire (cp. Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:1-4). God still has zeal for earthly Jerusalem, and will baptize her with fire that she would be made a new creation (Rom. 8:18-23; cp. 2 Cor. 5:17). Just as at your rebirth, your old man died and your new man was raised up, but that you are still you - in that same way, the earthly Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem will become one; yes, the new will replace the old, but the new will be housed in the old, if I can say it like that. In other words, God loved you and sent His Son to die for you when you were still a sinner, that He might save you and make you new; in that same way, God still has zeal for the earthly Jerusalem, that she might one day be made the New Jerusalem. Does this make sense? - Lk.11

cwb
Sep 28th 2008, 02:18 AM
You didn't answer my question, which was: He was placed "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named", was given "to be the head over all things to the church" with "angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him", but He does not yet reign as King?

Also, as far as us reigning with Him, believers were already made kings and priests unto God long ago:

Rev 1
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Just curious, are you saying that Jesus Christ rules the kingdoms of this world now at this time? It sounds from some of the responses in this thread from a-millers that you believe Jesus Christ is already ruling the kingdoms of this world. Is that what you believe?

John146
Sep 29th 2008, 04:01 PM
Of course Jesus reigns now as King, but He does so in heaven, but the fullness of His kingdom has not yet come to earth, which Peter said all the prophets prophesied of (Acts 3:21).So, you do acknowledge that Jesus is a King and is currently reigning over His kingdom. The fullness of His kingdom will occur when He delivers His heavenly kingdom over to the Father at His coming (1 Cor 15:23-25). That is when the New Jerusalem will come down to the new earth and it will be a place where there is no more death, pain, sorrow or crying (Rev 21:4) and a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13).


Just a side note: Believing this to be true has no real effect on the argument of the millennium, so don't let your beliefs on that be a stumbling block here; Jesus will rule on the earth forever after His return, despite one's belief about the millennium. Our citizenship is in heaven, yes, in the New Jerusalem, but the New Jerusalem is coming to the renewed earth (Rev. 21:2-3). It will be the same earth as this one, but restored; "Jesus came to make all things new, not all new things." The passage in 2nd Peter isn't talking about total annihilation by fire, because the earth wasn't completely removed and recreated by the Flood, but rather, as Peter said earlier, was baptized by the Flood (2 Pet. 3:1-2; cp. 1 Pet. 3:18-22), and in that same way creation looks for a future baptism by fire (cp. Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:1-4).I believe that occurs at His coming and I believe the fire will remove all of the wicked and all wickedness from the earth, resulting in the new earth where no mortal will be allowed.


God still has zeal for earthly Jerusalem, and will baptize her with fire that she would be made a new creation (Rom. 8:18-23; cp. 2 Cor. 5:17). Just as at your rebirth, your old man died and your new man was raised up, but that you are still you - in that same way, the earthly Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem will become one; yes, the new will replace the old, but the new will be housed in the old, if I can say it like that. In other words, God loved you and sent His Son to die for you when you were still a sinner, that He might save you and make you new; in that same way, God still has zeal for the earthly Jerusalem, that she might one day be made the New Jerusalem. Does this make sense? - Lk.11No, it doesn't make sense at all because nowhere does it teach that earthly Jerusalem will become the New Jerusalem. Instead, we see this:

Galatians 4
25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


The new Jerusalem is heavenly in nature and is contrasted with the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage. All believers have the new Jerusalem as their mother because the new Jerusalem is the heavenly and spiritual dwelling place of all believers, whether Jew or Gentile.

John146
Sep 29th 2008, 04:14 PM
Just curious, are you saying that Jesus Christ rules the kingdoms of this world now at this time? It sounds from some of the responses in this thread from a-millers that you believe Jesus Christ is already ruling the kingdoms of this world. Is that what you believe?Define "ruling"? He is certainly sovereign over the kingdoms of this world. They can't do anything without Him allowing it. So, He rules over them in that sense. I don't believe He will ever rule over them in the sense that you are apparently alluding to.

When He says "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matt 28:18) and when it says that He is the ruler over the kings of the earth (Rev 1:5), what do you think that means?

He rules in heaven above all things but He rules directly in power and authority over His church.

Ephesians 1
17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

This passage says He is above all things but He is the head over His church. He's not going to rule in authority and power over people who have no desire for Him to do so. I don't believe scripture ever teaches that He would do that. He is not an earthly king. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Instead, unfortunately, those unbelievers who are alive when He returns will be destroyed and then all unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire.

Mograce2U
Sep 29th 2008, 04:27 PM
I believe God still has a zeal for Zion. Sometimes I do wonder why He picked the land areas that He did, though that is probably not important. ;) What was it about the Land that made it special?I think it may be for this reason:

Isa 65:9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

cwb
Sep 29th 2008, 08:29 PM
This passage says He is above all things but He is the head over His church. He's not going to rule in authority and power over people who have no desire for Him to do so. I don't believe scripture ever teaches that He would do that. He is not an earthly king. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Instead, unfortunately, those unbelievers who are alive when He returns will be destroyed and then all unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire.

I agree with most of what you said here. Christ's kingdom is not of this world - though it is above this world. Thanks for clarifying because some of the posts I have read have seemed to imply that Rev 11:15 has already happened.


And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

I do believe this is still future and has not come to pass as of yet.

Mograce2U
Sep 30th 2008, 03:07 AM
cwb,

I agree with most of what you said here. Christ's kingdom is not of this world - though it is above this world. Thanks for clarifying because some of the posts I have read have seemed to imply that Rev 11:15 has already happened.

Quote:
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

I do believe this is still future and has not come to pass as of yet. Well perhaps that is because you don't have the right perspective on what His rule entails?

(John 9:39) And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

(Psa 9:7-8) But the LORD shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment. {8} And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.

(Acts 10:42-43) And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. {43} To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

(Acts 17:30-31) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: {31} Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

(1 Pet 4:4-6) Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: {5} Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. {6} For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

We tend to think in terms of only the final judgment but Jesus began this role even before His ascension. Even casting out devils and raising the dead which He could do before the cross.

And lest we forget, death is the great equalizer in the earth, and the One who holds the power of life and death in His hands, wields it as He wills. Where is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin - or even Sadam Hussein? The quick and the dead is who He judges...

timmyb
Sep 30th 2008, 09:39 PM
here's something i am thinking...

When God chose Israel, he was making an offer... saying world do you want to know me? I am making that offer through Israel... Israel for a time was the nation that God was making that offer through... although they have as a nation rejected that calling, they have not lost their commission... God has appointed us to provoke them to jealousy... we don't do that by trying to identify ourselves with them... Although we have been grafted in, that does not in any way remove our responsibility toward the nation of Israel... Just because we are Chosen, doesn't mean that Israel is no longer chosen... that would be a false testimony of God and contradictory to scripture...

the reality is that there is still a chasm between us and the nation of Israel, not including those who have called upon the name of Jesus... but the reality of the end times that rift will be healed and all of Israel will call upon the name of Jesus (Romans 11:26)

IPet2_9
Sep 30th 2008, 09:45 PM
I'm going to say no. God has no more zeal for Zion than He does for a rock. To Him, Zion is nothing more than a small piece of land. He can MAKE land. Big deal. It's the people He cares about. OTOH there is a New Jerusalem and a New Zion; that's a different story. Those things will never perish. God cares about that, just as much as you would care if you were custom-building a home for your children.

timmyb
Oct 1st 2008, 12:44 PM
I'm going to say no. God has no more zeal for Zion than He does for a rock. To Him, Zion is nothing more than a small piece of land. He can MAKE land. Big deal. It's the people He cares about. OTOH there is a New Jerusalem and a New Zion; that's a different story. Those things will never perish. God cares about that, just as much as you would care if you were custom-building a home for your children.

is it for Israel's sake that he tells them in 2 Chronicles 7:14 that if they pray he will forgive their sin and heal their land? yes they benefit... What about the verses where God charges Israel with polluting the land with their sin?

explain Zechariah 1:14

Zec 1:14 So the angel who talked with me said to me, Cry out, saying, So says Jehovah of Hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.

Jerusalem is not a symbolic thing for the church... Jerusalem was a city then and it is still a city now... and the mere existence of Jerusalem today against the odds they have faced is only proof of God's promise to Jerusalem...

How else would you explain the fact that Jerusalem is still standing and mostly in the hands of the Jewish people?

John146
Oct 1st 2008, 01:09 PM
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

I do believe this is still future and has not come to pass as of yet.I believe that too, but what does it mean? Does it mean He has not yet reigned before that time? I don't believe so. Why does it have to mean that Jesus takes over the world while allowing unbelievers to continue to live? If that was the case why does it talk about Him treading them in the winepress of God's wrath? I believe all it means is that the entire world will belong to Christ with Satan no longer have any piece of it. The reason for this is because Christ is going to destroy all the wicked and all wickedness from the face of the earth, which will result in the new earth.

Can you see in Rev 11:18 that the seventh trumpet signals "the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints"? Doesn't this mean that the day of judgment has arrived at that point? The day that occurs after the thousand years are over, according to Rev 20:11-15? The day that occurs when Christ returns?

Rev 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

John146
Oct 1st 2008, 01:21 PM
here's something i am thinking...

When God chose Israel, he was making an offer... saying world do you want to know me? I am making that offer through Israel... Israel for a time was the nation that God was making that offer through... although they have as a nation rejected that calling, they have not lost their commission... God has appointed us to provoke them to jealousy... we don't do that by trying to identify ourselves with them... Although we have been grafted in, that does not in any way remove our responsibility toward the nation of Israel... Just because we are Chosen, doesn't mean that Israel is no longer chosen... that would be a false testimony of God and contradictory to scripture...

the reality is that there is still a chasm between us and the nation of Israel, not including those who have called upon the name of Jesus... but the reality of the end times that rift will be healed and all of Israel will call upon the name of Jesus (Romans 11:26)Do you believe that individuals must freely choose to accept or reject Christ? If so, then how is it that one day every single person in the nation of Israel will decide to accept Christ at the same time? That defies logic.

If you instead say that God will make sure they put their faith in Christ by giving them faith or however He would do that, then you are saying that one's nationality is a factor in salvation, but scripture teaches otherwise.

IPet2_9
Oct 1st 2008, 01:48 PM
is it for Israel's sake that he tells them in 2 Chronicles 7:14 that if they pray he will forgive their sin and heal their land? yes they benefit... What about the verses where God charges Israel with polluting the land with their sin?

explain Zechariah 1:14

Zec 1:14 So the angel who talked with me said to me, Cry out, saying, So says Jehovah of Hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.

There is a NEW Testament.


John 4:21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Mount Zion is a mound of dirt, nothing more. Man killing each other in a religious-political game of king of the hill is just pure folly.

timmyb
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:16 PM
Do you believe that individuals must freely choose to accept or reject Christ? If so, then how is it that one day every single person in the nation of Israel will decide to accept Christ at the same time? That defies logic.

If you instead say that God will make sure they put their faith in Christ by giving them faith or however He would do that, then you are saying that one's nationality is a factor in salvation, but scripture teaches otherwise.

well... i see a verse that says that one day ALL Israel will be saved... so it's not me you're arguing with... i believe that the Bible is the most logical of all books.... and no matter the scriptures you can put up to seemingly counteract this... the Bible never does that... This is a Jewish man saying under the anointed inspired voice of God writing that... i wouldn't believe it if it wasn't there...

what do you think the verse means besides what it says?

timmyb
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:16 PM
There is a NEW Testament.



Mount Zion is a mound of dirt, nothing more. Man killing each other in a religious-political game of king of the hill is just pure folly.

and where does the New Testament contradict the Old Testament... to play the two against each other is dangerous...

IPet2_9
Oct 2nd 2008, 06:06 PM
and where does the New Testament contradict the Old Testament... to play the two against each other is dangerous...I don't know if you want to call it a contradiction...whatever. Everyone has to work out the conflicts between the OT and NT somehow. And there ARE conflicts. Even the most pro-Zion doctrine, dispensationalism, is openly an attempt to reconcile the conflicts between the two. Just to name a couple:


John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth
Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
These are very clearly changes that occurred between the OT and NT. It says YET a time is coming..., and "but I say unto you...". Those are reversals. Any way you slice it, it changed.

And the reason is that physical Zion was just a shadow. Heavenly Zion is the real thing. (Hebrews 8:5)

John146
Oct 2nd 2008, 06:12 PM
well... i see a verse that says that one day ALL Israel will be saved... so it's not me you're arguing with... I am debating your interpretation of what that means. I am not denying that all Israel would be saved as it is written in Isaiah 59:20-21. But I believe you have to dig further than the surface to find out exactly what that means.


i believe that the Bible is the most logical of all books....This is where we differ then. I believe it is the most spiritually truthful of all books and does not need man to say that it has to always be logical purely from a human perspective. For example, is it logical for Malachi 4:5-6 to speak of Elijah one day coming in the future and then it ends up that it was actually speaking of John the Baptist? To the natural mind that makes no sense. When Isaiah 11 speaks of a root of Jesse being sought by the Gentiles is it logical, without referring to other scripture, that it's speaking of Gentiles coming to Christ for salvation?


and no matter the scriptures you can put up to seemingly counteract this... the Bible never does that... This is a Jewish man saying under the anointed inspired voice of God writing that... i wouldn't believe it if it wasn't there...I believe his words every bit as much as you do. We only differ in interpretation.


what do you think the verse means besides what it says?I don't think it means anything besides what it says. It means what it says. We just happen to differ in what we think it says. Let's take a close look instead of skimming the surface and drawing conclusions that way.

Romans 11
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Paul said that all Israel would be saved, as it is written. As it is written where?

With all of this in mind we can see how all Israel can be saved. Because all of the Israel which is not of the nation of Israel has faith in Christ. Paul shows us the manner in which all people are saved by referring to this OT prophecy:

Isaiah 59
20And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Paul, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, paraphrases and clarifies what this prophecy is all about:

Romans 11
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

So, he explains the manner in which all Israel would be saved. He does not say that all Israel would not be saved until sometime in the distant future when everyone in the nation of Israel would all be saved at once, as you apparently assume. Let's take a closer look at the manner in which all Israel is saved and then determine if it should be read in such a way that it had only a future (as of the time Paul wrote the letter) fulfillment.

Remember, Paul is quoting an OT prophecy. He wasn't making a new prophecy that would only be fulfilled sometime in the future. First, he tells us that the prophecy from Isaiah 59:20 says that there would come out of Zion the Deliverer who would turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Then he mentions the covenant God made with Jacob about taking away their sins. We can see from Isaiah 59:21 that this covenant also had to do with God putting His Spirit and His words in them.

Are Isaiah 59:20-21 and Romans 11:26-27 the only passages in scripture that speak of the Redeemer/Deliverer coming to fulfill the covenant to turn away Jacob from their sins and take them away? No.

This is how John the Baptist's father Zechariah understood the fulfillment of the OT prophecy:

Luke 1
67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Zechariah is speaking here of Christ and He is saying that Christ is the One who came to redeem and deliver them. He recognized that the Deliverer and Redeemer had come as it was prophesied.

Did Jesus come to turn ungodliness away from Jacob and take away their sins? He most certainly did, as the following passage shows:

Acts 3
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

The Deliverer and Redeemer didn't fail when He came to turn Israel from their iniquities and take away their sins. Yes, some rejected Him. But that does not mean He failed to accomplish what He came to do. He said, "It is finished".

The covenant that is mentioned in Isaiah 59:20-21 and Romans 11:26-27 is the new covenant, which we know was established long ago by the shed blood of Christ on the cross. That is the covenant by which God takes away Israel's sins. And also the sins of the whole world. It is not a covenant that we have to wait for to be established some day in the future.

Matt 26
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The only way anyone in Israel or anyone in the world is saved is by the new covenant. God doesn't have separate plans for saving Israel and for the rest of the world.

What does Paul say elsewhere about "all Israel"?

Romans 9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Do you agree that more than one Israel is mentioned here? Seems clear. If so, what differentiates the first Israel from the second? When you look at the verses that follow verse 6 you can see that the second Israel represents the natural descendants of Abraham and the children of the flesh. This is speaking about natural Israelites. So, the second Israel is the nation of Israel.

What about the first Israel, which it says not all of which are of the nation of Israel? What makes someone a part of that Israel? It says people in that Israel would not be natural descendants of Abrham and yet would be descendants of Isaac and are the children of the promise. What does that mean?

Galatians 4
22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

To be a descendant of Isaac and a child of the promise means you are born of the Spirit. So, it's speaking of spiritual descendants of Isaac. This refers to Jew and Gentile believers. We can see this illustrated here as well:

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So, being a natural descendant does not make one part of the Israel which is not of the nation of Israel. It makes one a natural descendant of Abraham but not a spiritual one. It is faith in Christ that makes one a spiritual descendant of Abraham and Isaac. It is faith in Christ that makes someone a child of the promise and counted for the seed.

Eric

timmyb
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:34 PM
I don't know if you want to call it a contradiction...whatever. Everyone has to work out the conflicts between the OT and NT somehow. And there ARE conflicts. Even the most pro-Zion doctrine, dispensationalism, is openly an attempt to reconcile the conflicts between the two. Just to name a couple:


These are very clearly changes that occurred between the OT and NT. It says YET a time is coming..., and "but I say unto you...". Those are reversals. Any way you slice it, it changed.

And the reason is that physical Zion was just a shadow. Heavenly Zion is the real thing. (Hebrews 8:5)

where is there conflict between the OT and the NT... how does God have conflict within himself? How does the infallible word of God have conflict in it? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever...

the only shadow that the NT identifies as a shadow is the law which was a shadow of things to come... don't place Zion under that category unless the NT specifically says it..

IPet2_9
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:37 PM
I will quote the same Scriptures I said earlier a second time. I can make the font a little bigger. Or I can quote some more Scripture. Beyond that, there's not much more I can do.



Quote:
John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth
Quote:
Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

timmyb
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:44 PM
I will quote the same Scriptures I said earlier a second time. I can make the font a little bigger. Or I can quote some more Scripture. Beyond that, there's not much more I can do.



Quote:
John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth
Quote:
Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

that's not a contradiction between the OT and the NT... that was just a sign of the Jews lack of understanding of the OT... Jesus restored the law to what it should have always been... the contradiction was tradition vs. God's word

but this is way off the OP... we need to get back on topic... the convo we are having is one meant for the Bible Chat

IPet2_9
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:50 PM
So "eye for eye" is not in God's Word. That is just tradition.....
:hmm:

timmyb
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:12 PM
So "eye for eye" is not in God's Word. That is just tradition.....
:hmm:

touche... but the reality was the Jews application and understanding... they had no knowledge of God's mercy... believe me we still believe that today... why does someone die if they murder someone... or should... that verse is a testament of the justice of God which never changes... so where's the problem... with the word or with us? God never contradicts himself...

but this is off the OP... we can continue this in Bible Chat if you would like... I don't want to disrespect rookie by disregarding his OP...

IPet2_9
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:25 PM
I don't think it's OP at all. Let's take it from what you said: that the "reversals", or...whatever it is...in the NT stem from the Israelites' lack of understanding in the OT.

Mount Zion is nothing more than a symbol, a shadow of something else to come. (Heb. 8:5). Jesus told the Samaritan woman (paraph.), "the time is coming, and has come, when you will all worship neither on Mount Zion nor on Mount Gerazim. But in Spirit and Truth."

God never had zeal for any silly mountain. It was nothing more than an illustration, a symbol, to help heighten OUR understanding of HIM. Because it's not the mountain He cares about, it is US. It is no different than when Christians refer to their church as "God's house", yet we also make the seeming-contradictory statement, "we don't need bricks and mortar to worship our God." It's the same principle; the same Truth.

quiet dove
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:53 PM
I don't think it's OP at all. Let's take it from what you said: that the "reversals", or...whatever it is...in the NT stem from the Israelites' lack of understanding in the OT.

Mount Zion is nothing more than a symbol, a shadow of something else to come. (Heb. 8:5). Jesus told the Samaritan woman (paraph.), "the time is coming, and has come, when you will all worship neither on Mount Zion nor on Mount Gerazim. But in Spirit and Truth."

God never had zeal for any silly mountain. It was nothing more than an illustration, a symbol, to help heighten OUR understanding of HIM. Because it's not the mountain He cares about, it is US. It is no different than when Christians refer to their church as "God's house", yet we also make the seeming-contradictory statement, "we don't need bricks and mortar to worship our God." It's the same principle; the same Truth.


So getting back to OP,

"Does God still have zeal for Zion", your answer would be no, because you don't think He ever had zeal for Zion.

timmyb
Oct 3rd 2008, 12:28 AM
So getting back to OP,

"Does God still have zeal for Zion", your answer would be no, because you don't think He ever had zeal for Zion.

thank you quiet dove....

Mograce2U
Oct 3rd 2008, 02:59 AM
So getting back to OP,

"Does God still have zeal for Zion", your answer would be no, because you don't think He ever had zeal for Zion.That puts us back to square one - which Zion? :D

IPet2_9
Oct 3rd 2008, 01:17 PM
I don't know how we're "geting back" to OP. This was never off OP. The Scripture I quoted directly pertains to OP. But I will try and make it shorter, just to get people to read it:


John 4:21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.



Key points:

a) It says "mountain". The Samaritan woman specifically asked, "Do we worship on Mount Zion or Mount Gerazim?"
b) Jesus said, "A time is coming". That means there was a time before...and that time is no more.


If ever Jesus was going to say He has a zeal for Mount Zion, this was that time. And He didn't do that--He did the opposite.

the rookie
Oct 3rd 2008, 01:20 PM
That puts us back to square one - which Zion? :D

Unless we are willing to say the prophets were wrong, off, or misunderstood some things, then the descriptions given clearly speak of an earthly one. Find me one reference in the OT where "Zion" is meant to communicate a heavenly place?

the rookie
Oct 3rd 2008, 01:22 PM
I don't know how we're "geting back" to OP. This was never off OP. The Scripture I quoted directly pertains to OP. But I will try and make it shorter, just to get people to read it:


John 4:21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.



Key points:

a) It says "mountain". The Samaritan woman specifically asked, "Do we worship on Mount Zion or Mount Gerazim?"
b) Jesus said, "A time is coming". That means there was a time before...and that time is no more.


If ever Jesus was going to say He has a zeal for Mount Zion, this was that time. And He didn't do that--He did the opposite.

You may actually want to read the thread before you comment - this is probably why our conversations tend to go in circles - everyone seems to be in a rush to speak, few seem to have the patience to listen - or read. This ground was covered a few pages ago, and you may want to at least address the posts that discussed this point.

IPet2_9
Oct 3rd 2008, 02:22 PM
I *DID* read the whole thread. David Taylor even brought up the same verse, on page 1, and basically said Israel, the land, serves as a starting off point for the whole world.

Mograce2U
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:15 PM
Unless we are willing to say the prophets were wrong, off, or misunderstood some things, then the descriptions given clearly speak of an earthly one. Find me one reference in the OT where "Zion" is meant to communicate a heavenly place?I suppose you first must see that Zion is a heavenly people and then you can see that it is a heavenly city.

(Psa 125:1-2) A Song of degrees. They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever. {2} As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever.

(Isa 51:16) And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

(Isa 52:1-3) Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. {2} Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. {3} For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.

(Isa 59:20) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. ...

(Isa 60:1-4) Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. {2} For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. {3} And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. {4} Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

wpm
Oct 3rd 2008, 05:50 PM
Unless we are willing to say the prophets were wrong, off, or misunderstood some things, then the descriptions given clearly speak of an earthly one. Find me one reference in the OT where "Zion" is meant to communicate a heavenly place?

There are many. Remember the OT prophets gave their visions as they saw them. They did not have a full revelation of their eventual fulfilment. We today have the full revelation. We realise that things have moved from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporal to the eternal.

timmyb
Oct 3rd 2008, 08:29 PM
I suppose you first must see that Zion is a heavenly people and then you can see that it is a heavenly city.

(Psa 125:1-2) A Song of degrees. They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever. {2} As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever.

(Isa 51:16) And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

(Isa 52:1-3) Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. {2} Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. {3} For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.

(Isa 59:20) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. ...

(Isa 60:1-4) Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. {2} For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. {3} And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. {4} Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

now in refrence to the passage in Isaiah 60... Zion is a place on the earth for there are people in that place...

also anywhere you see the word Zion used it is ALWAYS in reference to Jerusalem...

IPet2_9
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:39 PM
Not really in Revelation. That Zion is in Heaven.

Revelation 14:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=14&verse=1&version=31&context=verse)
Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.

the rookie
Oct 4th 2008, 01:49 AM
There are many. Remember the OT prophets gave their visions as they saw them. They did not have a full revelation of their eventual fulfilment. We today have the full revelation. We realise that things have moved from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporal to the eternal.

One will do, then. :D

the rookie
Oct 4th 2008, 01:50 AM
I *DID* read the whole thread. David Taylor even brought up the same verse, on page 1, and basically said Israel, the land, serves as a starting off point for the whole world.

So you have no comments as to the actual context of that passage?

wpm
Oct 4th 2008, 01:58 AM
So you have no comments as to the actual context of that passage?

Isaiah 28:16 predicted: "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste."

Paul asks in Romans 9:30-33, “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel (of the flesh), which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they (natural Israel) stumbled at that stumblingstone; as it is written, behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

Paul is here employing the Old Testament book of Isaiah, and chapters’ 8:14-15 & 28:16, to explain the condition by which salvation is obtained by both Jew and Gentile in the new economy. Faith is strictly the criteria and Christ is clearly the “rock of offence.” The next chapter of Romans explains, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (10:4).

Isaiah 2:2-3 predicted, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”

The passage declares, “the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” This passage vividly shows salvation going out to the nations of the world after the cross. It shows the establishment of the kingdom of God (described here as “the mountain of the Lord's house”), above all other kingdoms of the earth (described here as mountains) and smaller ethnic groups (described here as hills).

This is spiritual language describing the great advance of the kingdom of God into the nations of the earth. Daniel 2:35 says,"the stone (Christ) that smote the image became a great mountain (speaking of the kingdom of God), and filled the whole earth."

Christ already brought that eternal kingdom, of which, every blood-bought believer has currently entered. Daniel is predicting the appearing of the Kingdom of God at Christ’s first Advent. The kingdom began as a small stone with the early church and has now become (as predicted) a large mountain today throughout the world. Christ verified this with his parables re the seed and the leaven growing. This idea is employed by Christ in Matthew 13:31-32 to describe the current advance of kingdom, “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree … The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”

Like the figurative growth of the stone into a large mountain in Daniel 2, the spread of the Kingdom of God is here metaphorically compared to the growth of (1) a small mustard seed and (2) that of leaven.

Hebrews 12:18 says,“For ye are not come (plural perfect active indicative) unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest.”

Hebrews 12:22 says,“But ye are come (plural perfect active indicative) unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”

These highlighted references in the original relate to the present, and are active, meaning the subject continues to exist in the state indicated by the verb. They relate to the here-and-now and are ongoing. They speak of our immediate entry into the kingdom of God and our current spiritual standing in the New Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem is more than a future hope (even though it most assuredly is that), it is a present reality.

the rookie
Oct 4th 2008, 02:04 AM
Isaiah 28:16 "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste."

Paul asks in Romans 9:30-33, “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel (of the flesh), which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they (natural Israel) stumbled at that stumblingstone; as it is written, behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

Paul is here employing the Old Testament book of Isaiah, and chapters’ 8:14-15 & 28:16, to explain the condition by which salvation is obtained by both Jew and Gentile in the new economy. Faith is strictly the criteria and Christ is clearly the “rock of offence.” The next chapter of Romans explains, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (10:4).

Um, wasn't that "rock of offense" established on earth? Wasn't it the establishment of the identity and nature of Jesus in Jerusalem that which caused Israel to stumble? If I read my Bible right, that was fulfilled by the earthly activities of Jesus in Jerusalem, not things Jesus is doing in heaven...


Isaiah 2:2-3 predicted, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”

The passage declares, “the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” This passage vividly shows salvation going out to the nations of the world after the cross. It shows the establishment of the kingdom of God (described here as “the mountain of the Lord's house”), above all other kingdoms of the earth (described here as mountains) and smaller ethnic groups (described here as hills).

This is spiritual language describing the great advance of the kingdom of God into the nations of the earth. Daniel 2:35 says,"the stone(Christ)that smote the image became a great mountain(speaking of the kingdom of God), and filled the whole earth."

Of course it has to be spiritual - except that there is no precedent to establish that it must be except that you say it is so. I'm not really going to take you at your word on this one - I want some precedent established by which I must take "the top of the mountains" as something other than "the top of the mountains". Sorry.

wpm
Oct 4th 2008, 02:17 AM
Um, wasn't that "rock of offense" established on earth? Wasn't it the establishment of the identity and nature of Jesus in Jerusalem that which caused Israel to stumble? If I read my Bible right, that was fulfilled by the earthly activities of Jesus in Jerusalem, not things Jesus is doing in heaven...



Of course it has to be spiritual - except that there is no precedent to establish that it must be except that you say it is so. I'm not really going to take you at your word on this one - I want some precedent established by which I must take "the top of the mountains" as something other than "the top of the mountains". Sorry.



As you well know, I totally disagree with the hyper-literalist earthly interpretation of many OT prophesies by Premil. I believe such only survives if one ignores the consistent NT exegesis of the OT predictions, that in reality commonly spiritualise the texts in view. Of course the danger of the Premil line of thinking was graphically highlighted in the Pharasaic rejection of Christ (through their flawed carnal natural earthly physical style of thinking). Their literalist concept of the kingdom, the temple, the nation and Jerusalem caused them to reject the Messiah and miss the boat.

Luke 3:4-5 records speaking of that great forerunner of Christ – John the Baptist), “As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet (in Isaiah 40:3-5), saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth.”

This prophecy did not insinuate that John was arriving with a great earth-remover in order to flatten “every mountain and hill” around Jerusalem, or to fill in the natural valleys that surrounded the city. No.

Mograce2U
Oct 4th 2008, 02:29 AM
now in refrence to the passage in Isaiah 60... Zion is a place on the earth for there are people in that place...

also anywhere you see the word Zion used it is ALWAYS in reference to Jerusalem...Exactamundo! But not always to Jerusalem as a land mass.

My personal OT fav is this one:

(Zec 14:10) All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

timmyb
Oct 4th 2008, 09:06 PM
Exactamundo! But not always to Jerusalem as a land mass.

My personal OT fav is this one:

(Zec 14:10) All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

but it is never referred to a people... but a location we as the church share in that blessing... but the prophecies always say that Jerusalem will be the site of the second coming and the capital of Christ's kingdom on the earth... the promises were made to Jerusalem and they are still there because God never breaks a promise nor is he an Indian giver...

Mograce2U
Oct 4th 2008, 09:19 PM
but it is never referred to a people... but a location we as the church share in that blessing... but the prophecies always say that Jerusalem will be the site of the second coming and the capital of Christ's kingdom on the earth... the promises were made to Jerusalem and they are still there because God never breaks a promise nor is he an Indian giver...Yet is is not the land but the people who inhabit it that are the recipient's of the promises of God. A city lifted up to dwell safely in the presence of God is not talking about the dust of the earth.

the rookie
Oct 5th 2008, 01:56 AM
As you well know, I totally disagree with the hyper-literalist earthly interpretation of many OT prophesies by Premil. I believe such only survives if one ignores the consistent NT exegesis of the OT predictions, that in reality commonly spiritualise the texts in view. Of course the danger of the Premil line of thinking was graphically highlighted in the Pharasaic rejection of Christ (through their flawed carnal natural earthly physical style of thinking). Their literalist concept of the kingdom, the temple, the nation and Jerusalem caused them to reject the Messiah and miss the boat.

Luke 3:4-5 records speaking of that great forerunner of Christ – John the Baptist), “As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet (in Isaiah 40:3-5), saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth.”

This prophecy did not insinuate that John was arriving with a great earth-remover in order to flatten “every mountain and hill” around Jerusalem, or to fill in the natural valleys that surrounded the city. No.

And, as you know, I find your methodology for OT exegesis to be arbitrary and confusing. Yes, the NT authors at times use their apostolic authority to exegete passages in a manner that transcends the grammatical / historical; but in doing so they did not grant you and I license to do the same. We don't have the authority or history with the scriptures that they did (or 40 days with Jesus after His resurrection) to make the spiritualized leaps that you feel the liberty to take. I question your authority to do so.

Why? Because the prophets used much "hyper-literal" language in describing the 1st coming, which came to pass as it was written. They used "hyper-literal" language in describing the trouble and judgment of Israel at the hands of other nations, which came to pass as it was written. It is not an unreasonable conclusion, then, to imagine that what is often passed of as "spiritual" or "hyperbole" will actually also come to pass as it is written.

Remember, many "literalistic Pharisees" that you so casually dismiss - imagining that they missed Jesus because of their "hyper-literal interpretation" (what verse was that again?) received Him as Messiah in the book of Acts and beyond.

When the NT writers exercise their apostolic authority to exegete an OT prophecy in a manner that is quite unexpected and surprising, I will go with their interpretation. Of course, they also tended towards "literal interpretations" of OT prophecy as well, which renders your exegetical rule a bit confusing. When is one permitted to spiritualize, and when must one stick with a grammatical / historical interpretation? Since no definition or clarity of that question has ever been given by an amil idealist, I cannot trust your interpretation of OT scripture.

I noticed, by the way, that you avoided my observation on the cornerstone that caused Israel to stumble - care to comment?

wpm
Oct 5th 2008, 02:21 AM
And, as you know, I find your methodology for OT exegesis to be arbitrary and confusing. Yes, the NT authors at times use their apostolic authority to exegete passages in a manner that transcends the grammatical / historical; but in doing so they did not grant you and I license to do the same. We don't have the authority or history with the scriptures that they did (or 40 days with Jesus after His resurrection) to make the spiritualized leaps that you feel the liberty to take. I question your authority to do so.

Why? Because the prophets used much "hyper-literal" language in describing the 1st coming, which came to pass as it was written. They used "hyper-literal" language in describing the trouble and judgment of Israel at the hands of other nations, which came to pass as it was written. It is not an unreasonable conclusion, then, to imagine that what is often passed of as "spiritual" or "hyperbole" will actually also come to pass as it is written.

Remember, many "literalistic Pharisees" that you so casually dismiss - imagining that they missed Jesus because of their "hyper-literal interpretation" (what verse was that again?) received Him as Messiah in the book of Acts and beyond.

When the NT writers exercise their apostolic authority to exegete an OT prophecy in a manner that is quite unexpected and surprising, I will go with their interpretation. Of course, they also tended towards "literal interpretations" of OT prophecy as well, which renders your exegetical rule a bit confusing. When is one permitted to spiritualize, and when must one stick with a grammatical / historical interpretation? Since no definition or clarity of that question has ever been given by an amil idealist, I cannot trust your interpretation of OT scripture.

I noticed, by the way, that you avoided my observation on the cornerstone that caused Israel to stumble - care to comment?

I too hold the grammatical / historical interpretation and in keeping with the NT interpretation of OT prophecies let Scripture interpret Scripture. If you are doing likewise then you will doubtless see that “the circumcision,” “Jew,” “Israel” and “children of Abraham” are spiritual today and that Jerusalem (Mount Sion) today is heavenly, the temple is spiritual and that the blood sacrifices have been eternally abolished in Christ. You will also see that Christ is enthroned on David's throne today and that Christ is the final High Priest.

the rookie
Oct 5th 2008, 02:31 AM
I too hold the grammatical / historical interpretation and in keeping with the NT interpretation of OT prophecies let Scripture interpret Scripture. If you are in agreement then you will see that “the circumcision,” “Jew,” “Israel” and “children of Abraham” are spiritual today and that Jerusalem (Mount Sion) today is heavenly, the temple is spiritual and that the blood sacrifices have been eternally abolished in Christ. You will also see that Christ is enthroned on David's throne today and that Christ is the final High Priest.

If you hold to a grammatical / historical interpretation of OT prophecy, I have yet to see an example of it. The purpose of the NT was not to "interpret" the OT revelation, it was to complete it. How the story ends fits in with the progressive manner in which it unfolds in a way that does not leave one having to reinterpret scripture where necessary to make the desired ending fit correctly.

I am fine with scripture interpreting scripture - again, I am not fine with using scripture as license to spiritualize passages that do not fit the scheme. "Scripture interpreting scripture" was meant to be a check against those inclinations as one is forced to go back an figure out how two seemingly opposing ideas can be reconciled in harmony after a grammatical / historical interpretation has been established. Some imagine that their interpretation of a NT scripture then gives freedom to adjust the meaning of an OT scripture; rather the OT scripture should cause one to pause and reconsider their interpretation.

As such, one cannot find an OT passage referring to "Zion" as heavenly without going back and skipping details within the passages themselves. Rather than establish an OT passage that clearly and plainly refers to "Zion" as heavenly, you and Robin are forced to debate principles and concepts - which should be an alarm bell that when "scripture interprets scripture" things seem to be breaking down rather than harmonizing.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 5th 2008, 03:26 AM
If you hold to a grammatical / historical interpretation of OT prophecy, I have yet to see an example of it. The purpose of the NT was not to "interpret" the OT revelation, it was to complete it. How the story ends fits in with the progressive manner in which it unfolds in a way that does not leave one having to reinterpret scripture where necessary to make the desired ending fit correctly.

I am fine with scripture interpreting scripture - again, I am not fine with using scripture as license to spiritualize passages that do not fit the scheme. "Scripture interpreting scripture" was meant to be a check against those inclinations as one is forced to go back an figure out how two seemingly opposing ideas can be reconciled in harmony after a grammatical / historical interpretation has been established. Some imagine that their interpretation of a NT scripture then gives freedom to adjust the meaning of an OT scripture; rather the OT scripture should cause one to pause and reconsider their interpretation.

As such, one cannot find an OT passage referring to "Zion" as heavenly without going back and skipping details within the passages themselves. Rather than establish an OT passage that clearly and plainly refers to "Zion" as heavenly, you and Robin are forced to debate principles and concepts - which should be an alarm bell that when "scripture interprets scripture" things seem to be breaking down rather than harmonizing.

Crack! The Rookie hits one out of the park!

wpm
Oct 5th 2008, 04:17 AM
If you hold to a grammatical / historical interpretation of OT prophecy, I have yet to see an example of it. The purpose of the NT was not to "interpret" the OT revelation, it was to complete it. How the story ends fits in with the progressive manner in which it unfolds in a way that does not leave one having to reinterpret scripture where necessary to make the desired ending fit correctly.

I am fine with scripture interpreting scripture - again, I am not fine with using scripture as license to spiritualize passages that do not fit the scheme. "Scripture interpreting scripture" was meant to be a check against those inclinations as one is forced to go back an figure out how two seemingly opposing ideas can be reconciled in harmony after a grammatical / historical interpretation has been established. Some imagine that their interpretation of a NT scripture then gives freedom to adjust the meaning of an OT scripture; rather the OT scripture should cause one to pause and reconsider their interpretation.

As such, one cannot find an OT passage referring to "Zion" as heavenly without going back and skipping details within the passages themselves. Rather than establish an OT passage that clearly and plainly refers to "Zion" as heavenly, you and Robin are forced to debate principles and concepts - which should be an alarm bell that when "scripture interprets scripture" things seem to be breaking down rather than harmonizing.


You just give a commentary without acknowledging/addressing the biblical truth that “the circumcision,” “Jew,” “Israel” and “children of Abraham” are spiritual today and that Jerusalem (Mount Sion) today is heavenly, the temple is spiritual and that the blood sacrifices have been eternally abolished in Christ. You will also see that Christ is enthroned on David's throne today and that Christ is the final High Priest.

timmyb
Oct 5th 2008, 01:51 PM
Yet is is not the land but the people who inhabit it that are the recipient's of the promises of God. A city lifted up to dwell safely in the presence of God is not talking about the dust of the earth.

There are promises to the land that the people enjoy.. keep in mind our kingdom mandate from the Lord was to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth... it doesn't mean just to get people saved, it's also working the land itself... God has given specific promises that repentance also leads to healing of the land itself... Jesus when he comes again will do that to Jerusalem, and his and our mandate in the MK (for you pre mils like I am) will be to spread that throughout the entire earth...

Mograce2U
Oct 5th 2008, 03:43 PM
There are promises to the land that the people enjoy.. keep in mind our kingdom mandate from the Lord was to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth... it doesn't mean just to get people saved, it's also working the land itself... God has given specific promises that repentance also leads to healing of the land itself... Jesus when he comes again will do that to Jerusalem, and his and our mandate in the MK (for you pre mils like I am) will be to spread that throughout the entire earth...Yet that was the commission given to the early disciples. A commission which does not include land sabbaths and jubilees during this age. And why is that except that the children of God are not citizens of the land we see. If the coming of Jesus is to rid the land of its defilement so it can enjoy it's sabbaths once again, then a fire is what will do it - as prophecy states. And the Babylon captivity is the example of how the land must first be made rid of its sinning inhabitants.

That however is not before the MK but after it. So either premill has the timing off or has the wrong view of the MK which fits better to the age we are in now. Now is the time when the saints are being prepared for glory having been gathered into the spiritual kingdom of Christ's rule; it only makes sense that when that glory comes the land will be purified as well. For only the saints have citizenship rights to that kingdom because their sins have been redeemed.

timmyb
Oct 5th 2008, 08:06 PM
Yet that was the commission given to the early disciples. A commission which does not include land sabbaths and jubilees during this age. And why is that except that the children of God are not citizens of the land we see. If the coming of Jesus is to rid the land of its defilement so it can enjoy it's sabbaths once again, then a fire is what will do it - as prophecy states. And the Babylon captivity is the example of how the land must first be made rid of its sinning inhabitants.

That however is not before the MK but after it. So either premill has the timing off or has the wrong view of the MK which fits better to the age we are in now. Now is the time when the saints are being prepared for glory having been gathered into the spiritual kingdom of Christ's rule; it only makes sense that when that glory comes the land will be purified as well. For only the saints have citizenship rights to that kingdom because their sins have been redeemed.

i understand that we don't necessarily need to jubilees and sabbaths... but they don't hurt either... well... just like any OT prophecy, we see the firstfruits now and we will see the complete fulfillment during the MK when Christ establishes his throne... and the land is very much a part in his plan in redeeming the whole earth... it's people as well as it's land... but the people have to cry out to God for him to heal the land... (Luke 18:7, 2 Chronicles 7:14)

John146
Oct 7th 2008, 05:16 PM
Unless we are willing to say the prophets were wrong, off, or misunderstood some things, then the descriptions given clearly speak of an earthly one. Find me one reference in the OT where "Zion" is meant to communicate a heavenly place?In the OT, earthly Zion is described as the city of David. Whenever Zion is referred to as the city or holy mountain of God then that is the heavenly Zion.

Psalm 2
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This is a fulfilled prophecy that refers to the resurrection of Christ, as we can see here:

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Another example:

Psalm 9:11
Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

We know the LORD dwells in heaven. So, this verse also is referring to the heavenly Zion.

Another:

Psalm 48
1Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.
2Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

The city of our God and mount Zion are portrayed as being in the same place.

Hebrews 12
18For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

The city of the living God is the heavenly Jerusalem. The Mount Zion where God dwells is heavenly.

Another:

Psalm 99
1The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.
2The LORD is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people.

Clearly, this is referring to the LORD in heaven sitting between the cherubims and it says He is in Zion "high above all the people". This is another clear reference to the heavenly Zion.

One more:

Psalm 125:1
They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.

A physical mountain can be removed, so this is again speaking of the heavenly Zion which "abideth for ever".

wpm
Oct 7th 2008, 05:19 PM
In the OT, earthly Zion is described as the city of David. Whenever Zion is referred to as the city or holy mountain of God then that is the heavenly Zion.

Psalm 2
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This is a fulfilled prophecy that refers to the resurrection of Christ, as we can see here:

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Another example:

Psalm 9:11
Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

We know the LORD dwells in heaven. So, this verse also is referring to the heavenly Zion.

Another:

Psalm 48
1Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.
2Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

The city of our God and mount Zion are portrayed as being in the same place.

Hebrews 12
18For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

The city of the living God is the heavenly Jerusalem. The Mount Zion where God dwells is heavenly.

Another:

Psalm 99
1The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.
2The LORD is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people.

Clearly, this is referring to the LORD in heaven sitting between the cherubims and it says He is in Zion "high above all the people". This is another clear reference to the heavenly Zion.

One more:

Psalm 125:1
They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.

A physical mountain can be removed, so this is again speaking of the heavenly Zion which "abideth for ever".

Great research. :)

John146
Oct 7th 2008, 05:23 PM
Crack! The Rookie hits one out of the park!But it's a foul ball! ;)

the rookie
Oct 7th 2008, 06:04 PM
In the OT, earthly Zion is described as the city of David. Whenever Zion is referred to as the city or holy mountain of God then that is the heavenly Zion.

Is that your opinion or is there another, objective means by which you drew that conclusion? Did the ancient Hebrew writers or audience mean to communicate it that way? Did they hear it that way? As Paul noted, you did the research - fill us in on what you came up with while you were researching these passages - can you cite the research that caused you to say that?


Psalm 2
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This is a fulfilled prophecy that refers to the resurrection of Christ, as we can see here:

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.


It seems as if Paul is speaking of the fulfillment, specifically, of the following ideas from prophetic scripture if you read Acts 13:

1. That God had raised up a Savior (Messiah) for Israel (in verse 16, he addresses the "men of Israel" - which Israel was he speaking to?) from the line of David (13:23)

2. That those who dwelled in Jerusalem and its rulers would not know or receive Him - and would in fact condemn Him to death (13:27)

3. That God had, however, raised Him up from the grave - that the Anointed or Chosen One would not see corruption (and that is how the Jews would know which from among the line of David was chosen or appointed by God to save Israel) (13:30-37)

4. That God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, now offers forgiveness of sins and justification before the Father that was not available through the law (13:38-39)

5. That they, having heard the good news, must not despise or reject it because of the devastating consequences (13:40-41)

Nothing, from that sermon however, about Zion, Jerusalem, heaven, Jesus as King, etc., etc. Your claim of what was fulfilled seems to exceed Paul's, as we follow the flow of his presentation.


Another example:

Psalm 9:11
Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

We know the LORD dwells in heaven. So, this verse also is referring to the heavenly Zion.

We do? At the time that Psalm was written, there was a tabernacle by which the Lord dwelled with His people - in Jerusalem. David would regularly go to the tabernacle to inquire of the Lord and behold His beauty; Moses understood that the Holy of Holies housed the presence and the glory of the Lord; etc.; etc. IOW, you are inserting your modern perceptions into an ancient song and interpreting it from your lens rather than theirs.


Another:

Psalm 48
1Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.
2Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

The city of our God and mount Zion are portrayed as being in the same place.

Hebrews 12
18For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

The city of the living God is the heavenly Jerusalem. The Mount Zion where God dwells is heavenly.

In juxtaposing Hebrews 12 with Psalm 48, you seem to imagine that the writer of Hebrews is claiming a universal application of that idea or concept that then changes the "terms" of the earlier references to Mount Zion and how it was previously understood. Rather, Isaiah and Micah seemed to see it differently, that the holy mountain would be such because the One who is in heaven would come and dwell upon the earth. Isn't that city coming down to the earth? Won't it have a geographic location?

Secondly, this city in Psalm 48 - why are the kings troubled after they pass by it? Why, after they have assembled and have seen it, do they marvel but then become gripped with the pangs of a woman in labor? Finally, where will God establish this city forever - what OT promises is the Psalmist echoing? The prophets understood that they great city in which the Lord would dwell would be located on earth - not in heaven.

The promised city of Hebrews 12 might be currently located in heaven - but is that its final and ultimate location?


Another:

Psalm 99
1The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.
2The LORD is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people.

Clearly, this is referring to the LORD in heaven sitting between the cherubims and it says He is in Zion "high above all the people". This is another clear reference to the heavenly Zion.

I don't know why you see fit to ignore any sense of Hebrew context or understanding of these passages as you assert your conclusion, but again - the Hebrews of that day understood that "He who sits between the cherubim" was the God of the Holy of Holies, sitting between the cherubim of the ark of the covenant. The Lord was great in Jerusalem as the God of the whole earth, is the point.


One more:

Psalm 125:1
They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.

A physical mountain can be removed, so this is again speaking of the heavenly Zion which "abideth for ever".

Is that how the Psalmist understood it? The mountain of the Lord's house would be established and not moved - on the earth. In Jerusalem. Again, if we are content to ignore the intent and desire of the Psalmist and the historical context of the phrase, then you are right. But I'm not willing to change the original, inspired meaning - but seek to discover how a heavenly city becomes established on Mount Zion in Jerusalem where the tabernacle was erected.

John146
Oct 7th 2008, 10:52 PM
Is that your opinion or is there another, objective means by which you drew that conclusion? Did the ancient Hebrew writers or audience mean to communicate it that way? Did they hear it that way? As Paul noted, you did the research - fill us in on what you came up with while you were researching these passages - can you cite the research that caused you to say that?Very simple. I compared the scriptures that spoke of Zion in terms of being the city of David and I could see they were specifically speaking of the earthly Zion. I looked at the verses, such as the examples I gave you, which spoke of Zion in terms of being the city of God, and I saw the context as indicating it was located in heaven, which was God's permanent residence. The OT teaches that heaven is God's throne, in case you didn't know.


It seems as if Paul is speaking of the fulfillment, specifically, of the following ideas from prophetic scripture if you read Acts 13:

1. That God had raised up a Savior (Messiah) for Israel (in verse 16, he addresses the "men of Israel" - which Israel was he speaking to?) from the line of David (13:23)

2. That those who dwelled in Jerusalem and its rulers would not know or receive Him - and would in fact condemn Him to death (13:27)

3. That God had, however, raised Him up from the grave - that the Anointed or Chosen One would not see corruption (and that is how the Jews would know which from among the line of David was chosen or appointed by God to save Israel) (13:30-37)

4. That God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, now offers forgiveness of sins and justification before the Father that was not available through the law (13:38-39)

5. That they, having heard the good news, must not despise or reject it because of the devastating consequences (13:40-41)

Nothing, from that sermon however, about Zion, Jerusalem, heaven, Jesus as King, etc., etc. Your claim of what was fulfilled seems to exceed Paul's, as we follow the flow of his presentation. Should we just ignore that Paul quotes Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33 and not refer to Psalm 2:6-7 for help in understanding what he was referring to? By looking at the scripture he quoted we can clearly see that God setting His king, Jesus, upon His holy hill of Zion was directly related to the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Do you deny this? If so, why?


We do? At the time that Psalm was written, there was a tabernacle by which the Lord dwelled with His people - in Jerusalem. David would regularly go to the tabernacle to inquire of the Lord and behold His beauty; Moses understood that the Holy of Holies housed the presence and the glory of the Lord; etc.; etc. IOW, you are inserting your modern perceptions into an ancient song and interpreting it from your lens rather than theirs. I understand that, but the OT also teaches that God's permanent residence was (and still is) in heaven. His throne was (and still is) in heaven (Psalm 11:4, Ps 103:19). It even says heaven is His throne (Isa 66:1).


In juxtaposing Hebrews 12 with Psalm 48, you seem to imagine that the writer of Hebrews is claiming a universal application of that idea or concept that then changes the "terms" of the earlier references to Mount Zion and how it was previously understood. Rather, Isaiah and Micah seemed to see it differently, that the holy mountain would be such because the One who is in heaven would come and dwell upon the earth. Isn't that city coming down to the earth? Won't it have a geographic location? Sure, it will eventually come down to the earth ,but aren't we talking in terms of where it was in OT times? Do you think when the heavenly mount Zion and Jerusalem are mentioned in Hebrews 12 that they had not existed until that time?


Secondly, this city in Psalm 48 - why are the kings troubled after they pass by it? Why, after they have assembled and have seen it, do they marvel but then become gripped with the pangs of a woman in labor? Finally, where will God establish this city forever - what OT promises is the Psalmist echoing? The prophets understood that they great city in which the Lord would dwell would be located on earth - not in heaven.Again, we are talking in terms of where it was located then. Do you actually believe that earthly Zion will survive what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12? Remember, the Zion talked about in Psalm 48 will last forever (verse 8).


The promised city of Hebrews 12 might be currently located in heaven - but is that its final and ultimate location?No, it's not the final and ultimate location but you seem to be forgetting that we are discussing its location in OT times.


I don't know why you see fit to ignore any sense of Hebrew context or understanding of these passages as you assert your conclusion, but again - the Hebrews of that day understood that "He who sits between the cherubim" was the God of the Holy of Holies, sitting between the cherubim of the ark of the covenant. The Lord was great in Jerusalem as the God of the whole earth, is the point. I'm not denying the existence of the earthly Zion or that God met with His people there. But I'm pointing out that He also dwelled back then in heaven in the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.


Is that how the Psalmist understood it? The mountain of the Lord's house would be established and not moved - on the earth. In Jerusalem. Again, if we are content to ignore the intent and desire of the Psalmist and the historical context of the phrase, then you are right. But I'm not willing to change the original, inspired meaning - but seek to discover how a heavenly city becomes established on Mount Zion in Jerusalem where the tabernacle was erected.Once again, Psalm 125 is speaking of the Zion that will "abideth for ever". Earthly Zion will not abide forever because the entire earth will one day be burned up. That will include earthly Zion and Jerusalem.

the rookie
Oct 8th 2008, 02:13 PM
Very simple. I compared the scriptures that spoke of Zion in terms of being the city of David and I could see they were specifically speaking of the earthly Zion. I looked at the verses, such as the examples I gave you, which spoke of Zion in terms of being the city of God, and I saw the context as indicating it was located in heaven, which was God's permanent residence. The OT teaches that heaven is God's throne, in case you didn't know.

:lol: That was funny - right, I do remember the OT mentioning that somewhere.

The OT teaches about many things related to God and His people. The trick to hermeneutics is trying to objectively discern which thing is being taught versus which things are being declared in what context. Commentaries help lay out the historical context through the labors of folks who have spent large amounts of time studying the history, culture, and social dynamics. Mostly because there is more to the OT than comparing the words to find patterns, seemingly.


Should we just ignore that Paul quotes Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33 and not refer to Psalm 2:6-7 for help in understanding what he was referring to? By looking at the scripture he quoted we can clearly see that God setting His king, Jesus, upon His holy hill of Zion was directly related to the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Do you deny this? If so, why?

In context to Paul's presentation, it would be important to understand what Paul is trying to communicate from that passage related to the setting. You would make Jesus being enthroned as King over Israel something Paul and his audience presume without Paul saying it in the passage, which is called inference or deductive reasoning. It's not 100% provable from the passage itself, or in the context of the times and the content of his messages in Acts, that Paul was preaching a "realized millennial kingdom" as you understand it. Thus one must go softer in the presentation, IMO.

Take Isaiah 9, for example. Does the fulfillment of verse 6 mean that the entire chapter has come to pass? How about the entire passage - v. 1-8? We know that verse 2 has come to pass - any other verses seem fulfilled to you? Since the verses in that passage that have been fulfilled have come to pass exactly as they are written, than it is not an unreasonable expectation that the rest of the prophecy would do the same. We do not have the authority to press the timing because of our systems of thought.

Summarily, Paul seems to be making a point in Acts 13 that, because all of the prophecies about Jesus have been fulfilled up to a certain point, we can rest assured that the rest of the details will come to pass as well - and thus must not despise or reject what has thus far taken place (13:40-41). This connects both with the immediate context and setting as well as the content of all of Paul's sermons in the book of Acts.


I understand that, but the OT also teaches that God's permanent residence was (and still is) in heaven. His throne was (and still is) in heaven (Psalm 11:4, Ps 103:19). It even says heaven is His throne (Isa 66:1).

That verse also says that the "earth is His footstool." Are you aware of what Isaiah understood when he wrote that? Where exactly did God declare He would rest "the soles of His feet"? Secondly, if you know how an ancient throne was constructed, you would know that the "footstool" was part of the throne itself, directly connected and not a separate piece of furniture. I'll let you figure out where the prophets thought that the "footstool" of the throne was located.


Sure, it will eventually come down to the earth ,but aren't we talking in terms of where it was in OT times? Do you think when the heavenly mount Zion and Jerusalem are mentioned in Hebrews 12 that they had not existed until that time?

I happen to believe in prophecy. Particularly related to the OT. For example, wasn't Psalm 2 a prophecy, or was it speaking of David and his present status?


Again, we are talking in terms of where it was located then. Do you actually believe that earthly Zion will survive what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12? Remember, the Zion talked about in Psalm 48 will last forever (verse 8).

No, presently I am talking about understanding context, Hebrew thought, grammar, and the nature of prophecy and interpretation. I would love to talk about the location of Mount Zion, but it seems that we have to cover this ground first before we can speak the same language related to scripture. Have you ever wondered why the prophets use proleptic language at times in their proclamations? Are you aware of the principle of prolepsis? That understanding would be helpful in determining the mindset of the writer rather than making presumptions without all the information.


No, it's not the final and ultimate location but you seem to be forgetting that we are discussing its location in OT times.

You seem to be forgetting that we are talking about what the writer / psalmist understood, not you.


I'm not denying the existence of the earthly Zion or that God met with His people there. But I'm pointing out that He also dwelled back then in heaven in the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.

Once again, Psalm 125 is speaking of the Zion that will "abideth for ever". Earthly Zion will not abide forever because the entire earth will one day be burned up. That will include earthly Zion and Jerusalem.

To answer your earlier question, it is entirely possible for the God who created the heavens and the earth, came as fully God and fully man, parted the seas and shattered His enemies, to ignite the earth in fire and not consume Mount Zion. If He could do it with a bush, one could imagine that a city is fairly easy for Him to preserve. Especially since we will stand on a sea of glass mingled with fire and not be consumed. Unless the Lord uses different fire for different purposes?

2 Pet. 3 doesn't "trump" earlier proclamations of Mount Zion, nor do you have the authority to change the context and the location based on how you interpret 2 Pet. 3.

wpm
Oct 8th 2008, 05:26 PM
it is entirely possible for the God who created the heavens and the earth, came as fully God and fully man, parted the seas and shattered His enemies, to ignite the earth in fire and not consume Mount Zion. If He could do it with a bush, one could imagine that a city is fairly easy for Him to preserve. Especially since we will stand on a sea of glass mingled with fire and not be consumed. Unless the Lord uses different fire for different purposes?

2 Pet. 3 doesn't "trump" earlier proclamations of Mount Zion, nor do you have the authority to change the context and the location based on how you interpret 2 Pet. 3.

You are looking to the wrong Jerusalem. This highlights what I believe is the constant continuous and major error of Premil thinking. It is unhealthily, in my estimation, prefixed with the physical, earthly and temporal (which was merely a type and picture of what Christ was to introduce when He came 2,000 yrs ago), whereas Scripture points us to the spiritual, heavenly and eternal.

Premil fails to see the complete transformation of the new covenant and its restricted focus upon one lone people. I would see it like the change from a caterpillar into a butterfly. The plan of God has developed to take on a different and fuller form. The shadow has been replaced by the substance. You seem to be always trying to take us back to the old abolished system that has been superseded.

I am strongly convinced, and all the recent threads I have engaged in with Premil on this board reinforces this, Premil commits the same error that apostate Israel did when Christ came, they view all the OT prophesies in a hyper-literal earthly carnal manner, this actually caused Israel to overwhelmingly miss their Messiah and ultimately miss salvation. They had a faulty expectation built upon the literalist approach to symbolic, spiritual or heavenly prophecies.

Re your focus and emphasis upon natural Jerusalem. Revelation 11:8 explicitly states, “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”

This description was definitely not intended to be a commendation of Jerusalem but to describe it for exactly what it was/is. Many modern pro-Israel commentators today would probably throw the charge of anti-Semitic at such a charge, however, this charge comes from Christ.

Of course this portrayal is in full keeping with what Paul taught of the earthly Jerusalem in Galatians 4:22-31, where he said, “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

We see here the two Jerusalems compared and contrasted, representing two different distinct peoples, the saved and the lost. The earthly city is a symbol of bondage, whereas the heavenly city is used as a picture of freedom. Unfortunately, Premils keep their eyes upon the wrong Jerusalem and elevate the wrong Israel. Many today have their eyes on the wrong Jerusalem and places hopes upon it that are in clear conflict with Scripture. They seem to forget, the old temporal earthly type has been replaced by the new heavenly eternal reality.

Hebrews 12:18 says,“For ye are not come (plural perfect active indicative) unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest.”

Hebrews 12:22 says,“But ye are come (plural perfect active indicative) unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”

Hebrews 11:13-16 says, specifically speaking of the great Old Testament champions of faith, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.”

The Old Testament saints, like those in the New Testament, looked forth to a “prepared” eternal heavenly city, not a physical temporal earthly one. Their eyes were therefore not below but above. Scripture plainly tells us that that “place” is called the New Jerusalem – the eternal home of the beloved. The Premillennialist that looks for old Jerusalem at the Second Coming is evidently focused upon the wrong city.

Hebrews 11:8-10 describes how our great father of the faith, the Patriarch, Abraham looked for that great heavenly city, saying, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”

Like Abraham and the Old Testament saints of old, our eyes should be fixed upon another country, not an earthly, and a city that is not built with hands or can be touched or visited in this fleeting life.

That “place,” which Christ is preparing us, and for which His people are patiently waiting, is identified as an actual city in Hebrews 13:14. Notwithstanding, it is not a physical temporal earthly city sitting in the centre of natural Israel, but rather a heavenly eternal city. The passage says, “for here (that is on this earth) have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.” That city is the New Jerusalem, which Christ is presently preparing. Earthly Jerusalem is clearly with us now, whereas the New Jerusalem in all its glory is still to come!!!

valleybldr
Oct 8th 2008, 05:38 PM
You are looking to the wrong Jerusalem. This highlights what I believe is the constant continuous and major error of Premil thinking. It is unhealthily, in my estimation, prefixed with the physical, earthly and temporal (which was merely a type and picture of what Christ was to introduce when He came 2,000 yrs ago), whereas Scripture points us to the spiritual, heavenly and eternal. It's not an either/ or proposition. You can believe the Word of God speaks in a very real literal sense without sacrificing the implied spiritual realities of the text. todd

Mograce2U
Oct 8th 2008, 05:42 PM
Rookie, #91 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1816591&postcount=91)

That verse also says that the "earth is His footstool." Are you aware of what Isaiah understood when he wrote that? Where exactly did God declare He would rest "the soles of His feet"? Secondly, if you know how an ancient throne was constructed, you would know that the "footstool" was part of the throne itself, directly connected and not a separate piece of furniture. I'll let you figure out where the prophets thought that the "footstool" of the throne was located.The temple was the place where His feet touched down upon the earth, and the mercy seat upon the ark in particular in the holy of holies. None of which exists anymore in a physical sense.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 8th 2008, 05:52 PM
I am strongly convinced, and all the recent threads I have engaged in with Premil on this board reinforces this, Premil commits the same error that apostate Israel did when Christ came, they view all the OT prophesies in a hyper-literal earthly carnal manner, this actually caused Israel to overwhelmingly miss their Messiah and ultimately miss salvation. They had a faulty expectation built upon the literalist approach to symbolic, spiritual or heavenly prophecies.

Can you point to some Scriptural proof for this, please? Because the way I see it, they did not miss the day of their visitation because of literally reading the OT Scriptures, but because they did not know 1) that the Messiah had to suffer death (Luke 24:25-26), 2) that they too would be judged if found in sin (Luke 13:1-5), 3) that the kingdom would not come to Israel immediately (Luke 19:11), and I'm sure there were others. But because they read the Scriptures literally... I don't see that. Didn't Jesus Himself read them literally, and the NT authors? Explain yourself using Scripture, please (as I have stressed here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1816926&postcount=124)).

third hero
Oct 8th 2008, 06:40 PM
Ethnocentrism. This is what wpm, and others are doing. This is not the way to understand the OT. The OT was written LONG before the NT, and the concepts of the OT must be congruous to the times in which it was written.

What do I mean? You can not use the definition of Jerusalem in Hebrews to redefine the Jerusalem in the OT. IN order to understand OT prophecies and OT literature, one must understand the OT mindset.

Before Christ's death on the cross, there are several terms in the OT that are constant.

Jerusalem was the place called the city of God, also where the Temple, and the Ark of the Covenant was located. It was also the place where God Himself to descend as His Spirit, and rest in the Temple, in the Holy of Holies.

Israel was the "Chosen ones", who were led from Egypt to the place now called Israel. Gentiles were people who were not born Israelites. God's promise to Israel was never salvation, but rather that He will be their God, and they would be His people. Salvation, in of itself, is a concept introduced to Israel by Lord Jesus.

The Temple was the most important building to all Israel, and the location of that place wwas considered Holy.

When you use these terms when looking into the OT, then you will understand what certain prophecies that have not come to pass signify, and you will gain a clearer understanding of the NT as well, especially since Revelation is the merger of OT and NT concepts. Etghnocentrism only brings about confusion, and it is apparent in this thread.

wpm
Oct 8th 2008, 07:45 PM
Ethnocentrism. This is what wpm, and others are doing. This is not the way to understand the OT. The OT was written LONG before the NT, and the concepts of the OT must be congruous to the times in which it was written.

What do I mean? You can not use the definition of Jerusalem in Hebrews to redefine the Jerusalem in the OT. IN order to understand OT prophecies and OT literature, one must understand the OT mindset.

Before Christ's death on the cross, there are several terms in the OT that are constant.

Jerusalem was the place called the city of God, also where the Temple, and the Ark of the Covenant was located. It was also the place where God Himself to descend as His Spirit, and rest in the Temple, in the Holy of Holies.

Israel was the "Chosen ones", who were led from Egypt to the place now called Israel. Gentiles were people who were not born Israelites. God's promise to Israel was never salvation, but rather that He will be their God, and they would be His people. Salvation, in of itself, is a concept introduced to Israel by Lord Jesus.

The Temple was the most important building to all Israel, and the location of that place wwas considered Holy.

When you use these terms when looking into the OT, then you will understand what certain prophecies that have not come to pass signify, and you will gain a clearer understanding of the NT as well, especially since Revelation is the merger of OT and NT concepts. Etghnocentrism only brings about confusion, and it is apparent in this thread.

Jesus said to the Jews in John 2:18-21, whilst speaking of Himself, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

The Jews at the time of Christ, being ignorant and earthly minded, interpreted this statement to mean: He would destroy and rebuild the physical Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The reading records, “Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”

However, the next verse exposed their blindness, saying, “But he spake of the temple of his body” (v21).

Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, in John 4:21-24, “the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father ... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

What Christ was teaching here was that a new economy was being introduced through His earthly ministry that would forever replace the old. No longer would the worship of the living God be restricted to a natural geographical land-mass or be centred upon a physical temporal brick building built with hands in earthly Jerusalem, rather, it would now be concentrated in a spiritual eternal temple (the redeemed Church) which is spiritual located within the heavenly New Jerusalem. That temple would not be restricted to one physical nation but would be situated throughout all the nations of the world.

Acts 7:48 says, "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands."

Even the wicked testified to the fact in Mark 14:58, saying, “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”

Acts 17:24 says, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”

The Temple was central to the Jewish faith, therefore, for anyone to intimate in any way that it would be destroyed was viewed as nothing short of blasphemy. However, Christ was directing their eyes off the old temporal building – which was an imperfect shadow and type of Himself – and pointing them towards the new all-sufficient eternal Temple – in the form of His person. Through His impending death, the temporal Temple and its ceremonies would be done away with.

Hebrews 9:11-12 says, “Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

The writer to the Hebrews continues in Hebrews 9:24, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”

By Christ’s once all-sufficient death at Calvary, “the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (Mark 15:38), thus rendering the physical Temple and their existing sacrifices forever obsolete.

Christ had previously declared during His ministry, whilst standing in the actual Temple, “I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6). However, the Jews in the main had No comprehension of that glorious statement. To this spiritual Temple would the nations finally find mercy, thus, fulfilling perfectly what the old temple couldn’t. And thus, through Himself (the living Temple), fulfilling Isaiah 2:2 that “all nations shall flow unto it.”

the rookie
Oct 8th 2008, 10:43 PM
Rookie, #91 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1816591&postcount=91)
The temple was the place where His feet touched down upon the earth, and the mercy seat upon the ark in particular in the holy of holies. None of which exists anymore in a physical sense.

Yes, but that does not negate the historical context of what was written and how it was understood, which is our primary concern when interpreting scripture. If the Mount Zion that was written about when the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the canon was speaking of Jerusalem and the "hill of the Lord" and God affirms later on His zeal for that geographic location, we probably want to pay attention.

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2008, 02:09 AM
Yes, but that does not negate the historical context of what was written and how it was understood, which is our primary concern when interpreting scripture. If the Mount Zion that was written about when the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the canon was speaking of Jerusalem and the "hill of the Lord" and God affirms later on His zeal for that geographic location, we probably want to pay attention.I agree since that area was both targeted for salvation as well as judgment. Now we need to see which applies to which, and the earthly Jerusalem is not the one in view when it concerns God's blessings today. Because now the chosen of God have specifically become those who are IN Christ.

wpm
Oct 9th 2008, 04:26 AM
Can you point to some Scriptural proof for this, please? Because the way I see it, they did not miss the day of their visitation because of literally reading the OT Scriptures, but because they did not know 1) that the Messiah had to suffer death (Luke 24:25-26), 2) that they too would be judged if found in sin (Luke 13:1-5), 3) that the kingdom would not come to Israel immediately (Luke 19:11), and I'm sure there were others. But because they read the Scriptures literally... I don't see that. Didn't Jesus Himself read them literally, and the NT authors? Explain yourself using Scripture, please (as I have stressed here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1816926&postcount=124)).

When Christ appeared at His first advent, many religious Jews imagined He would reinstate the then defunct earthly throne of Israel and reign victorious over the physical nation of Israel. They believed that the appearance of Messiah would usher in a period of physical and spiritual bliss for Israel in which their enemies would be totally destroyed. The Jewish expectation was a literal visible territorial kingdom of which the Messiah – the King – would rule over. They believed He would immediately destroy every enemy that withstood the house of Israel. Their wrong thinking was guided by a hyper-literalist interpretation of OT Messianic prophecies. These Christ confronted and exposed in His teaching.

Jesus had already informed Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:36-37).

Pilate consequently presented Christ to the Jews: “Behold your King!” John 19:14-15 but they protested “Away with him, away with him, crucify him.” Pilate responded: “Shall I crucify your King?”

Christ introduced the kingdom of God 2,000 yrs ago. It will see its final eternal manifestation at Christ's return in a sin-free, goat-free, death-free new earth. Christ made it clear that the kingdom of God was spiritual and those that enter it enter it spiritually. The resurrection comes at the end of the millennial period.

Premil anticipates a similar future earthly temporal kingdom after Christ's return where Christ will reign from earthly Jerusalem. This is built upon the same literal passages that the Pharisees misinterpreted in regard to their carnal hope.

Premil, like the Pharisees 2,000 yrs ago, expect an exact replica of David's earthly permissive kingship when in fact it was an imperfect type - just like the Mosaic sacrifices were of the true High Priest now ministering in heaven. Christ is not interested in a carnal political kingdom or a permissive earthly kingship Israel invented against the will of God. No. Both the OT kingship and OT priesthood were simply a foreshadowing of the true heavenly fufilment.

third hero
Oct 9th 2008, 04:42 AM
I am strongly convinced, and all the recent threads I have engaged in with Premil on this board reinforces this, Premil commits the same error that apostate Israel did when Christ came, they view all the OT prophesies in a hyper-literal earthly carnal manner, this actually caused Israel to overwhelmingly miss their Messiah and ultimately miss salvation. They had a faulty expectation built upon the literalist approach to symbolic, spiritual or heavenly prophecies.


I am strongly convinced that you do not understand fully the folly of the Pharisees, since it is my opinion that you, wpm, are committing the same error. It is called, believing some scriptures while ignoring others that disprove your position.

For instance, the pharisees, if they took the book of the prophets seriously, then they would have known that 1, the Annointed one had to die before Everlasting Righteousness comes to Jerusalem, as mentioned in Daniel 9:24-25, and 2, they would have known that they were going to be the ones who would kill Him, as Zechariah 12 clearly states. Ask a Rabbi if the scriptures say that the Messiah had to die first, and they, like you, will ignore scripture in order to uphold their interpretations.

You see, your spiritualizations can not hold up to the many scriptures that were written for the benefit of the Israelites in the OT. The Israelites were rebellious, something that a saint can not do and stilll call himself a saint. The OT constantly called Israel a whore who bent to the will of the nation that they perceived to be the strongest. That characterization was never used to describe the Bride of Christ.

However, if we used your train of thought, and spiritualized Israel for every scripture in the OT, then suddenly, th church is not viewed in the most positive light anymore. Moreover, the church would be guilty of treason against their own Lord, by piercing Him.

This is why I can not accept your reasoning concerning viewing the OT in the "light" of the NT, because it would throw implications the church's way, whereas the ones who were truly at fault would be ethnic Israel, in whom those scriptures were written for.

wpm
Oct 9th 2008, 04:55 AM
I am strongly convinced that you do not understand fully the folly of the Pharisees, since it is my opinion that you, wpm, are committing the same error. It is called, believing some scriptures while ignoring others that disprove your position.

For instance, the pharisees, if they took the book of the prophets seriously, then they would have known that 1, the Annointed one had to die before Everlasting Righteousness comes to Jerusalem, as mentioned in Daniel 9:24-25, and 2, they would have known that they were going to be the ones who would kill Him, as Zechariah 12 clearly states. Ask a Rabbi if the scriptures say that the Messiah had to die first, and they, like you, will ignore scripture in order to uphold their interpretations.

You see, your spiritualizations can not hold up to the many scriptures that were written for the benefit of the Israelites in the OT. The Israelites were rebellious, something that a saint can not do and stilll call himself a saint. The OT constantly called Israel a whore who bent to the will of the nation that they perceived to be the strongest. That characterization was never used to describe the Bride of Christ.

However, if we used your train of thought, and spiritualized Israel for every scripture in the OT, then suddenly, th church is not viewed in the most positive light anymore. Moreover, the church would be guilty of treason against their own Lord, by piercing Him.

This is why I can not accept your reasoning concerning viewing the OT in the "light" of the NT, because it would throw implications the church's way, whereas the ones who were truly at fault would be ethnic Israel, in whom those scriptures were written for.

Whether the OT is referring to a literal physical earthly matter or an spiritual heavenly eternal reality is determined by taking a grammatical historic contextual analyse, using Scripture to interpret Scripture. We get much help in understanding many OT prophecies by reading their actual fulfilment in the NT. Many of these show passages that Premil relates to the natural realm and makes them spiritual. The overwhelming amount of OT references describing the OT time period relate to the physical natural earthly temporal arrangement prior to Christ Coming. Christ introduced the substance, thus removing the shadow. It was a complete change redirecting our eyes from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporal to the eternal.

third hero
Oct 9th 2008, 09:03 AM
Whether the OT is referring to a literal physical earthly matter or an spiritual heavenly eternal reality is determined by taking a grammatical historic contextual analyse, using Scripture to interpret Scripture. We get much help in understanding many OT prophecies by reading their actual fulfilment in the NT. Many of these show passages that Premil relates to the natural realm and makes them spiritual. The overwhelming amount of OT references describing the OT time period relate to the physical natural earthly temporal arrangement prior to Christ Coming. Christ introduced the substance, thus removing the shadow. It was a complete change redirecting our eyes from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporal to the eternal.

You are aware that we willl never agree on this issue until the Lord returns.

That said, when one takes NT terminology, and use them to explain OT prophecy, the meaning of the OT prophecy is profaned, and the unintended consequence of this type of interpretation is that the church inherits curses that were never a part of the church in the first place.

For instance, in the OT, there were three groups of people, with only two of them being talked about at length.

1. God's Chosen people
2. The Gentiles
3. The Saints.

God's people were Israel, the Gentiles were every other nation that was not Israel, and the saints were this mysterious group that was alway suppose to appear with the Lord when He "comes". In the OT, we, the believers, were the "saints" that the OT prophets talked about, but knew very little about. Everyone else, acording to the OT, were as I have defined.

How do I know? Well, do a word search, and see where the term saint is located in the OT. You will see them always with the Lord. (Daniel 7 and Zechariah 14:5) Israel ws always refered to as the seed of Jacob, and the Gentiles were always those who were not of Jewish descent.

If we use your version of interpeting scripture with scripture, then we see this:

The term, saint, would not be defined. Israel would mean the mix of Jew and Gentile that believe in the Messiah, even though the Messiah wasn't even around until after all of the OT scriptures were written, by about 250 years or more, and the Gentile would equate to both the Jew and Gentile that refuses to believe in the Messiah. Does this make sense to you? Are you going to go so far as to say that the Messianic influence of the 1st century AD went back to even Job's time period? This is part of the danger of ethnocentrism, which is basically using modern-day terminology to define ancient concepts.

It's the old wineskins versus the new parable that the Lord Himself presented to all of us. You can not pour new wine into old wineskins, and you can not pour old wine into new wineskins. The effect would be the ruination of both. This is why old wine must be in old wineskins, and the new in new. This will preserve both of them.

If you intend on using scripture to define scripture, then you must use OT scripture to define OT scripture, and NT for NT, unless otherwise expressed by the author, (Matthew 24:15 comes to mind here).

What I do in order to understand both the OT and NT is to read and understand the concepts of each passage, and if I find links that connect, then I connect them, (again, Matthew 24:15/Daniel 9:24-27 comes to mind). From there, I research history and compare the historic record to the prophecies of both the OT and the NT, to see if there is fulfillment or not. From there, I come to the conclusions that I have. Frmo this angle, the Jerusalem in Hebrews is not the same Jerusalem that is mentioned in any of the OT scriptures, unless you believe that the Israelites of old lived in heaven, where the "heavenly" Jerusalem reside.

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2008, 05:22 PM
TH,

It's the old wineskins versus the new parable that the Lord Himself presented to all of us. You can not pour new wine into old wineskins, and you can not pour old wine into new wineskins. The effect would be the ruination of both. This is why old wine must be in old wineskins, and the new in new. This will preserve both of them.

If you intend on using scripture to define scripture, then you must use OT scripture to define OT scripture, and NT for NT, unless otherwise expressed by the author, (Matthew 24:15 comes to mind here).
(Luke 5:36-39) And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. {37} And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. {38} But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. {39} No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

It would seem that the reason for the parable was to explain why Israel would not readily receive the new wine of the new covenant - because they thought the wine of the old covenant was better. Hence the need for a new wineskin - the new birth, for them to receive it so they do not perish. "Ye must be born again" was something Nicodemus a Pharisee, was supposed to know.

So you might want to find another passage to support the idea that the NT cannot reveal what was hidden in the OT. Because there are too many NT passages where the Lord and the apostles did just that.

quiet dove
Oct 9th 2008, 06:21 PM
This topic is getting derailed. No one is saying the OT and NT are against each other and interpretation of OT and/with NT is off topic to start with.

timmyb
Oct 9th 2008, 07:06 PM
TH,

(Luke 5:36-39) And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. {37} And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. {38} But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. {39} No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

It would seem that the reason for the parable was to explain why Israel would not readily receive the new wine of the new covenant - because they thought the wine of the old covenant was better. Hence the need for a new wineskin - the new birth, for them to receive it so they do not perish. "Ye must be born again" was something Nicodemus a Pharisee, was supposed to know.

So you might want to find another passage to support the idea that the NT cannot reveal what was hidden in the OT. Because there are too many NT passages where the Lord and the apostles did just that.

I totally agree.... and to separate the OT from the NT is not a good way to say that God doesn't have zeal for Zion...basic biblical doctrine should say that God's word, both testaments are infallible and the whole truth... it doesn't matter what testament he said that he had zeal for Zion, the fact is that he said it.... and it's in the Bible... New Testament, Old Testament it doesn't matter... God's heart doesn't change between the Testaments... and i have never known him to go back on a promise... he will dwell in Jerusalem and even the New Testament testifies of that...

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 04:46 AM
For instance, in the OT, there were three groups of people, with only two of them being talked about at length.

1. God's Chosen people
2. The Gentiles
3. The Saints.

God's people were Israel, the Gentiles were every other nation that was not Israel, and the saints were this mysterious group that was alway suppose to appear with the Lord when He "comes". In the OT, we, the believers, were the "saints" that the OT prophets talked about, but knew very little about. Everyone else, acording to the OT, were as I have defined.


No there has only ever been 2 peoples - saved and lost.

third hero
Oct 10th 2008, 04:59 AM
No there has only ever been 2 peoples - saved and lost.

This is a NT concept. This was not always the case.

In the OT, there were the Jew, the Gentile, and the saint. The OT Israelites were never saved. They were stored in a place that would enable them to be saved when Christ died for them. But before the crucifixion, the saved category did not exist. Like Paul wrote, ALL had sinned and come shoret of the glory of God. This was a constant since the fall, and not one person was saved by means of the Law. Hence the need for a Savior. If the category of saved existed before Christ, then there would have been no need for a Savior, to save anyone, since there would be those who would have been classified as "saved".

This is where scripture defining scripture fails, because when one imputes a presuppostion into a scripture that was not present when that scripture was written, then the consequence would be the misinterpretation of the entire prose.

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 04:03 PM
This is a NT concept. This was not always the case.

In the OT, there were the Jew, the Gentile, and the saint. The OT Israelites were never saved. They were stored in a place that would enable them to be saved when Christ died for them. But before the crucifixion, the saved category did not exist. Like Paul wrote, ALL had sinned and come shoret of the glory of God. This was a constant since the fall, and not one person was saved by means of the Law. Hence the need for a Savior. If the category of saved existed before Christ, then there would have been no need for a Savior, to save anyone, since there would be those who would have been classified as "saved".

This is where scripture defining scripture fails, because when one imputes a presuppostion into a scripture that was not present when that scripture was written, then the consequence would be the misinterpretation of the entire prose.

This is classic Dispensationalism.

There are 2 peoples from Adam - saved and lost. The righteous in the Old Testament were saved in the same way we are in the New Testament. They are saved by grace through faith. You need to read Hebrews 11. You will see that they were saved. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." This is a spiritual, physical and eternal reality.

All "in Adam" belong to the devil and are filled with themselves; all "in Christ" belong to God and possess the Spirit of Christ. Simple! Those "in Adam" are born of the flesh; those "in Christ" are born of the Spirit and are redeemed.

Romans 8:8-9 says, “they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit (pneumatic), if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

The Old Testament and New Testament human that does not have "the Spirit of Christ," is "none of his.” There is no other Redeemer and no other maebns of salvation. Man since Adam has been saved by grace, through faith in Christ. Simple. Men are either viewed in Christ or in Adam. They are either saved by the blood of Christ or they are not. The Church never began at Pentecost. The Church is found throughout the Word. It simply refers to the congregation or assembly of God's people.

Romans 5:18-19 says, “as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

This passage places men in one of two distinct groups since the beginning – those in Adam and those in Christ. Those in Adam simply experience one birth in life and filled with themselves and their own selfish desires and thoughts. Those in Christ have experienced a second birth – a spiritual birth, they are indwelt, kept and governed by the Spirit of God.

Scripture places man in one of two distinct groups since the beginning – those in Adam and those in Christ. Those in Adam simply experience one birth in life and never know the joy of the second spiritual birth. This company is made up of Jew and Gentile alike throughout time. The second group are those “in Christ,” referring to the redeemed throughout time (before and after the cross). They represent every person that has been saved by God’s grace and washed in the blood of Jesus and have known the joy of sins forgiven. This is the only salvation known to man. Before the cross the believer looked forward by faith to the finished work of the cross of Jesus, today we look back by faith to the atoning work of Christ.

Every man since Adam is born with original sin and therefore stands completely guilty before a righteous God. In the first Adam (the first nature) all are sinners and therefore destined to lost eternity. The Bible says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Man – in all generations – inherited Adam’s awful sinful nature, which ultimately separates man from a holy God. So we can see, man, irrespective of race, birthplace or birth date, shares the same pitiful deformity. The Bible says that we are all “by nature the children of wrath”(Ephesians 2:3). The Psalmist outlines this dire reality, saying, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). Jews and Gentiles approach God on the same grounds being collectively blighted with the same disfigurement – sin. They consequently require the same cure (the only medicine for this affliction) – the blood of Jesus. Men of all races operate on the same playing field and are required to submit to the exact same requirements – faith in Christ and repentance towards God.

An unregenerate man (Old Testament or New Testament) is dead in the grave of sin and assuredly destined for a Christless eternity. He lies condemned in a spiritually lifeless state. He therefore needs saved. That salvation comes through Christ alone, where the sinner is lifted into newness of life. That is why Christ came to give life.

third hero
Oct 10th 2008, 04:44 PM
This is classic Dispensationalism.

There are 2 peoples from Adam - saved and lost. The righteous in the Old Testament were saved in the same way we are in the New Testament. They are saved by grace through faith. You need to read Hebrews 11. You will see that they were saved. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." This is a spiritual, physical and eternal reality.

Faith in what? God revealed himself to maybe a couple of people. (Abraham, Job, Isaiah, and the prophets). The rest of the world had NO means of being saved. Even the "righteous" had the Sheol to look forward to. This is not dispensationalism, thisi s what the OT taught. Who was going to save them from death? What was left afterward in the OT butthe Sheol? I am sorry Paul, but you re going to have to show evidence that points to salvation in the OT BEFORE Lord Jesus. Otherwise, your ethnocentistic POV is only going to cause yet more confusion.

By your logic, following the Torah would bring salvation, which Paul disproved in Romans. Moreover, Lord Jesus disproved that Himself, showing th4e disciples the true way to obedience and dismantling every pharisaic belief that the "chosen ones" held to at that time.

When Adam came into the world, there was perfection and imperfection. After Adam clothed himself with imperfection, then there were the lost. There was no saved at that time, and those who walked after God were taken from this earth, as Enoch was. Everyone else was subject to death due to sin. That did not change at all. All mankind was LOST. There was no saved back then. Salvation meant the preservation of one's life here on earth.


All "in Adam" belong to the devil and are filled with themselves; all "in Christ" belong to God and possess the Spirit of Christ. Simple! Those "in Adam" are born of the flesh; those "in Christ" are born of the Spirit and are redeemed.

Romans 8:8-9 says, “they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit (pneumatic), if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

When was Christ born? Was He saving mankind back when Moses walked the earth? How about when Noah walked the earth? Job? Isaiah? WHich of these were saved? All who had faith in God were preserved until they could be saved, but none of them were saved, not until Christ died. His Death saved all of them, at the same time. This is why Abraham and the others were in the graves, awaiting and seeing right along with the rest of mankind at that time the salvation that was coming. Before Christ, there were NO saved.

This is classical ethnocentrism.


the old Testament and New Testament human that does not have "the Spirit of Christ," is "none of his.” There is no other Redeemer and no other maebns of salvation. Man since Adam has been saved by grace, through faith in Christ. Simple. Men are either viewed in Christ or in Adam. They are either saved by the blood of Christ or they are not. The Church never began at Pentecost. The Church is found throughout the Word. It simply refers to the congregation or assembly of God's people.

How did the OT man gain the Holy Spirit? As far as I am aware of, there was only one OT man who claimed that He had the Holy Spirit, and that was David. Even then, was the "Holy Spirit" that he was talking about the actual Holy Spirit, or the breath of life, which was called the Holy Spirit long before Penticost? Again ,this is the consequence of not viewing an ancient document in the context of the ancient writers. Not everything in the OT has a NT verse that defines what the OT phrase or scripture means.


Romans 5:18-19 says, “as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

This verse again bolsters my point that there were no group of people that were "saved" in the OT. The classifications were due to ethmnicity and the mysterious group of people that weren't even round yet. There were the Jew and the Gentile, with the "saint" being talked about only a couple of times in the OT. The NT is where the Saint is introduced, and revealed. All were lost before Christ. Not a single soul was saved.

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 06:30 PM
Faith in what? God revealed himself to maybe a couple of people. (Abraham, Job, Isaiah, and the prophets). The rest of the world had NO means of being saved. Even the "righteous" had the Sheol to look forward to. This is not dispensationalism, thisi s what the OT taught. Who was going to save them from death? What was left afterward in the OT butthe Sheol? I am sorry Paul, but you re going to have to show evidence that points to salvation in the OT BEFORE Lord Jesus. Otherwise, your ethnocentistic POV is only going to cause yet more confusion.

Again, you circumvented every passage / argument I have presented.

Ok, before the cross, before the resurrection, Jesus said in Luke 16:19-31, “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”

The passage continues, “Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”(Luke 16:19-31)

The just are clearly “comforted” here.

The lost are clearly “tormented” here.


By your logic, following the Torah would bring salvation, which Paul disproved in Romans. Moreover, Lord Jesus disproved that Himself, showing th4e disciples the true way to obedience and dismantling every pharisaic belief that the "chosen ones" held to at that time.

Another white elephant.


When Adam came into the world, there was perfection and imperfection. After Adam clothed himself with imperfection, then there were the lost. There was no saved at that time, and those who walked after God were taken from this earth, as Enoch was. Everyone else was subject to death due to sin. That did not change at all. All mankind was LOST. There was no saved back then. Salvation meant the preservation of one's life here on earth.

So if Enoch and Elijah were saved then salvation existed!!!


When was Christ born? Was He saving mankind back when Moses walked the earth? How about when Noah walked the earth? Job? Isaiah? WHich of these were saved?

Hebrews 11:7 says, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.”

1 Peter 3:20 says, “once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

2 Peter 2 says “delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (vv 7-9).



All who had faith in God were preserved until they could be saved, but none of them were saved, not until Christ died. His Death saved all of them, at the same time. This is why Abraham and the others were in the graves, awaiting and seeing right along with the rest of mankind at that time the salvation that was coming. Before Christ, there were NO saved.

This is classical ethnocentrism.


They were saved by faith looking forward.



How did the OT man gain the Holy Spirit? As far as I am aware of, there was only one OT man who claimed that He had the Holy Spirit, and that was David. Even then, was the "Holy Spirit" that he was talking about the actual Holy Spirit, or the breath of life, which was called the Holy Spirit long before Penticost? Again ,this is the consequence of not viewing an ancient document in the context of the ancient writers. Not everything in the OT has a NT verse that defines what the OT phrase or scripture means.


That is totally wrong. Again, this is classic Dispensationalism. David said indeed in Psalms 51:10-12, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit."

1 Corinthians 10:1 & 4 supports this belief, saying, “I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ... And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Speaking of Joseph in Genesis 41:38, we learn, “And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”

Exodus 28:3 says, “thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.”
Exodus 31:3 says, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship.”

Numbers 14:24 says, “my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.”

Even before succeeding Moses, Joshua was filled with the Spirit.Numbers 27:18 tells us, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him.”

Deuteronomy 34:9 says, “Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Nehemiah 9:30 confirms,“Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets: yet would they not give ear: therefore gavest thou them into the hand of the people of the lands.”

Isaiah 63:11 says, “he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he (God) that put his Holy Spirit within him (Moses)?"

Ezekiel 2:2 testified, “the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 says, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

Ezekiel 37:14 says, “And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Daniel 6:3 says, “Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

Micah 3:8 testified, “I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.”

Luke 1:13-17, “the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Luke 1:41 records of John’s mother, “ Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.”

Luke 1:67 records of John’s mother, “Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost.”

John 20:21-23 records of Christ’s impartation of the Holy Spirit to the disciples prior to Pentecost, “he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

1 Peter 1:7-12 explicitly states, speaking to the New Testament saints about our common salvation in Christ, with the OT saints, “the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

Possessing “the spirit of Christ” is expressly identified with the ‘indwelling’ of the Spirit in Romans 8:9, where the passage says of God’s elect, “you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

The condition for salvation, throughout all time is possession of “the spirit of Christ.” Ephesians 3:14-21 says, “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven(Old Testament and New Testament saints up until today)and earth(Jew and Gentile)is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God …Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end."

1 Corinthians 10:1 & 4 says, “I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ... And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Hebrews 11:23-26 says,“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.”




This verse again bolsters my point that there were no group of people that were "saved" in the OT. The classifications were due to ethmnicity and the mysterious group of people that weren't even round yet. There were the Jew and the Gentile, with the "saint" being talked about only a couple of times in the OT. The NT is where the Saint is introduced, and revealed. All were lost before Christ. Not a single soul was saved.


See above.

Mograce2U
Oct 10th 2008, 07:08 PM
Hi Paul,
Just wanted to make a note that the Luke 16 parable occurs in the midst of several others that concern the resurrection of the dead. The scene begins in Ch 14 with Jesus and His disciples eating dinner on the Sabbath at a chief Pharisee's house - and it continues all the way thru to 17:10.

A key verse for the context of all the parables is found here:
(Luke 14:14-15) And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. {15} And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

The story of Lazarus and the rich man would seem to be for the time after the resurrection and not speaking of a disembodied state of the dead. For after the rich man "lifted up his eyes" goes on to describe bodily parts and senses. Being at this time Jesus had not yet raised Lazarus from the dead seems to be a key reason for naming this character that don't you think? Considering that after He did, these same men to whom He told this story, wanted to kill him.

Also being that the Jews considered themselves the "just" in the resurrection and yet the rich man - a Jew - was shown in hell, also seems to be a point Jesus is making about the result of the judgment to be faced at that time.

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 03:48 PM
Again, you circumvented every passage / argument I have presented.

Ok, before the cross, before the resurrection, Jesus said in Luke 16:19-31, “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”

The passage continues, “Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”(Luke 16:19-31)

The just are clearly “comforted” here.

The lost are clearly “tormented” here.

Where were they Paul? Was it no th LAND OF THE DEAD, aka the SHEOL? The "comforted" part was what I said was the "preservation of the "blameless" until they could be saved by the Death of Lord Jesus.

Here's a verse that bolsters my point.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. -John 5:24-25

This is Jesus proclaiming that those who were dead were hearing His message as He was preaching it, and those who heard it would pass from death to life. He is what made salvation possible. Before the Lord's first advent, this was what the people had to look forward to.

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom -2 Samuel 7:12

And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him. Genesis 37:35

Here's the RSV version of that same verse.

All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and said, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him.

Sheol-the land of the dead; the grave. This was the fate of all mankind, and Jesus even reflected that belief in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The place where the "righteous" were kept was not in heaven, for both the "righteous" and the wicked seen each other, and the place of comfort (abraham's Bosom) and Hell (where the rich man was) was separated by a huge gulf, one that was uncrossable. Whether the blameless received comfort or not is not the issue. The issue is were they saved.

The answer is simple. They were not. Before Christ purchased them from sin by His blood which was shed on th Cross, no man was saved. Preservation in the Land of the dead is not what salvation entails. Salvation is rising from the grave, and living with the Lord forever. This is what Lord Jesus brought to the table, making the whole concept of "saved and lost" a New Testament concept, and not an OT one.

Again, ethnocentrism brings about confusion, wpm. You can not judge the Ot by the standards ofthe NT, because there are several factors that mankind had to live by in the OT that we do not have to worry about because of the NT. Salvation is just one of those issues.

The subject of Israel is yet another. Your ethnocentic view skews your view of Israel to the point that you are willing to replace all terminology concerning ethnic Israel with "Spiritual" Israel, thus bringing on the church the curses that were meant for Israel alone. And on top of that, your view tends to miss the point that God is still making with Israel, that He is not done with that nation, or those people.

Yet you write to me:


Again, you circumvented every passage / argument I have presented.

When you go right on ahead and PROVE MY POINT with the verses that you present. I am circumventing nothing. I am showing you the plain truth that you can not interpret every OT verse in the light of NT terminology. There are certain verses in the OT that are meant for Israel and Israel alone, and yet, when you throw NT terminology into ther OT, you miss the entire point of the OT verse.

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 03:53 PM
Moreover, when you use NT terminology to interpret OT verses, you miss part of God's entire plan for salvation. You miss the references that brought about Revelation 20 (namely, Daniel 7), the purpose for the abomination that causes desolation, (Daniel 9:24, Matthew 24:15, Zechariah 12:10-14. chapter 14:1-5), and God's proclamation through not only the prophets of old, but the NT saints that He is in fact going to redeem all of Israel, (Romans 11:26-28, Revelation 12).

This is not trivial material here, but rather these are things which are, in my opinion, concrete evidence of the fact that God still has a plan for Israel, even though they betrayed Him. Evidence that can not be figurated away.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 04:00 PM
Moreover, when you use NT terminology to interpret OT verses, you miss part of God's entire plan for salvation. You miss the references that brought about Revelation 20 (namely, Daniel 7), the purpose for the abomination that causes desolation, (Daniel 9:24, Matthew 24:15, Zechariah 12:10-14. chapter 14:1-5), and God's proclamation through not only the prophets of old, but the NT saints that He is in fact going to redeem all of Israel, (Romans 11:26-28, Revelation 12).

This is not trivial material here, but rather these are things which are, in my opinion, concrete evidence of the fact that God still has a plan for Israel, even though they betrayed Him. Evidence that can not be figurated away.

You go off on so many tangents that it is impossible to debate with you. Moreover, the passages and subject that is in view is carefully circumvented. This is becoming a habit.

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 04:05 PM
Another white elephant.

I think not. However, I am starting to tire from this "white elephant" that you like to throw around here. I am chasing nothing, but rather highlighting the short-comings in your reasooning. If there is a "white elephant" or a "straw-man", then both are to be applied to your logic, and not my exposing of that logic.


So if Enoch and Elijah were saved then salvation existed!!!

Hebrews 11:7 says, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.”

1 Peter 3:20 says, “once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

2 Peter 2 says “delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (vv 7-9).



They were saved by faith looking forward.



That is totally wrong. Again, this is classic Dispensationalism. David said indeed in Psalms 51:10-12, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit."

1 Corinthians 10:1 & 4 supports this belief, saying, “I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ... And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Speaking of Joseph in Genesis 41:38, we learn, “And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”

Exodus 28:3 says, “thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.”
Exodus 31:3 says, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship.”

Numbers 14:24 says, “my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.”

Even before succeeding Moses, Joshua was filled with the Spirit.Numbers 27:18 tells us, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him.”

Deuteronomy 34:9 says, “Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Nehemiah 9:30 confirms,“Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets: yet would they not give ear: therefore gavest thou them into the hand of the people of the lands.”

Isaiah 63:11 says, “he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he (God) that put his Holy Spirit within him (Moses)?"

Ezekiel 2:2 testified, “the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 says, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

Ezekiel 37:14 says, “And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Daniel 6:3 says, “Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

Micah 3:8 testified, “I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.”

Luke 1:13-17, “the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Luke 1:41 records of John’s mother, “ Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.”

Luke 1:67 records of John’s mother, “Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost.”

John 20:21-23 records of Christ’s impartation of the Holy Spirit to the disciples prior to Pentecost, “he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

1 Peter 1:7-12 explicitly states, speaking to the New Testament saints about our common salvation in Christ, with the OT saints, “the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

Possessing “the spirit of Christ” is expressly identified with the ‘indwelling’ of the Spirit in Romans 8:9, where the passage says of God’s elect, “you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

The condition for salvation, throughout all time is possession of “the spirit of Christ.” Ephesians 3:14-21 says, “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven(Old Testament and New Testament saints up until today)and earth(Jew and Gentile)is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God …Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end."

1 Corinthians 10:1 & 4 says, “I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ... And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Hebrews 11:23-26 says,“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.”



So, those people did not need Jesus to die for them. Is this what you are trying to say? They were "saved" based on faith in the God of Israel, right? There was no need for a Savior, no need for Jesus to spill His blood, and no reason for GOd to have His prophets proclaim that animal sacrifice is worthless to God. I just want a little clarification here.

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 04:11 PM
You go off on so many tangents that it is impossible to debate with you. Moreover, the passages and subject that is in view is carefully circumvented. This is becoming a habit.

Tangeants? Really?

So the myriads of scriptures that you intertwine into your prose, in your attempts to bolster your logic is fine, but when I do the same, it is caled going off on tangeants? Come on Paul. this is low-brow, even for you. I am not going to simply say to you, ok, you win, when you are completely off on your reasoning of certain scriptures.

Here's another thing I find funny. many in this forum find my style easy to follow, and the only one that continues to have a problem with that is you. Why is that Paul?

My points concerning Israel was well thought out, and proven with nothing other than scripture. And you call that circumventing. Seriously, should I just bluntly write what you are trying to say while veiled?

White elephants, strawman arguements, I noticed that every time someone brings up a point that directly contradicts yours, you go on to the same blame game, using terms that belittle your opposition while "veiling" it as a point of dissention. Seriously, I am truly tired of this "straw-man" tactic of yours.

Now, if you do not like my points, use scripture to disprove them. If you can not, then concede and write nothing. This will cause less posts like this one to pop up around yours.

quiet dove
Oct 11th 2008, 05:40 PM
This thread has run it's course, several times, and everytime it gets personal and heated. I'm closing it, let the topic cool off, everyone count to ten and we can all try again later.