Monday, February 22, 2010

Jones Interview: Not Suffering the Wrath of God

Nathan JonesPDFBy Nathan Jones

In December 2009 I was interviewed by Bill Salus, author of the popular Psalm 83-themed book Isralestine, host of the radio program "Prophecy Update," and evangelist on the end times website Prophecy Depot. Bill and I spent much of the interview discussing the Rapture, Middle East politics and my "left behind" video "Jesus Came. What's Next?"


Bill Salus

Bill has been kind enough to allow The Christ in Prophecy Journal to reproduce the "Caught Up in the Pre-Trib Rapture" interview in transcript form, edited into an article series. To listen to the original radio program in mp3 format, I invite you to visit Prophecy Depot or KWBB.

In this segment, Bill and I will be discussing why the Church — the Bride of Christ — is not destined to suffer the wrath of God.


The Bible on Not Suffering the Wrath of God

Bill Salus: 1 Thessalonians 5:9 says that "God did not appoint us to suffer wrath."

Nathan Jones: Oh, yes, there are many verses that tell us that Christians are not destined to suffer the wrath of God.

Bill Salus: I find it interesting, and I think people might want to take some time to study this, is the prophetic inferences of the Seven Letters to the Seven Churches. In the letter to Thyatira, that church is promised to go into the sick bed of the Great Tribulation, while the church at Philadelphia will be kept from the hour of trial.

Nathan Jones: Revelation 3:10.

Bill Salus: It is very interesting that one of the purposes of the Seven Letters to the Seven Churches (and there were several purposes; and of course they were literal churches at the time Revelation was written) is the prophetic interpretation that they would be outlining church history in advance. Therefore, a lot of people suggest that the church of Thyatira pretty much embodies Roman Catholicism, though not that all Catholics of course are going to be unsaved and cast into the Tribulation.

Next, we are shown the evangelical Philadelphian type of church that went out and missionized the world in the 1800's and 1900's, opening the door to a great spiritual revival. Philadelphia represents the church on Earth that is caught up to Heaven. I think there are some good arguments for that. Therefore, it looks like it is the true church on Earth that is raptured out and is in Heaven for Revelation chapters 4 and 5, and I tend to subscribe to that.

When we get to Revelation 6 the seals start to be opened. The first seal appears to be the emergence of the Antichrist and the beginning of the Tribulation. So, that to me is a strong point as to why the Rapture will be Pre-Tribulational.

Nathan Jones: Indeed, the entire Church Age can be encapsulated in Revelation 2 or 3. Each church represents a different time period within the Church Age, with the last church being Laodicea which is the apathetic church. Look at around today and see the churches just rolling in apathy with a lot of their strength gone.

You mentioned Revelation 3:10 which reads, "Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test those who live on the Earth." That is a wonderful promise to the church of Philadelphia — the believing, dedicated Church — that they would be kept from the trials that are going to come on the Earth.

Paul shows that promise again in 1 Thessalonians 1:10, "And to wait for a Son from Heaven whom He raised from the dead, Jesus who rescues us from the coming wrath." Also, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath, but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Bill Salus: That is the passage I was referring to. That's the one that a lot of people argue to show we are going to be kept from that wrath and that we are not appointed to it.

Nathan Jones: There are more verses — go to Romans 5:9, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:4. Again and again and again in the New Testament Jesus and the Apostles say that the Church will be kept from God's wrath.


Persecution Versus Tribulation

Nathan Jones: We need to bear in mind Paul's audience when he was describing the Rapture. These were people who were enduring great persecution under such emperors as Nero and Diocletian. These were emperors who hated Christians. Those Christians were suffering immensely. They were being thrown to the lions. They knew persecution, but they knew there was a greater persecution coming and that they would be kept from that.

Bill Salus: So, the Post-Trib Rapture viewpoint basically puts the Church through the Tribulation — the wrath of God — the seven year Tribulation. The Bride of Christ gets all battered and bruised.

Nathan Jones: The "Protestant Purgatory," yes.

Bill Salus: Then, all of a sudden, according to their view Jesus says, "I'll take you now."

Not that we are kept from persecution as a Church, of course.

Nathan Jones: No, no, we definitely endure trials and tribulations as Christians. But, we have got to get our minds around the difference between present sufferings and the sufferings under God's wrath. We have to look back at the Flood. The Flood was a particular time period when God poured out His wrath on an unbelieving, rebellious, really vile civilization to cleanse it and to bring some righteous people out of it.

And so, even though believers suffer persecution, the Tribulation is just like the Flood. It is a special and separate time for God to pour out His wrath. He is going to use the Tribulation to bring a remnant of Israel back into believing in Yeshua as Messiah and to populate a Millennial Kingdom with peace, righteousness and justice with Jesus ruling from Jerusalem over a believing remnant. That is what makes the Tribulation just like the Flood, a separate period of time.

Bill Salus: Speaking of that, we will encounter trials as a Church even before the Rapture. The Church historically has endured suffering. The Church in Smyrna in particular in those Revelation letters to the Churches of Revelation 2 was the martyred Church Age.

Interestingly, I was watching this famous quarterback named Tim Tebow who is with a Florida college team. He did an interview. He had, as some of these football players do you'll often see, written John 3:16. Well, Tebow had John 16:33, and I thought I needed to read and find out what he was saying. Obviously, Tebow must be a Christian, so what is he saying there? And the verse says, "In the world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." This is Jesus saying this.

Nathan Jones: Great verse!

Bill Salus: So, that is perfect. You know we are not going to be kept from tribulation, but we will be kept from the "hour of trial" due to the Pre-Trib Rapture. The wrath of God in that hour of trial. In the meanwhile, Christians will suffer persecution for their faith.

Nathan Jones: Look at India and Pakistan right now. India is having terrible problems with Christians being burned alive. One of the ministries that Lamb and Lion supports, the gentlemen's translating organization gets kicked out of building after building after building because the owners are terrified that the Hindus will burn their building down for letting a Christian work in them. That is rather minor compared to the Christian orphanages being burned down in different sections of India. Pakistan has great persecution, then you've got the Sudan. You name it, other than the United States and maybe Australia, you see a physical persecution of Christians.

And yet, in first world countries like the United States, Australia and England definitely there is legal persecution, the very beginnings of physical persecution. There was a time when the Puritans came to the New World to escape religious persecution from the Church of England, and now, I don't think there is any place for Christians to escape to. Maybe Texas! They can escape to Texas, but even here we see a lot of religious persecution going on in the legal systems.

So, yes, I totally agree with you — Christians will suffer persecution. Again, though, the Tribulation is like the Flood. It is a separate time period, an earth-altering time period when God is going to change the world.

God says He has a cup of wrath and when it reaches a certain level that is it. That is when He will finally act on His wrath. God has to deal with sin. He has to deal in judgment. If someone sins against us, we want to see justice done for our sin, don't we? Well, God is the same way. He wants to see justice done for people's continued rebellion and the horrible actions that everyone commits against one another. The only thing that makes Christians different is that we are forgiven and saved, but that is a very, very important difference.

138 comments:

Expected Imminently said...

Posties happily agree that the church is kept from the wrath of God. However their perception of what institutes God's wrath is limited to Matt,24 "AFTER the Tribulation of those days". When they read the darkening of the sun moon and stars, they decide that is the same as the sixth seal judgments placing them AFTER the Tribulation. Posties presume the seals, trumpets and vials all happen at the same time?

Nonesense of course, because the judgments obviously happen one after the other as the first Trumpet sounds after the opening of the seventh seal, while the vials have to wait until well after the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.

They do not recognise God's pattern of judgments throughout history as being the same as the judgments begining at the opening of the first seal. The four judgments of sword,famine,wild animals and pestilence all increasing in intensity into the Great Trib from the half way point.

Posties maintain that these are mans or Satan's wrath, which is why they say the church goes through them. They fail to recognise that God's judgments in the Tribulation mirror closely His judgments upon Egypt.

Posties react just like Pharoah did, and refuse to accept that the plagues were anything to do with God until the last plague, the death of the first born.

So history is repeating itself with the Posties also denying it is God that is operating all the judgments from the opening of the first seal until the 2nd Coming.

The darkening of the sun,moon and stars mirror Jacobs dream of them bowing before him, a type of the Messiah. Jesus is THE Light, when He returns, any created light is bound to fade into insignificence. imo.
E.I.

Mitchell said...

I see very little exegesis in this study, so allow me to help. :)

But what is the "wrath" specifically that we are saved from? Let's look at what the text is really saying.

First, here are the verses that the pre-trib position loves to quote:

1 Thess 1:10, "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

1 Thess 5:9, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ"

Romans 5:9, "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

Eph 5:6, "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."

Next, let us exegete the text to see what we discover in the Greek:

1 Thess 1:10, -- The wrath that we will be delivered from is the Greek "orge" (G3709).

1 Thess 5:9, -- The wrath that we are not appointed to is the Greek "orge" (G3709).

Romans 5:9, -- The wrath that we are saved from is the Greek "orge" (G3709).

Eph 5:6, -- The wrath upon those who are disobedient is the Greek "orge" (G3709).

Now let's examine the "wrath" that is described in the Book of Revelation. The word "wrath" itself is found 13 times in Revelation from the Greek word "thymos" and "orge", but the "orge" of God that we are promised to be saved from according to each verse above is only found six times. Each time we find the "orge" that we are not appointed to it is used in a post-trib context:

1 and 2. It is mentioned AFTER the cosmic signs and the revealing of Christ Jesus (Rev 6:16-17). Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that these signs happen immediately AFTER the tribulation (Matt 24:29).

3. It is found AFTER the SEVENTH trumpet (Rev 11:18). (When the 7th and last trump begins to sound we find the rapture described in Rev 10).

4. It is used to describe the final torment of unbelievers in hell (Rev 14:10).

5. It is found AFTER the SEVENTH bowl (Rev 16:19). (The trumpets and bowls are separate descriptions of the same events. The trumpets are the cause, the bowls are the effect).

6. It is used in connection with Christ's Second Coming (Rev 19:15).

Therefore, even if the rapture does not happen until after the tribulation, we are still saved from the "orge" of God as promised in a post-trib rapture.

Mitchell said...

Nathan Jones says, "That (Rev 3:10) is a wonderful promise to the church of Philadelphia — the believing, dedicated Church — that they would be kept from the trials that are going to come on the Earth."

There are many who read Rev 3:10 to mean that this somehow guarantees the Church protection from the tribulation by removing them from the earth in a pre-trib rapture. But is that what is really says?

Rev 3:10 reads, "Because thou has kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, that shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth."

Jesus says "keep thee from", not "remove thee from", we would agree to this point I am sure. Now, the Greek for "keep thee from" in Rev 3:10 is "tereo ek" and is the exact wording used in John 17:15: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."

The Greek "tereo" means "to attend to carefully; take care of; to guard; to reserve; to keep, one in the state in which he is" and does not mean to remove from the earth but to rather watch over during the time of testing. Jesus even prayed in John 17:15 "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world". Rev 3:10 is saying that we will be kept from the hour of temptation by being watched over, guarded, during this time and not removed from it. Many of us have children that attend public school, but we keep them from false teachings such as Darwinian evolution, right? How? We watch over them and keep them grounded in the Truth of Scripture, not by removing them from school.

Let's look at some other translations and how they've rendered Revelation 3:10:

Rev 3:10, "Because you kept my Word in passionate patience, I'll keep you safe in the time of testing that will be here soon, and all over the earth, every man, woman, and child put to the test." (MSG)

Rev 3:10, "Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world." (NLT)

Rev 3:10, "You have obeyed my word and been patient. So I will keep you safe in the time of trouble which will come all over the world. It will test the people who live on earth." (WE)

Rev 3:10, "You obeyed my message and endured. So I will protect you from the time of testing that everyone in all the world must go through." (CEV)

Now, is this being watched over physical in nature, or something else?

-- Con't

Mitchell said...

The Greek word for "endure" or "persevere" is "hypomone" (G5281) which means "steadfastness" or "steadfast waiting for" or "patiently enduring". Per the context we see that "perseverance" is closely related to the "hour of testing," which is "peirasmos" (G3986) and means to "examine" or "prove".

Peirasmos is frequently translated, "to tempt" which is important because Scripture tells us that it is Satan who tempts. 1 Thess 3:5 reads "For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter (Satan) might have tempted you, and our labor should be in vain". James 1:2,12 tell us "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials (peirasmois). Blessed is the man that perseveres (hypomone) under trial (peirasmon)." In the next verse James says that God "does not tempt anyone." This refers to the "hour of testing" in Rev 3:10 using the identical Greek word: "The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer... Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing (peirasmos), as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also AT THE REVELATION OF HIS GLORY, you may rejoice with exultation" (1 Peter 4:7,12,13). Christ reveals His Glory when? Immediately after the tribulation (Matt 24:30). (In fact, the Greek word for "revealed" or "revelation" in 1 Peter 4:13 is "apokalypsis", and it is where we get the word "apocalypse" from!).

Moreover, in 2 Peter 2:9 we read "then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation (peirasmos), and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment." In both cases the believer is present during the peirasmos and not removed from it.

So, even though there are those who are killed during great tribulation they are not kept safe physically per Rev 3:10 (though I am sure that God can do that if it be His will), but will be kept from the deception and temptation of the evil one during this time. Many will die "for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God" because they will not have "worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands." The soul is more important than the body. The protection is spiritual, not physical.

When understood correctly, Rev 3:10 is further evidence of a post-trib rapture and can in no way be used to support the pre-trib position.

In my opinion, of course. :)

Blessings ...

Anonymous said...

Deja vu?

rg

DrNofog said...

This is all your fault, Billy!
You egged him on, and now we must all pay homage...

Mitch-ell! Mitch-ell! Mitch-ell!
;-D

son of thunder said...

EI, meet Mitchell.

Expected Imminently said...

How do you do Mitchell?

We have crossed paths before and I really would like to say it is a pleasure to meet you, but it wouldn't be the truth. However I am sure you are a very nice chap, it’s your chosen method of interpretation that I refuse to debate with. Endless genealogies and all that!

As I have said before, your analysis of Scripture comes from Covenant Theologies spiritualising / allegorical view, combined with the verbal diarrhoea that insists upon nitpicking Greek words read in isolation of the full textual denotation.

WRATH – we are not destined for, however it is dished up! Otherwise God is a convoluting liar and not to be trusted.

Expected Imminently said...

R.G. Son of Thunder and all.

I realise you know the following, this is for those who may not realise that Mitchell’s Postie confusion is based on not following the Serious or Literal translation of God’s Word; used by the prophets, Jesus and the Apostles.

The allegorical interpretation used by Covenant Theology sees no distinction between Israel and the Church. Effectively they have ‘Miss Church’, reading a letter addressed to ‘Mrs Israel’ or ‘Messers Gentile’ and vice versa. They see Israel and the Church as ONE people of God whereas The Bible first speaks of Israel and Gentiles, along comes The Church which is a mix of Jews and Gentiles, giving three separate entities of Israel, Gentiles and Church.

God deals with each group in accordance to His plan and purposes for each group. C.T. muddles them up, which is where Replacement Theology comes from.

It is because allegory/spiritualising way of interpreting Scripture refuses to recognise there are clear Distinctions between the different groupings; that the confusion erupts.

AFTER Jesus ends the Tribulation on earth, so comes the judgement of the LIVING nations and separation of living saved Gentile (goats) and living unsaved Gentiles (sheep) who are the Tribulation saints saved AFTER the Rapture of the Church before the seven year Tribulation begins.

Nathan please correct me where necessary. :)
E.I.

Expected Imminently said...

Did you spot the deliberate mistake - so not!

I'm sorry the goats are the unsaved gentiles. The sheep are the saved gentiles.
E.I.

Mitchell said...

Hi EI, you've already misrepresented my position. :) I do not adhere to Covenant Theology. I am a Progressive Dispensationalist.

You can read more about it here:

http://www.endtimes.org/progressive_dispensationalism.html

http://worldview_3.tripod.com/dispensation.html

Although Covenant Theology does make some valid points in a couple of areas, as a whole it is inherently flawed. Many here would agree with this. Progressive Dispensationalism, however, offers sound Scriptural answers in my opinion to the problems not only with Covenant Theology but also with the numerous problems within Classic / Traditional Dispensationalism that many churches have been taught and still teach today.

Here is another good explanation of Progressive Dispensationalism.

PD 101: http://www.pfrs.org/pd/001.html

PD 102: http://www.pfrs.org/pd/002.html

A fascinating subject that everybody should find the time to study.

The way that I see it, the real reason why some "refuse to debate" is because when flawed hermeneutics are brought to light they have no real rebuttal to the arguments being presented. In my humble opinion, of course ...

Blessings!

Expected Imminently said...

Progressive Dispensationalism!

Have already looked into this very brand new, end time Gnosticism with its roots emerging from C.T. -as our dear old Wills said 'a rose by any other name -!'
E.I.

Mitchell said...

You've just proven my previous point. No argument, no reasoning, no Scriptures -- no surprise. Choosing to name-call or attribute such labels is very unfortunate. This is something that we should all avoid, so please let us love one other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

By the way, have you ever noticed the definition of "gnosticism"?

–noun. a group of ancient heresies, stressing escape from this world through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge.

Oh, the irony.

May the Lord bless you always ...

Expected Imminently said...

BRAND NEW gnoticism I said. Like your friends before you, I refuse to be drawn in again to debating what is effectively a 'foreign language'.

Speaking of irony, I have so much of it to do I can't afford to waste time on pointless, fruitless pursuits, but feel free to bait me with attacks on my intelligence as is C.T's.wont. I have no intention to be drawn into this nonsense.


Nathan and all

Below is a sample of the division being caused by the recent, end time deception of “Progressive Dispensationalism”. I ‘m not certain yet, but strongly suspect this new paradigm is part and parcel of the so called ‘Lordship Salvation’ heated debate?

Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.
“As Dr. Walvoord and Dr. Ryrie have clearly pointed out, the Progressive Dispensationalists' concept that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David is a confusion and is Biblically erroneous. Prophetic teaching has become gradually less and less important to them and the students they influence. And, in any case, all sincere Bible readers see Israel's "prophetically prescribed future."

More at this link.

http://ldolphin.org/progressdisp.html

E.I.

Mitchell said...

The writers in the link you provided do not really understand Progressive Dispensationalism well, which is evident in their "critique" of it. Please see the two articles below, which will dispel some of their misunderstandings.

PD 101: http://www.pfrs.org/pd/001.html

PD 102: http://www.pfrs.org/pd/002.html

For instance, in your link, Todd Baker states that "proponents of Progressive Dispensationalism have changed some of this [future Messianic Kingdom / Davidic Covenant] with their interpretation of Acts 2 (particularly verses 30-36). They teach from Acts 2:30 that the throne of God in heaven where Jesus now sits is the throne of David. Hence, Jesus is currently reigning from David's throne in heaven, and the Messianic Kingdom is now inaugurated and is beginning to be fulfilled! What was once clearly a future event is now, somehow, a present reality."

However, this is a blatant misrepresentation of Progressive Dispensationalism. As Pastor Tim Warner points in in my link above, "Some progressive dispensationalists believe the Davidic Covenant is also partially fulfilled during this dispensation, with Christ seated on David's throne at the right hand of the Father. This in no way diminishes His future reigning in the Millennium. However, this is NOT a crucial issue within progressive dispensationalism. Other progressive dispensationalists, including this author, agree with traditional dispensationalists that this covenant will only be inaugurated upon the second coming. On Palm Sunday, the crowds cried, 'Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord' [Matt. 21:9]. This was the crowd's acknowledgment that Jesus was the one to fulfill the Davidic Covenant, and they expected Him to assume the throne immediately, [see: Luke 19:11]. However, when the scribes and priests heard the crowd call Jesus the 'Son of David' they were 'sore displeased.' A few days later, after Jesus' scathing denouncement of the Scribes and Pharisees, He said, 'Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.' [Matt. 23:38,39]. Jesus implied that taking His seat as King of Israel, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, was suspended until Israel repents as a nation. This will only occur at the second coming of Jesus, when they 'look on Him whom they have pierced' [Zech. 12:10], and then 'all Israel shall be saved,' [Rom. 11:26]. That the Davidic Covenant will only be inagurated when Israel is restored is clearly stated in Jeremiah 23:5-8."

The problem that a lot of students have today (and I use to be one of them) is that they will only learn about differing viewpoints from writers of their own position. This is not always a bad thing, but if those writers do not fully understand the other perspective then it is never fruitful to good study.

If you want to learn about Progressive Dispensationalism, read about it from a proponent of Progressive Dispensationalism, from those who actually understands it. Failure to do so is like reading about the post-trib position from pre-trib writers who do not present the post-trib position accurately, or who do not understand what the post-trib position teaches. As a result, their misunderstandings and errors are passed on to the unsuspecting reader. If you want to understand post-tribulationism correctly, study post-trib authors, especially those who use to be pre-trib.

Mitchell said...

EI said, "BRAND NEW gnoticism I said"

I see, so the definition of "brand new gnosticism" would then be:

–noun. a group of recent heresies, stressing escape from this world through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge.

Oh, the irony. ;)

I love ya brother! God bless ...

Expected Imminently said...

Smarty pants! Gnosticism simply means 'New Knowledge'. It nearly split the early church, so no doubt the recent variety of P.D. is a question of 'it nearly worked last time around, let's give it another go'.

Oh how very kitsch 'no one understands me' (hand to forehead in a swoon!) Don't be so false Mitchell, of course you don't love me; anyway I'm a sister!
Tara Pet!
E.I.

Mitchell said...

Sister! Ah, sorry for assuming you were a fellow brother, my bad. But yes, as a sister in Christ you are loved by pre-tribbers and all us post-tribbers alike. :)

But no, secondary doctrinal topics such as dispensationalism should not and (I hope) will not split the Church. In the end, we'll all be PDs anyway. ;)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnosticism

EI says, "Oh how very kitsch 'no one understands me' (hand to forehead in a swoon!)"

Oh, plenty of readers understand what I am saying. Some just don't want to believe it. With others, they test it in light of Scripture as they should and later come around to share the same view over time.

My issue is reading the "problems" with a post-trib rapture when post-trib isn't explained or presented correctly up front from those who adhere to a differing position. Now holding that differing position is fine, but as demonstrated the only way for the pre-trib position to knock down post-trib is to create a straw man argument that can then be knocked down. But you know what? I'm here as well to also knock down that straw man, and then replace it with the "Hulk Hogan" that belongs there. :)

"Ohhh yeahhhh brother!!" Or, in your case, "Sister!!"

God bless you!!

Anonymous said...

Jesus says "keep thee from", not "remove thee from", we would agree to this point I am sure. Now, the Greek for "keep thee from" in Rev 3:10 is "tereo ek" and is the exact wording used in John 17:15: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."

Had John meant to convey the idea that the church is in the Trib he would have used other expressions.

The tereo ek refers to v 15b. They are not kept safe within the evil one but are kept OUT of the evil. V15a regarding the world uses a different expression. If tereo ek means existence within then it contradicts 1 John 5:19. Believers are of God and unbelievers are in the evil one. If 1 John 5:19 means that believers aren’t in the power of the evil one then John 17:15 cannot mean that they are in the power of Satan and needing protection. In John 17:15 the Lord requests to keep them outside of the evil one. Seeing that John 17:15 means to keep outside of the evil one, the same applies in Rev 3:10, to keep the church outside of the hour of testing. Why would Christ bother to pray v 15a in the first place if post-trib was always the expectation?

(ESV) Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.

(ISV) Because you have kept my command to endure, I will keep you from the hour of testing that is coming to the whole world to test those living on the earth.

(LITV) Because you kept the Word of My patience, I also will keep you out of the hour of trial which is going to come on all the habitable world in order to try those dwelling on the earth.

rg

Expected Imminently said...

RG
Bob Mitchell also says 'kept through'the Trib.

You are 100% on this rg, the Trib is coming upon the EARTH, so the Church is taken OUT-ek, the base of the word 'exit', as you say, BEFORE the Trib hits the earth and 'earth dwellers'.

The Church is seated in heavenly places, we are not earth dwellers as our citizenship is in heaven from the moment we are born again.
E.I.

Mitchell said...

RG, I'm trying to make sense of your previous post.

First, absolutely the "tereo ek" refers to John 17:15b. However, I fail to understand how you see a contradiction of "tereo ek" of 15b with 1 John 5:19. John 17:15 is in fact one of the most explicit verses showing us that Jesus Himself did not want believers taken out of the world in order to protect them from evil, but rather had the intention of preservation in the midst of it.

We are in the world, you will agree. But though we are in the world we are in Christ -- and therefore not of the world (John 17:16). Those who are in Christ are given the Holy Spirit (John 15:26) to help, to encourage, to comfort, to guide, to convict, to strengthen us against the influences of the wicked one:

1 John 5:19, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one."

Now look at the next verse:

1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true , in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

John here makes a distinction between us, and between the world. We may be in a world that is under the power or control of Satan -- the father of lies -- but IN CHRIST we are given an understanding, a knowledge of TRUTH. You see, we are kept/protected/watched over/guarded from the influences of the enemy while we are in this world BECAUSE we endure in Christ.

The "tereo ek" of John 17:15b does not mean removal out of the evil (?) and thus physical removal in Rev 3:10, as your post attempts to suggest, but rather preservation in the midst of the evil. It means to be kept protected in this world because in Christ we are not of this world.

I understand that you want to see some sort of contradiction between 1 John 5:19 and what I have shared with you regarding "tereo ek", but the truth is that there is no contradiction at all. They are, in fact, complimentary to one another, which is not surprising considering they were penned by the same author.

Anonymous said...

I don’t see the problem, Mitchell.

Tereo ek refers to v15b to keep them OUT of evil. Not safe within evil. It’s not talking about the world in that verse - that was back in v15a.

I John 5:19 tells us that we are from God but the world is in the IN the power of the evil one. Are we in the power of the evil one? To be consistent, then, tereo ek in Rev 3:10 means OUT of the time. Think about it.

John could have used other expressions had he wanted to convey protection within, or taken from, that time. And again, why would Christ pray for v15a in the first place if there’s no pre-trib rapture? He’s simply praying that “they” will be kept OUT of evil while in the world.

rg

Anonymous said...

Here’s the way someone else puts it:

1. Ek can mean “emergence from within,” or it can mean “a continued state outside.”

2. Tereo en is used in Acts 12:5, 1 Pet 1:4, and Jude 21, and implies “previous and continued existence within.” Therefore tereo ek logically must be understood as “continued existence outside.”

3. If the immunity of saints to wrath through the tribulation was intended to teach a posttribulational rapture, then John would have used tereo en, eis, or dia in Rev 3:10.

4. Consistent with the previous observation, tereo ek meaning “to keep within” in John 17:15 would contradict 1 John 5:19 if, in fact, it implied “previous existence within.”

5. If tereo ek in Rev 3:10 implies “previous existence within,” it contradicts the prayer in John 17:15 in limiting immunity to God’s wrath. Or its alleged promise of total immunity is rendered null and void by the slaughter of saints in Rev 6:9-11 and 7:14.

6. Only the interpretation of tereo ek in Rev 3:10 which understands that the Philadelphian church will not enter the tribulation, that is, they will be kept out or guarded from entering, satisfies a consistent exegesis of the phrase. This finding is in perfect harmony only with a pretribulational understanding of the rapture.

rg

Expected Imminently said...

rg
Super posts! do you mind saying who you are quoting on your last post? I won't tell, honest! ;)

DrNofog said...

Aaaarrrgh!...a black hole!.... caught... pulling me in... can't...pull... out!!!

Hi, guys! Any survivors left??

Mitchell said...

"PD 101: http://www.pfrs.org/pd/001.html

PD 102: http://www.pfrs.org/pd/002.html"


Yeah, I've seen the colourful charts before, with the same old "church-saint" error, the yellow line representing the "church" encompassing everything in sight including space debris and pixie dust! [Hey, E.I., I put the "u" back in color so you'd recognize it {foreign languages 101}]
;-D

Fundamental problem with PD and the rest is the assumptions that are made over "ekklesia" - "assembly" and "saints" - "special, set-apart-ones", as though they are the magical words that link everything together! And with no legitimate justification for it!

In the same way as our generic term "congressmen" [or congress-critters, as many of us now say] refers to the general assembly of two separate and distinct "assemblies" that are in no way confused with each other on any level of examination, [except... for their thinking...], likewise, the LXX translators had no other 'word' to use of Israel's uniqueness that wouldn't leave them as any other crowd or mob in the world.

The same goes for "saints"! I shouldn't have to spell it out, but then again... All of God's redeemed children are saints in general, but again, on closer exam we see the different "assemblies" of the New & Old Testaments.

And it really comes down to this... If there were no difference, then this verse would not make sense:

The Matthew 16:18 - "...and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

If it were the same, the one and only "assembly", He would have said "I have been building" or "I am building", but He didn't because this is a new thing, still future, something that was a mystery and had not yet been revealed.

Why?

Follow the pattern... Why, in the Kingdom, would God continue to make distinctions of nations and races if we're all one "assembly" in Christ?

He makes, and continues distinctions because He likes a diversified portfolio...

Israel is always spoken of as the bride of YHVH, the Father, and the NT assembly is the bride of Messiah, the Son. Why confuse the two?!?

Mitchell said...

RG says, "Tereo ek refers to v15b to keep them OUT of evil."

Hi RG, you are completely missing the point. It does *not* infer PHYSICAL removal in any way, shape or form. To then somehow use this notion as "proof" that Rev 3:10 infers physical removal from the earth is an incredible example of theological gymnastics and eisegetical reading of the text, and if this is the best "proof text" that can be found in support of pre-tribism then you should seriously question such a doctrine as a whole. If a passage is not clear, refer to others that are.

John 17:15 - "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."

This passage is one of the most blunt verses, showing that Jesus Himself did not want the Christians taken out of the world in order to protect them from evil but had the intention of preservation in the midst of it. This is a place where pre-tribulationism lacks linguistic favor because this verse and Revelation 3:10 are the only places where the exact phrase tereo ek translated from Greek into keep from are found and that by the same author, the disciple John.

tereo from teros - (a watch); to guard (from loss or injury by keeping the eye upon)

ek (not apo: “away from”) - the hour of temptation - the appointed season of affliction to try them that dwell upon the earth. The temptation brings out the fidelity of those kept by Christ, and hardens the reprobates (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary).

The Greek "ek" does not mean to take you "away from" the source of temptation, but from the results of.

If pre-tribism is correct, show me use one verse that proves physical removal from the earth before tribulation. Just one, that's all I ask.

Mitchell said...

DrNofog says, "Fundamental problem with PD and the rest is the assumptions that are made over "ekklesia" - "assembly" and "saints" - "special, set-apart-ones", as though they are the magical words that link everything together! And with no legitimate justification for it!"

Quite the contrary. Notice the following: Jesus referenced the church in the book of Matthew both directly and indirectly. Notice what Christ said here about resolving conflicts in the church.

Matthew 18:15-18, "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (ekklēsia G1577); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Remember, Jesus was addressing this teaching to a Jewish audience and is calling them the church. Since the Church (as it is taught by traditional dispensationalism) was not yet formed, then what was Christ referring to? We find another clue in the book of Acts:

Acts 7:37-38, "This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church (ekklēsia G1577) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"

The text is clear: the Church existed in the OLD TESTAMENT! Thus, the Church is in fact the assembly of believers -- true Israel -- comprised of both the Old Testament believers who looked forward to the promise of Messiah who was to come, as well as the New Testament believers who look back to the promise of Messiah who came. The Church is One Body, and it is those who have a relationship with YHWH the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Now let's look at Matt 16:18. Jesus says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (ekklēsia G1577); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said that He would build His church "upon this rock". But who is the rock? Peter or Christ? Scripture gives us the answer.

1 Cor. 3:11, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

1 Cor 10:1-4, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Wow, how could this not be more clear to us?

Christ said that He would build His Church. Not create it from anew, but build it up from the foundation (the Greek word is oikodomeō) -- the Church already existed for the foundation had already been laid, and now because of Christ Jesus, Gentiles would be added to His Church and would no longer be foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:11-22).

Mitchell said...

Notice how the following makes it clear that the Church is true Israel, and as Gentiles we are now grafted in to ONE body.

Eph 3:1-6, "...through the Gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus"

Rom 11:25-26, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And 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"

1 Cor 12:12-13, "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink"

Eph 2:11-22, "Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called 'uncircumcised' by those who call themselves 'the circumcision' (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

"Ekklesia, the Greek word translated 'church' in the New Testament, is often used to refer to Israel in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). In the LXX ekklesia is even used as a synonym for the Greek word sunagoge, a word that we transliterate as 'synagogue.' Further, sunagoge in the LXX sometimes refers to Gentiles. These facts indicate that in Scripture there is not as sharp a distinction between the church and Israel as modern dispensationalism would have us believe.

Many dispensationalists have said, 'Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel.' A lot of doctrines and eschatology are built upon this premise. Yet when one examines Scripture itself, one is surprised to discover that Israel in the Old Testament is repeatedly called the 'church.'" (Bob Pickle).

One plan of salvation: Messiah Yeshua. There is no other Name given under Heaven where we can be saved. One Tree, One Body, One Church, One Bride, One Savior, One God. That's how I see it. :)

DrNofog said...

Mitchell, you are sooooo hung up on the word "church" that you just shot yourself in the foot on Matt. 18:15-18...

Look at the time-line! Jesus calls for disciples to follow Him, He teaches them to distance themselves from the Pharisees and their errors. They attend synagogues, Jesus calls them synagogues, and then in Matt. 10, He commissions them as apostles and tells them that they will be cast out of "their" synagogues, -synagogues, -synagogues! Cp Luke 10 - Now He commissions the seventy, all the while casting them as a 'brotherhood', a discipleship that is different from what goes on in the synagogues.

And to top it all off, Matt. 16:18 is the 1st place in the NT where assembly is found, and it's rolling off the lips of Jesus as something new!

Now you apparently believe, and would have us all believe, that after all this huddling together, private teachings, "fellow-shipping" together, and confrontations by the opposing teams confirming that they're weird and no longer "fit in", that the LXX word "assembly" was so fixed in their "unlearned and ignorant" [Acts 4:13] Hebrew minds that while Jesus was using that "church" word again, there was no doubt in any of their minds that He couldn't possibly be referring to their small "group", or the congress-critters, synagogues, senators, representatives, or any other kind of "ekklesia" because it's sooooo clear: He had to be referring to that big Israeli "church" in the wilderness!!!

Mitchell, that is so weak and convoluted that it brings tears to my eyes... [not tellin' why...]

Since there was no mention, emphasis, or question of who the Rock is, the extra dissertation seems as so much tedium to grind us down.

I think you focus so much on exegeting minutia that you can't see the forest...

Anonymous said...

Mitchell, are you kidding me? Seriously? Go read it again and mull over it for a few weeks. Maybe it’ll sink in eventually. Then again…..

If pre-tribism is correct, show me use one verse that proves physical removal from the earth before tribulation. Just one, that's all I ask.

You know, this kinda reminds me of a guy I knew who disputed that man actually landed on the moon. Show me one proof, he’d yell!

Spot on, Dr NoFog. Not really sure why some want to insist that the NT church is the same as the OT ekklesia. It doesn’t make a whole lot exegetical sense. Each to his own.

rg

Anonymous said...

EI, it was Richard Mayhue but Robert L Thomas makes similar points. Mayhue spent a lot of time studying Robert Grundy's arguments when he was at seminary. Mitchell's argument is classic Gundry.

rg

Expected Imminently said...

Brill rg. I haven’t heard of these two teachers, I will look them up (I know of I.D. Thomas)
Yes I recognised Grundy’s view coming across.

Did you see my note on Gerald Stanton “Kept From the Hour”?

Have you seen my Q to Nathan about wrath in ‘Rapture Timing’? Please take a look if you can, you or the others may know the answer as well?
Thanks rg
E.I.

Mitchell said...

Not kidding RG. The evidence is overwhelming and there is no way around this fact: pre-tribism is nowhere in the text, and as I have shown with multiple Scriptures, traditional dispensationalism doesn't have a leg to stand on, either exegetically or hermeneutically. The only way for one find any support in the text for pre-tribism and traditional dispensationalism is to first approach the text with that preconception.

DrNoFog says, "Look at the time-line! Jesus calls for disciples to follow Him, He teaches them to distance themselves from the Pharisees and their errors."

Exactly. And the fact that they rejected Christ means that they were not part of the spiritual ekklesia, because as 1 Cor 10:1-4 shows, they were "all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." Since the Pharisees rejected Christ they did not "eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink" and would therefore not be a part of the "ekklēsia" in the wilderness. This is why Jesus teaches them to distance themselves from the Pharisees and their errors.

What many do not understand (and this is something that is very basic that needs to be taught in every Church) is that the Hebrew word "synagogue" means "the assembly" or "congregation". The Greek "ekklesia" means "the assembly" or "congregation". The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek 200 years before Messiah, and in the Greek Septuagint both "synagogue" and "ekklesia" are interspersed to describe the people of Israel. They were called out of darkness and into light, and were to be holy before the Lord, in the world, but not of the world.

Traditional dispensational teachers go through all kinds of theological gymnastics, bending over backwards to make the plain and straightforward meaning of the text say something completely different. They will try to explain away "ekklesia" and try to make the NT church into a completely separate body, but this is the opposite of what we read in Ephesians, Romans, Corintians.

Look at what God calls the children of Israel in Exodus:

Exodus 19:3-6, "And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

This sounds familiar! Now that we are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone, we are joined together with Israel and have become part of the holy temple of God where He dwells! Because of this, look how we as grafted in Gentiles are now described by Peter:

1 Pet 2:9, "But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light"

Brothers and sisters, do not be misled by the blinders of traditional dispensationalism, which says that God has not joined the two and made ONE new body, which says that the NT church is a "parenthetical" program in God's plan, which tells you that we are completely separate and distinct from Israel. No, WE ARE NOW A PART OF JACOB and the Scriptures bear this truth consistently.

Nathan Jones said...

Mitchell, my Canadian friend, I have been trying for over a year to figure out why you crusade on websites all over the world against the Pre-Trib Rapture. Why?

For me, I share a Pre-Trib Rapture because of the hope it brings. But, what does a Post-Trib Rapture bring people (other than the obvious theological confusion)?

Guess I'm trying to understand your adamant passion over making sure people adopt this view.

Expected Imminently said...

Ekklesia simply means a gathering or an assembly of people, it is the context of a passage that determines exactly what constitutes the assembly, men, women, children, animals even Christians or Jews.

Greek scholar Richard Trent say’s “There are words whose history it is peculiarly interesting to watch, as they obtain a deeper meaning, and receive a new consecration, in the Christian Church; words which the Church did not invent, but has assumed into its service, and employed in a far loftier sense than any to which the world has ever put them before. The very word by which the Church is named is itself an example—a more illustrious one could scarcely be found—of this progressive ennobling of a word.
1 For we have ἐκκλησία in three distinct stages of meaning—the heathen, the Jewish, and the Christian. In respect of the first, ἡ ἐκκλησία (== ἔκκλητοι, Euripides, Orestes, 939) was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the rights of citizenship, for the transaction of public affairs…”

To assume the word ekklesia can only refer to the Church or Body of Jesus Christ is erroneous.
E.I.

Expected Imminently said...

Oooh Mitchell is a Canadian! Do you hail from Toronto perchance dear Evangelist for Posties?

Fellow Commonwealth member E.I. :D

Mitchell said...

Nathan says, "For me, I share a Pre-Trib Rapture because of the hope it brings."

There is definitely hope in the rapture. I look forward to it as well! But what will people do or say when they suddenly find themselves in the Great Tribulation? Can you imagine the panic that will cause for many people?

Nathan asks, "But, what does a Post-Trib Rapture bring people (other than the obvious theological confusion)?"

It brings them the understanding that we all need to be spiritually prepared for any difficulties that may lie ahead. We can't be complacent. (Now I'm not saying that all pre-tribbers are complacent, but you know as well as I that some definitely are. Even post-tribbers can be!) It also gives them the knowledge to inform others that when "these things begin to happen", here is what they mean, and what we must do, and this is how it will all end.

It is not theologically confusing brother. In my opinion it is the most logical, straightforward and explicit position that is understood from Scripture if one approaches the text without the lens of pre-tribism. The lens of traditional dispensationalism and pre-tribism is what causes the confusion for many people. It does not line up with a lot of Scripture and many people are often aware of this, but rationalize it away or ignore it (I use to be one of them).

My passion is this Nathan -- desire for the Truth to be made known, no matter how unpopular the truth it may be.

EI says, "To assume the word ekklesia can only refer to the Church or Body of Jesus Christ is erroneous."

There is much, much more that is focused on. It is merely one piece of the bigger puzzle, as I have tried to show.

EI asks, "Do you hail from Toronto perchance dear Evangelist for Posties?"

No, but I am just a few POSTal codes away. :-D

DrNofog said...

E.I. said...

"Ekklesia simply means a gatheriaaaaarrrgh!...a black hole!.... caught... pulling me in... can't...pull... out!!!
[Another soul lost into the gravity well of the PD/PTR go-around...]

You didn't stay out long!

I like that Euripides character... His dad was actually Italian, you know. His dad nick-named him that when, as a young boy, his dad caught him in his room with some stolen stuff from the market. "You rippa dease?!?"
;-D

Mitchell said..., "...because as 1 Cor 10:1-4 shows..."

You conveniently left off 1 Cor 10: 5... Would that affect your interp?

So here now, you clearly have ALL the rebellious lost AND ALL the saints together as one whole assembly ["...all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea..."] that were, in fact, "all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual food [Manna]; And did all drink the same spiritual drink [Miraculous waters]: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them..."

Now, here comes the tricky part [for some...]. How is it that "they [all] "drank" of that spiritual Rock that followed them...", saved and lost alike???

Could it be that this is clearly a metaphor of the Rock of Ages overshadowing, protecting, nurturing, staining, and wooing the Israeli "assembly" for 40 yrs, saved and lost together?!?

[Your missing verse] 5 "But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness."

And, could it be that you've tried to make a "church" out of one whole Israeli assembly that is NOT in any way a "church", but simply an assembly???

Mitchell said...

DrNofog says, "You conveniently left off 1 Cor 10: 5... Would that affect your interp?"

Absolutely not. Even after God delivered them and performed miracles before them they rebelled. Just because all may have been a Hebrew, did that mean that all were going to be a part of God's Israel.

Rom 2:28-29, "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."

Rom 9:6-8, "...For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."

This is precisely how you and I have become a part of Jacob. This is how we -- wild olive branches -- have been grafted in, and made fellow-citizens with Israel, because we now partake in the covenants of promise through Christ Jesus.

Eph 3:6, "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"

1 Cor 10:17, "For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

Eph 2:12-14, "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]"

Eph 2:15, "...His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace"

How can the text not be more clear for us?

As Gentiles, if we are now a part of something that existed before Christ, and we have now become one with them, then WHAT WE ARE NOW IS STILL THAT WHICH ALSO EXISTED in the Old Testament because Scripture is clear time and time again that there is only ONE body, not two. You are straining and twisting to somehow, in some way, create TWO separate bodies, two separate groups, which is easily shown to be completely unscriptural.

The reason why many continue to try and make two where only one exists is because they are fully aware that pre-tribism is completely dependent upon the idea that there are two distinct groups. Without it, pre-trib's foundation completely vanishes and we are left with the truth -- that there is no pre-trib rapture.

Expexted Imminently said...

Ah we are back to that Scripture that explains beautifully that those who say they are Jews - but aren't - are of the Synagogue (assembly) of Satan! oer Mitchell.


Sorry to be boring, I have said this recently but I reckon it bears repeating.

The Last Trump and what it ISN’T.

AD56 was the year Paul wrote the Rapture scriptures to the Corinthians, the first letter written from Ephesus, and the second letter written later that same year from Macedonia.

AD51 was the year Paul wrote both letters to the Thessalonians within a few months of each other in the same year.

These Rapture Scriptures were written a few decades BEFORE Jesus gave John the Revelation to write down.

AD81-96 are the years John wrote the Revelation while on Patmos; during the reign of the Emperor Domitian as attested by Polycarp?(I think) Some scholars try for an earlier date which could only have been AFTER the burning of Rome in AD64 during the reign of Nero. Even giving this unlikely earlier date, makes it at least eight years AFTER Paul had written his letters about the ‘last trump’ during the Rapture.

There is no way Paul was refering to the trumpets in Revelation.
E.I.

Expected Imminently said...

Wasup DrNoFog? You got the bends up there in space? (do they have the bends in space?)

Do not resist oh nofoggy one.
OB and K9 are awaiting you with jump leads should you founder. Be brave dear lad, up and at em tiger - you know it makes cents - I means sense!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and keep yer tinder dry!
E.I.

Expected Imminently said...

To all my fellow Pretribbers.

Instead of a convoluting thesis of reassurance to those of US who believe in The Lord’s faithfulness toward His Bride, be encouraged by Paul’s few words, in the present tense, to the believers and how the return of Jesus was expected imminently.

1Thess1:10 and to WAIT for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers US from the wrath to come.

E.I. x

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...

"Eph 2:15, "...His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace"
How can the text not be more clear for us?"

You quoted AND bolded it twice "one new man out of the two," in your posts here... ...and yet, you still won't see it!?!

All the quotes you gave are pointing back to Matt. 16:18, the creation of the "church", and no further.

one new man: The Body and Bride of Christ -a NEW thing- for this dispensation..."...until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." Rom. 11:25

Looking back, you've been here quite a few times and this all just looks like so much more "vain repetition" so, unless I see something new, I'll be going E.I. on you... [No diss intended, -just don't have that kind of time.]

"it’s your chosen method of interpretation that I refuse to debate with. Endless genealogies and all that!"

We'd all like to 'splain it to you on the way up, but there simply won't be that much time... and it'll be moot anyway!
;-)

DrNofog said...

E.I. said...

"OB and K9 are awaiting you..."

Sorry, E.I., my intergalactic translator is fritzing on some of your terminology...

Could you give a "ladd" a clue?
;-)

Mitchell said...

DrNofog quotes, "it’s your chosen method of interpretation that I refuse to debate with. Endless genealogies and all that!"

My method is to accept the most plain and straightforward meaning of the text, to interpret the Scriptures literally when it is in accordance to its intended meaning, and to employ sound Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis using the full counsel of Scripture.

I do what I need to, and our God does the rest.

DrNofog says, "unless I see something new, I'll be going E.I. on you."

Here is something new for you, I'd be curious to know your take on it: Read it here.

Mitchell said...

EI says, "...be encouraged by Paul’s few words, in the present tense, to the believers and how the return of Jesus was expected imminently."

Even I, in the present tense, am waiting for the return of our Lord and Savior. However, it is not imminent, and Paul certainly understood this, unless you wish to tell me that Paul did not believe Jesus when He told Peter that he would live to be an old man. Surely, the Apostle Paul knew that the Lord could not come until after Peter had died ...

Mitchell said...

EI says, "These Rapture Scriptures were written a few decades BEFORE Jesus gave John the Revelation to write down."

EI, are you saying that the Holy Spirit -- who inspired all of these men to pen God-breathed Scripture and the words they would use -- did not know what Jesus would tell John to write around AD90 while the Spirit was inspiring Paul around AD56?

EI says, "There is no way Paul was refering to the trumpets in Revelation."

Do you realize what you are saying? I guess then that the prophet Joel must have been speaking of a different Day of the Lord than what Isaiah was referring to, who himself must have been referring to a different Day of the Lord that Zechariah references. Or that Daniel speaks of a different end-times Beast than what John writes about in Revelation?

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...

"Read it here."

Ok, that is gnu... How exactly do you make a link to a specific post, that is, where do you get the post id number?

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...

"Here is something new for you, I'd be curious to know your take on it: Read it here."

My take:
Excellent parallel. Not new, saw it back in the 70s, "Things To Come", J. Dwight Pentecost and others.

We won't be here to see it as it's all post-rapture; Rev. 4:1 "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Matt. 24:4-14 are: "All these are the beginning of sorrows."[Matt. 24:8] AKA -the "Time of Jacobs Trouble", the beginning of the 70th week, the start of the Tribulation.

Matt. 24:15-30 is the mid-point thru to the end, the beginning of "Great Tribulation" -"a time such as never was"

Matt. 24:31 is the end of the Trib and the gathering of the trib-saints on the right hand for the judgment of the nations.

And Matt. 24:39 is the gathering of the lost on the left hand for the judgment of the nations.

Nope! Don't see any problem here at all!!!

Expected Imminently said...

Mitchell said “Even I, in the present tense, am waiting for the return of our Lord and Savior. However, it is not imminent, and Paul certainly understood this, unless you wish to tell me that Paul did not believe Jesus when He told Peter that he would live to be an old man. Surely, the Apostle Paul knew that the Lord could not come until after Peter had died ...”

Well for a start Mitchell, that message was addressed to Pretribbers; to encourage them after your dour report. I had no doubt at all you wouldn’t agree. You have a habit of reading messages not meant for you like Mrs Israel’s from her husband and Miss Church’s personal correspondence from her bride-groom.

Paul certainly did understand imminence; it was him who taught it. No-one waits for a train they know isn’t coming. We wait for a bus we know is imminent. No-one uses the pronouns like US and WE if they don’t include themselves in the equation. Simple little things like that which are so uncomplicated that even a little child understands when dad say’s ‘WAIT for me, WE are going to the swings, LOOK the bus is coming for US”.

For that reason Mitchell you are most certainly not waiting! You have no need to wait because you know exactly and precisely when you believe the Rapture is, exactly seven years after antichrist confirms the covenant with the many. If the Tribulation began today, there is still another seven years to go. No-one waits at a station or a bus stop for seven plus long years! No, they check the timetable, just as you believe you have done, and set out for the station just before the stated arrival in seven plus year’s time.

All personal prophecies were fulfilled when the prophesied signs BEGAN to occur just as Jesus said Luke21:28, “Now when these things BEGIN to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws nigh”. The BEGINING of the signs were in AD 70 when the armies of Titus surrounded Jerusalem Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near”. Peter was already dead and the Christians heeded the sign and escaped the city – all done, all complete, present and correct. Jesus did not say ‘look up’ AFTER the signs begin; nor did He say ‘look up’ at the middle or end of the Tribulation.

Even before that time, the Rapture was still imminent because no-one knew when the already present Romans would begin their siege. The Rapture was an impending event, and remains an impending event, which is why Paul felt confident to be among the living believers who would be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye…

Sorry this is so long Nathan! I'm off to bed now!

Expected Imminently said...

Its no good, I won’t sleep lest I tackle this insurmountable problem I’ve been floored with. Oh dear, I am really worried about answering this!

Quick DrNoFog, get me an ice bag for my fevered brow, I think me temperature’s gone space hopping.

Ahem!
Mitchell said “ EI, are you saying that the Holy Spirit -- who inspired all of these men to pen God-breathed Scripture and the words they would use -- did not know what Jesus would tell John to write around AD90 while the Spirit was inspiring Paul around AD56?”


Do you mean Jesus would have told His ‘best friends’, one of them being John, everything BEFORE His crucifixion and resurrection, which was when He said ‘only the Father knows’? Your name sake Bob Mitchell said the same thing.

Well IFJesus did tell His bestie mates BEFORE the Revelation – then He lied, it wasn’t a revelation at all, they already knew about it. Old News! Old News! Read all about it. Old News! Don’t think so somehow!

As for the O.T. prophets! They were Old Testament prophets! The Revelation was for the N.T. Church, which was a total mystery in the O.T. Not even John the Baptist, who was the last of the O.T. prophets, knew anything about the mystery of the Church and what the Father gave to The Son, to unveil for the first time, His message to the church in the Revelation.

Night, night!
E.I.

Expected Imminently said...

Mitchell
I was trying to be light-hearted answering your posts. On reflection that attempt was not as intended, much more like sarcasm for which I apologise.
E.I.

Mitchell said...

DrNofog asks, "Ok, that is gnu... How exactly do you make a link to a specific post, that is, where do you get the post id number?"

The "date stamp" at the bottom of each post. You have to copy the link and the use an "A HREF=" HTML tag and code the links in manually.

DrNofog says, "Excellent parallel. Not new, saw it back in the 70s, 'Things To Come', J. Dwight Pentecost and others."

Did you get a chance to check out the links? I made a subsequent post and included two more links to fill in a couple more pieces of the 'puzzle'.

DrNofog says, "We won't be here to see it as it's all post-rapture; Rev. 4:1 ..."

You have added meaning to the text that is not there. Many pre-trib teachers will not even use Rev 4:1 any more because it is so weak it makes their position look even more tenuous. Where in the text does it say that the trumpet of 4:1 is the last trump? Where are the rest of the trumpets in the sequence? Surely, if the rapture happens at the last trump then there must be more trumps mentioned somewhere just before Rev 4:1. If Rev 4:1 is the rapture because John is carried away in the spirit in the next verse, does he get raptured again in Rev 17:3?

DrNofog says, "'Time of Jacobs Trouble', the beginning of the 70th week, the start of the Tribulation."

Where do we find a pre-trib rapture in these verses?

DrNofog says, "Matt. 24:31 is the end of the Trib and the gathering of the trib-saints on the right hand for the judgment of the nations. Matt. 24:31 is the end of the Trib and the gathering of the trib-saints on the right hand for the judgment of the nations. And Matt. 24:39 is the gathering of the lost on the left hand for the judgment of the nations."

And how do you come to this interpretation?

EI says, "Paul certainly did understand imminence; it was him who taught it... Even before that time, the Rapture was still imminent..."

Show me, and then we can discuss it together. :)

EI says, "No, they check the timetable, just as you believe you have done, and set out for the station just before the stated arrival in seven plus year’s time."

I'm not sure that I fully understand your point, but I'll say this: God has already given us the schedule, and we still have to wait for the bus, regardless of whether or not we know when it is coming.

EI says, "The BEGINING of the signs were in AD 70 when the armies of Titus surrounded Jerusalem"

So you don't believe that this also refers to events of the eschaton? Do you believe that all things were fulfilled then according to Luke 21:22? I should ask, are you a partial preterist, or historical premillennialist? Do you believe that the sun and moon are literal, or do you allegorize the "sun" and "moon" and "stars"? I thought I knew your position, but want to be sure and not assume. :)

Mitchell said...

EI says, "Jesus did not say ‘look up’ AFTER the signs begin; nor did He say ‘look up’ at the middle or end of the Tribulation."

In your view, when Jesus says "Look up and lift your heads, for your salvation is near" He meant that it would only be near about 2000 years later? Could it be referring rather to events of the eschaton? In your opinion, what is "that day" that Jesus is referring to in Luke 21:34, and why?

EI asks, "Do you mean Jesus would have told His ‘best friends’, one of them being John, everything BEFORE His crucifixion and resurrection, which was when He said ‘only the Father knows’?"

No, that is not what I mean. What you seemed to suggest was that since Paul did not know that John would write the Book of Revelation decades later and write about a series of trumpets, Paul in 1 Cor 15:52 could therefore not have been referring to the same last trump in Revelation 10.

My point is this -- all Scripture in the Bible is given by inspiration of God, therefore the Bible is ultimately written by God alone, but through the pens of men. What you had written earlier was to suggest that Scripture is not inspired, though I am sure that is not what you intended because I know you believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. But I just wanted to show you that if one were to draw that out to its logical conclusion, that is what it was saying.

EI says, "The Revelation was for the N.T. Church, which was a total mystery in the O.T."

Ah ha! So if Revelation IS for the Church and the Church was a mystery in the Old Testament, then does it not make perfect sense that Revelation 10:7 is referring to the union of the Church with Christ at the last trump?

Rev 10:7, "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

What are your thoughts on this link?

EI says, "I was trying to be light-hearted answering your posts. On reflection that attempt was not as intended, much more like sarcasm for which I apologise"

No worries sister, I understand. :)

Blessings!

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...

>"The "date stamp" at the bottom..."

Got it. Thanx 4 the tech-info!

>"Did you get a chance to check out the links?" [+ the 2]

Yes, thanx again. Nice to see another, in this info-overloaded age, that tries to ferret out and link all the pertinent pieces of the mosaic... The "light bulb of connect-the-dots" turned on very brightly a few yrs ago when I 1st heard of the 7yr "reign and judgment" [i.e. destruction of the world] by Mr. Al-Mahdi, 12th Imam#666 on the earth!!! [Al-Mahdi = Almighty?...Bad pun in English. Nice try, 666!]

...too many web-links to keep up with...

> "You have added meaning to the text that is not there."

So tired of this! Here it is again from your own lips...

>"Many pre-trib teachers will not even use Rev 4:1 any more because it is so weak it makes their position look even more tenuous."

And so what?!? I should be intimidated by an "evil report of the 10" and that should make me roll over?!?

I will NOT!!! -- That is the predicted Apostasia!

I have known, long time, and well before I read it here again and many other sites, that it begins in the universities, liberal "professors", then weak "pastors" and finally, deceivers that attempt to deny and overturn the faith and "Blessed hope" of the saints.

Again, follow the time-line of your 'excellent parallel'!

Revelation is really the perfectly mapped out pattern of the entire "Church" age; From Matt. 16:18 to Rev. 4:1 [And, for some really "not-so" strange reason... up until 4:1... it can only be found addressing ONLY the "churches" of the present post-Matt. 16:18 age , and NOTHING *ELSE* BEFORE IT!!!] Hmmmm?1?

Then comes the Restoration Of Israel, and the Final Consummation!

>”And how do you come to this interpretation?”

By “Progressive Dispensational Revelation”! We PTRs have the inside track!!! BwaaaaHaaaHaaahaa!!!

Expected Imminently said...

Mitchell
Thank you for your gracious acceptance of my apology.

The Lord has blessed me with the responsibilities of a family which includes household and wifely duties, a part time carer, gardener and baby-sitter. Nothing the world holds as important, but The Lord requires us to be faithful in the ‘little things’.
If I were not so blessed, I would enjoy nothing more than applying myself 100% dealing with the issues you raise.


A God given basic instinct of any human or animal; is the desire to escape from impending or perceived danger. Fallen man has no mode of escape; Salvation through Christ Jesus is the only provision to meet that desire.

Apart from the Pretrib timing of the Rapture all other views, and in particular Postrib, deny themselves the Divine offer of peace to know that desire has been met at the cross of Jesus.

Postrib analysis is overly complicated which results in straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Childlike faith is scorned in favour of man centred reasoning as the enemy of our souls has caused the Postrib adherent to capitulate before the original lie in Eden of ‘hath God said’?

Every word of opposition against the ‘blessed hope’ that literally, ONLY Pretrib fulfils; can be refuted, with Holy Spirit guidance, by the most humble of believers.

Personally I have only ever heard one argument that I had extended difficulty in understanding, otherwise all comers were easily scotched by The Word and faithful guidance of The Holy Spirit. That one difficulty drove me to seek The Lord to understand why it was of a faulty perception.

Why was I so certain it was wrong; and not me? Because I know that no doctrine can be supported by just one single idea, as it is in the mouth of two or three witnesses that a matter stands or falls.

Eventually, after a period of time, prayer, and then waiting for direction ‘the penny dropped’ and that one difficulty based upon the vaporous wisdom of man, dissolved before the son.

I asked The Lord why Posties, in their zeal are unable to accept The Truth, written so plainly in Scripture, that Jesus returns for His Bride BEFORE the start of Daniels 70th week – the time of Jacob’s trouble.

Firstly it is the non acceptance that just as the previous 69 weeks concern Israel, so does the 70th.

Secondly is the refusal to accept there are distinctions between Israel and the Church, Christ’s body.

Thirdly the first three aberrations have resulted in a ‘leaky vessel’ whereby, no amount of time consuming reasoning and deliberating satisfies it. It is like trying to conserve life giving water in a colander.

Fifth and ultimately it all hinges on a faulty premise built on the unstable foundations of a ‘mixed fibre’ form of interpretation. C.T. is as wool and Literal is as cotton which will never result in blessing as God forbids ‘mix’.

God bless and Maranatha!

Expected Imminently said...

Yoo hoo DrNofog,here I am, down here with your request for clarification!

Obe Wan Kenobi of Starwars fame and K9 of Dr. Who are always ready to come to the aid of those caught by the near irresistible pull of a black hole. They laugh, nay scoff, in the face of the dangers of space debris altercationalisms. But I see you had no need of assistance from their willing and winning ways, you have side-stepped the ‘force’ without as much as a backward glace.

You have sallied forth like a good un, pushed on and inspired by The King of Kings as you drew His mighty sword with your strong right arm. So wise of you to stick to the left hand side of space, in spite of its disadvantageous name, it holds great consternation for the liberal elements of space travel. GREAT shall be the reward of the Dr of Nofog; you be immortalised for all eternity, great knight of the coffee table. :D
EI

Nathan Jones said...

E.I., you truly represent well the land of Shakespeare in your fine rhetoric! :)

Anonymous said...

Nathan mine liege man,

You are too, too kind.

I know I’m barking; bless you for putting up with me, lesser men have been known to flee while screaming like girls. ><
'~~'

Expected Imminently said...

Nathan
Thy vassal needs assistance!

There is an advantage in doing mindless repetitive work, its good to think-pray. I have been pondering why Mitchell thought I may be Preterist, albeit partial – which I’m not. I think I may have a handle on it, but I’m unsure.

Posties seem mostly to concentrate upon Matthew 24 perhaps not recognising the differences in the Olivet Discourse between Matthew24/Mark 13 account to the Luke 21 account.

For example in Luke21 Jesus is in or near the Temple precinct talking in PUBLIC where ‘some’ of the onlookers ask questions with no mention of the Mount of Olives. In vs.20-24 Jesus refers to the first of the signs to look out for, the siege of Jerusalem which was to be fulfilled in AD 70and says nothing of the 2nd siege and the Abomination. Then He jumps forward in vs.25 to speak of the other signs the literal sun, moon and stars in what I presume is around, or just after maybe, the MIDDLE of the Tribulation?

In Matt.24:1 Jesus leaves the Temple; in vs.3 He is with the disciples sat on the Mount of Olives and has a PRIVATE conversation with them. In vs.15 Jesus refers to Jerusalem at the half way point of the Tribulation when the Abomination of Desolation is set up by the antichrist in the Temple. Jesus ignores what is to be the AD70 siege. Matt 24:27-31 says there will also be signs in the sun, moon and stars at the END of the 7 years as Jesus returns.

There are TWO sieges of Jerusalem and TWO lots of sun, moon and stars.
The FIRST siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 is the siege I referred to as fulfilling the FIRST of the signs as evidence for the beginning of the end of all things.

The SECOND is the future siege which we now know is separated by 2000 plus years and is among the last of the signs Jesus prophesied. This is the one I suspect Mitchell was referring to causing him to think I was a preterist?

What saith thou mine liege? Or have I confused you as well?

DrNofog said...

E.I. said...

"...perhaps not recognising the differences in the Olivet Discourse between Matthew24/Mark 13 account to the Luke 21 account."

I'm not seeing any difference in the discourse... they seem identical except for the placement of Jesus. Prophecies can have multiple fulfillments, so the only issue again is the placement of Jesus.

Based on Luke 21:37-38;
37 And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.
38 And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him.

My take would be that Jesus is obviously in the Temple observing the widow and probably on His way out. As they pass through the massive gate they are close to the great stones and His disciples make these comments, perhaps touching them as they go out.

Whot think ye, E.I.?

Nathan Jones said...

Vassal!? You crack me up, E.I. You need to take your act onto X Factor! :)

I agree with DrNoFog. I'm not seeing two Olivet Discourses there in Matt. 24/Lk. 21/Mk 13.

We're reading all "Day of the Lord" here:

Joel 2:31 - "The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood"

Matt. 24:29 (Isa. 13:10; 34:4) - "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky"

Rev. 6:12 - "The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth"

It would be pretty remote that the stars would fall twice and the sun/moon not give light in two eras. Scientifically, I’d speculate that atmospheric conditions are blocking the view of the stars and darkening the incoming light, verses the stars actually falling and the moon actually turning into blood.

As for understanding Mitchell, you need to see everything in the Bible from the other side of the looking glass to figure that one out (poke Mitchell ;)!

Expected Imminently said...

DrNofog said...
”Whot think ye, E.I.”?

Whimper hnhnhn missed that didn’t I! I dunno! that’s like finding out the Butler did it before reading the book!

Nathan Jones said...
Vassal!? You crack me up, E.I. You need to take your act onto X Factor! :)

As for understanding Mitchell, you need to see everything in the Bible from the other side of the looking glass to figure that one out (poke Mitchell ;)!


“X Factor” Dost thou meanest MAX Factor – certainly need plenty of facial cover these days! :(

Right, that explains it perfick, I messed up an tis all Mitchell’s fault for chucking me a wobbly! The bounder!!! 8~} Look I put me glasses on.

Funning aside, I don’t mean two entirely different Olivet Discoursessss rather a slightly, eensy, weensy, itty, bitty, ditty –ever so titchy diff. Like the Creation accounts are the same but – well you get the idea?

The cosmic signs – hmm, gotta think a bit more about this, chronologically speaking, there’s summat up and it ain’t the sweeps brush?

I can’t see only one siege, I really can’t, but I shall say nay more until I can sleep on it a bit more and unravel, otherwise I shall cause terrible mayhem and be clapped in the stocks where Mitchell will pelt me with rotten veggies.

Checks and balances – great stuff! Cheers me lads!
E.I.

Expected Imminently said...

Nathan and DrNofog.

Concerning the cosmic signs - the Penny’s dropped!

I have spent so long tussling with Bob Mitchell’s Postie Rapture timing, I had inadvertently taken some of that error on board. I have recently come into contact with a Pastor in England who knows of Bob M. Last night I had an email from him where he mentioned that Bob M has taken the events of Revelation out of their chronological order. Eureka!

Of course! Silly woman! Bob M puts the Seal and Trumpet events which includes the sun, moon and stars, together AFTER the ending of the 7 years in Matthew 24. I was partly accepting what he said, placing the cosmic events not only during the first half and up to the middle of the Trib, where I knew they belonged, but also at the end as Jesus comes from heaven with the Church! Obviously very wrong interpretation, and contrary to Bob M, Mitchell and Alan’s comments, the judgments in Revelation are most definitely in sequential/chronological order. I am fairly sure they place them all together happening at the same time? It just goes to show how ‘sticky’ deception is.

Thanks so much for your guidance and patience. X God bless.

Mitchell said...

EI says, "Apart from the Pretrib timing of the Rapture all other views, and in particular Postrib, deny themselves the Divine offer of peace to know that desire has been met at the cross of Jesus... Every word of opposition against the ‘blessed hope’ that literally, ONLY Pretrib fulfils; can be refuted, with Holy Spirit guidance, by the most humble of believers."

EI, read these recent news headlines, and then answer this question for me: What would we say to these Christians, to their friends and families, to their churches? Could we still preach a pre-trib rapture to them, and expect them to believe it? They will look at us and laugh in our faces:

Christian Orphanage Workers Beheaded In Somalia

Christianity's Modern-Day Martyrs

Muslim Insurgents Behead 14-Year-Old Christian Boy

Little Christian Girls Beheaded by Extremists

Christians Must Be Killed In Accordance to Shariah Law

Christians Persecuted in Iraq, Priest Beheaded

Nigerian Islamic Irhabis Behead Three Christian Pastors

Muslim Countries Becoming Bolder in Persecuting Christians

'Leave, Crusaders, or have your heads cut off'

End-Times Muslim Beheadings On The Rise

Muslim Man Beheads Christian in Egypt

Beheading in the Name of Islam

Quote: "Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings. And two major aspects of decapitation in an Islamic context should be noted: first, the practice has both Qur'anic and historical sanction. It is not the product of a fabricated tradition. Second, in contradiction to the assertions of apologists, both Muslim and non-Muslim, these beheadings are not simply a brutal method of drawing attention to the Islamist political agenda and weakening opponents' will to fight. Zarqawi and other Islamists who practice decapitation believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner."

Wake up brothers and sisters! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Every year 150,000+ Christians are killed by Muslims. Tell me, where is their "Blessed Hope" of a pre-trib rapture? Did they miss it? Were they left behind? The truth is this: read your Bible, and you will learn that it is NOT the rapture that is the "Blessed Hope". The blessed hope is ETERNAL LIFE. And to all above who are losing their lives today for Christ and are being beheaded, their Blessed Hope is already realized.

Mitchell said...

DrNofog says, "I'm not seeing any difference in the discourse... they seem identical except for the placement of Jesus."

Very good. You and I agree brother! :)

Nathan says, "It would be pretty remote that the stars would fall twice and the sun/moon not give light in two eras."

Excellent *thumbs up*

Nathan says, "As for understanding Mitchell, you need to see everything in the Bible from the other side of the looking glass to figure that one out (poke Mitchell ;)"

Ah, and that's what I'm here for my dear friend!

EI says, "Obviously very wrong interpretation, and contrary to Bob M, Mitchell and Alan’s comments, the judgments in Revelation are most definitely in sequential/chronological order."

They are definitely not all sequential. What some do not realize is that the Book of Revelation adheres to a Semitic style of writing. John writes about the "seals", which are a general overview of tribulation from beginning to end, and then prophesies again to focus on the judgments that God poured out upon the wicked (thymos) during the tribulation to get them to repent (these are the trumpets/bowls, which are concurrent and appear to be separate descriptions of the same events. The trumpets focus on the "cause" and the bowls are the "effect").

You will also notice that John jumps back and forth in describing the same event through a different lens. For example, the 144,000 are mentioned in Rev 7 and again in Rev 14 -- each time they are mentioned it is in a post-trib context. Or, he mentions the mountains and islands disappearing in Rev 6 and again in Rev 16, each time they are both are in a post-trib context as well:

Rev 6:14, "And the sky was rolled up like a scroll and taken away. And all of the mountains and all of the islands disappeared."

Rev 16:20, "Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found."

Sequential/chronological? Definitely not. You'll have a lot of difficulty making sense of Revelation if you view it that way.

Mitchell said...

I wrote earlier that "it is NOT the rapture that is the 'Blessed Hope'. The blessed hope is ETERNAL LIFE." If you don't believe me, then let's have a look to see if what I say is so.

The Apostle Paul wrote in the epistle of Titus the following:

Titus 1:2, 2:13, 3:7,"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began ... Looking for that blessed hope [eternal life], AND the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ... That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Paul uses the word "hope" three times in his epistle -- at the beginning when speaking about eternal life and then later while referring to that blessed hope, and then once more again near the end. Each time he is referring to the blessed hope of eternal life. Nowhere does Paul ever say that the "blessed hope" is our gathering to Christ. We are looking for the blessed hope of eternal life, and (in addition to) the glorious appearing of Christ.

The glorious appearing is "epiphaneia" (G2015). What happens at the "epiphaneia" of Christ? Let's have a look:

2 Thess 2:8, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness [epiphaneia G2015] of his coming"

The "epiphaneia" is post-trib. If we are to believe that the "blessed hope" is the "epiphaneia", then you must therefore also believe that the blessed hope is his post-trib appearance and gathering of the elect.

You see? Everything that pre-trib uses to support a pre-trib rapture ALWAYS points to a post-trib rapture when you look at the intended meaning.

Expected Imminently said...

Mitchell

When I meet with the martyrs of persecutions from all generations in Glory, from Nero’s ‘birthday candles’, Rome’s inquisition, and those of us in persecution in 2010; I know we will agree together that the Words of our Saviour were true.

John16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

Matt 13:21 “… for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word…”

To those alive, yet to be martyrs, I would direct their faith toward Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

2Cor1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

There are several sites throughout England where martyrs were burned at the stake for their faith in Christ Jesus. There is one in my home town where I have stood and prayed for the God given faith and courage known by Bishop Hooper. In the Tower of London, the site of the scaffold is marked where others were beheaded for their faith at the behest of bloody Queen Mary’. Fox’s Book of Martyr’s gives detailed descriptions of the tribulations of former saints and martyr’s. As that event was several hundred years distant, it is plain it was not the 7 year Tribulation they suffered.

Not only Islam beheads, it was also known in the West. James was parted from his head by the sword during rule of Rome. Followed by the guillotine, first used by the Scot’s then by France!
EI

Expected Imminently said...

Mitchell

Daniels 70th week, the time of Jacob’s/Israel’s trouble, just like the preceding 69 weeks, concerned the Jewish nation of Israel, and God’s distinct dealings with them in His plan of Redemption.

That is what Jesus called THE Tribulation Matt.24:9. A LIMITED period of seven years appointed by God to come upon Daniels people the Jews, and Jerusalem, for the specific purpose ‘to finish the transgression’; ‘to make an end of sins’; ‘make reconciliation for iniquity’; ‘bring in everlasting righteousness’; ‘to seal up the vision and prophecy’; ‘to anoint the most Holy’. Daniel 9:24.

Jesus stated in Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. Matt.24:21;

THE Tribulation is not the same TYPE of tribulation as we experience in this world, it is unique, it is ‘another kind’ and has never been know before.

As long as Covenant Theologies and the recent ‘Progressive Dispy’ faulty methods of interpretation are used, adherents will never arrive at the truth. Postrib is an adulterous interpretation of God’s Word. Where the ‘blessed hope’ of the Rapture to rescue believers in Christ HAS to be redefined to fit the altered truth that disregards the existence if DISTINCTIONS.

Until Posties can recognise this fact, twill always be a case of ‘ne’er the twain shall meet’.

EI

Expected Imminently said...

Nathan
The recent episodes with Mitchell and Alan has caused me to realise I have had an answer to prayer.

So often I have prayed to better understand The Word by being adept at Hebrew and Greek. I have had to face facts that I just don’t have the brain for it!

However now I see that knowing some Greek has not made a jot of difference to Mitchell or Allan, as both claim this understanding, and yet both come up with variant views based on that vain thing called knowledge. Regardless of how ignorant we may be, The Holy Spirit as tutor and guide is enough for anyone.

Curiouser and curiouser ‘Eternal Life’ being called ‘that glorious appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ’?
Someone from Wonderland’s been foraging on funny fungi I fear!
EI

Expected Imminently said...

Mitchell said.
“2 Thess 2:8, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness [epiphaneia G2015] of his coming"

The "epiphaneia" is post-trib. If we are to believe that the "blessed hope" is the "epiphaneia", then you must therefore also believe that the blessed hope is his post-trib appearance and gathering of the elect.

You see? Everything that pre-trib uses to support a pre-trib rapture ALWAYS points to a post-trib rapture when you look at the intended meaning.”



‘AND THEN’ The appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, when EVERY EYE shall see Him in the 2nd Coming is indeed Post Tribulation, who has said otherwise? The context is plain it is the 2nd Coming, I have no argument with that at all.

What it ISN’T is the Translation of the Church from earth up into the air, then taken into heaven to meet The Father, at the Rapture Jesus does not 'APPEAR'. That is PRE trib because the church isn’t destined for wrath of any variety.
EI

Mitchell said...

EI, rationalizing away the truth of Scripture with such preconceptions in an effort to continue believing in a pre-trib rapture does not make pre-tribism the truth.

EI says, "What it ISN’T is the Translation of the Church from earth up into the air, then taken into heaven to meet The Father, at the Rapture Jesus does not 'APPEAR'."

And then taken to heaven? Where do we find that in Scripture? I've explained this before, but I will do so again here.

1 Thess 4:17, "Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

When this verse is understood the way that it was intended it does not state in any way, shape or form that the Church is taken to heaven. Here is why.

The word used for “meet” here is the Greek word “apantesis”, and this word only occurs here and in three other places. In Matthew 25:1,6 it describes the virgins going out to meet the bridegroom, to escort him back into the house. In Acts 28:14-16 it is used to describe brethren from Rome coming out to Appii Foru, to meet Paul and his company, and then escort them back to Rome. In each example of "apantesis", the escort back is immediate. We don't have them going out to meet the subject, then going to where the subject came from for days, weeks or years, and then escorting the subject back. That was not the custom. The subject who was coming is met by those who are already at his destination. And what is His destination? Where we are -- EARTH!

Aside from 1 Thess 4:17 these are the only occurrences of the word. In the post-trib view, the elect are gathered in the air to meet Jesus and then we accompany Him back to Earth immediately, according to the "apantesis" of 1 Thess 4:17, which is consistent with its usage in each of the other three verses of Scripture. The pre-trib position, however, suddenly changes the intended meaning of the word. Instead of us escorting Jesus back to Earth immediately for His Second Coming, the pre-trib position has us conveniently going to Heaven instead, which the text does not say anywhere, at any place, at any time.

EI says, "As long as Covenant Theologies and the recent ‘Progressive Dispy’ faulty methods of interpretation are used, adherents will never arrive at the truth."

You have yet to demonstrate any fault to Progressive Dispensationalism. As for Covenant Theology, even I can point out significant problems with Covenant Theology. I read statements and claims from the pre-trib position, but then nothing is provided to support them.

EI says, "That is PRE trib because the church isn’t destined for wrath of any variety."

The Church is not appointed to "orge" wrath only. Show me even one verse that says we are not here to even witness the "thymos" of God upon the wicked. Just one, that is all I ask.

EI says, "Postrib is an adulterous interpretation of God’s Word. Where the ‘blessed hope’ of the Rapture to rescue believers in Christ HAS to be redefined to fit the altered truth that disregards the existence if DISTINCTIONS."

Where do we read that the "blessed hope" is a pre-trib rapture? I have already explained such an error above. And, as I have already shown, the type of distinction that you wish there to be is not found in Scripture. Pre-tribism is completely dependent upon the idea of such a distinction between Israel and the Church (which is found nowhere in Scripture) because without it pre-tribism and traditional dispensationalism completely crumbles.

If pre-tribism is correct, why is there so much difficulty supporting it Scripturally? Answer this very simple question -- if the dead in Christ rise first before the rapture (1 Thess 4:16), where do we find this resurrection in Scripture?

Expected Imminently said...

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also

The Words of Jesus are plain enough for even me to understand. Jesus’ home is heaven – so that is where He will take the Church after He meets with her in the air – next stop our ‘prepared place’ in the Father’s house for 7 years until we return with Him from heaven to earth to end the Tribulation.


1Thess.4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: AND THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE FIRST.

If you are looking for this event at the end of the 7 years, of course you won’t find it, it isn’t there. None of the Rapture scriptures are present prior to the 2nd coming, that’s because she went before the time of JACOB’s/Israel’s trouble.

All these errors of PD present themselves with no further explanation needed.
EI

Expected Imminently said...

Part 1
Mitchell said “…And, as I have already shown, the type of distinction that you wish there to be is not found in Scripture. Pre-tribism is completely dependent upon the idea of such a distinction between Israel and the Church (which is found nowhere in Scripture) because without it pre-tribism and traditional dispensationalism completely crumbles.”

Distinctions between Israel and the Church.

1a.ISRAEL is a nation chosen by God and sustained by covenant promises (Deut. 7:6-9). Not all individuals in this chosen nation are saved (Rom. 9:6; 11:28).
1b.The Church is a called out assembly of believers who have been baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Every member of the body of Christ is saved, though there are multitudes of professing Christians who may not be saved (2 Tim. 2:19).
2a Israel traces its origin to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Jacob being the father of the twelve tribes).
2bThe Church traces its origin to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) when believers were first placed into the body of Christ
3a In God’s program for Israel, His witnesses comprised a nation (Isaiah 43:10).
3b In God’s program for the Church, His witnesses are among all nations (Acts 1:8).
4a God’s program for Israel centered in Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37) and will again center in Jerusalem during the Tribulation (Matt. 24:15-20) and during the Millennium (Isa. 2:1-5).
4b God’s program for His Church began in Jerusalem and extended to the uttermost parts of the earth (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). The Church is identified with the risen Christ, not with any earthly city.
5a The hope and expectancy of Israel was earthly, centering in the establishment of the Kingdom of the Messiah foretold by the prophets (Jer. 23:5-8; Isa. 2:1-5; 11:1-16).
5bThe hope and expectancy of the Church is heavenly, centering in the glorious appearing of Christ to take His people to heaven (John 14:1-3; Phil. 3:20-21; Col. 3:1-4; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).
6a God’s purpose and program for Israel was revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures.
6b God’s purpose and program for the Church was not revealed in the Old Testament, but was revealed by the New Testament apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:5).
7a Israel’s history which is in view in Daniel 9:24 (the 70 weeks or 490 years) involved animal sacrifices. These years will include the tribulation. Israel’s millennial history will involve the same (Ezek. 43:27).
7b The commemorated by means of the Lord’s Table.Church’s history does not involve animal sacrifices. Messiah’s sacrifice is commemorated by means of the Lord’s Table.
8a Israel’s history which is in view in Daniel 9:24 (the 490 years including also the Tribulation) involves a temple in Jerusalem. The same will be true in the Millennium (Ezek. chapters 40-48).
8b During most of the Church age there is no Jewish temple in Jerusalem. In this age God manifests His glory in His believers, both individually and collectively, designating them as His temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19-20; Eph. 2:21-22). This is accomplished by the indwelling ministry of God the Holy Spirit.
9a Israel’s history which is in view in Daniel 9:24 (the 490 years) involves a priesthood limited to the sons of Aaron, and excluding most Israelites. The same applies to the Millennium when Zadokian priests (also sons of Aaron) will serve in the temple (Ezek. 40:46; 43:19; 44:15).
9b During the Church age every true believer is a priest and able to offer spiritual sacrifices to the Lord (Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6). Whereas Israel had a priesthood, the Church is a priesthood.

Expected Imminently said...

Part 2

10a Israel’s history which is in view in Daniel 9:24 (the 490 years) will terminate with the coming of the Messiah to the earth to establish His Kingdom reign.
10b The Church’s history will end at the Rapture of the Church when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rom. 11:25).
11a During Israel’s history (the 490 years of Daniel 9:24 which also includes the Tribulation) the ethnic makeup of the world is bipartite: Jews and Gentiles. This division of all people into Jews and Gentiles will also apply to those in the Millennial Kingdom in natural bodies.
11b During the Church age from Pentecost to the Rapture the ethnic makeup of the world is tripartite: Jews, Gentiles, and the Church of God (1 Cor. 10:32), the Church being composed of saved Jews and Gentiles united together in one Body (Eph. 2:15; 3:6).
12a During Israel’s history, from Sinai to the Millennial Kingdom (excluding the Church age), Israel’s role in the world will be characterized by PRIORITY [that is, they will have a leading role as God’s chosen people]—see Deut. 4:6-8; Isa. 43:10; Matt. 10:5-6; Zech. 8:23.
12b During the Church age, Israel’s role in the world will be characterized by EQUALITY—Jew and Gentiles united together in one body to bear testimony to a risen Christ (Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28).
13a Male Jews were circumcised as a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. Believing Jews were circumcised in the heart (Jer. 4:4).
13b Believers of this age enjoy an internal circumcision not made with hands (Col. 2:11; Phil. 3:3). Physical circumcision is not required.
14a Israel was under the law of Moses as a rule of life.
14b The Church is under the “new creature” rule (Gal. 6:15-16).
15a Unbelieving Jews were physical children of Abraham and spiritual children of the devil (John 8:37-44).
15b Every believer in Christ (every true member of the Church, whether Jew or Gentile) is a child of Abraham and a child of God (Rom. 4:11-12; Gal. 3:326-29). This statement does not mean that Church age believers are Israelites.
16a Israel was to observe the Sabbath Day (Exodus 20:8). Sabbath observance will also take place in the Tribulation (Matt. 24:20) and in the Millennium (Ezek. 46:1,3).
16b The Church is to be diligent and make every effort to enter into God’s rest (Heb. 4:9-11). This is a daily duty.
17a Membership into the Jewish nation was by birth or by becoming a proselyte (a convert to Judaism).
17b Membership into the Church is by the new birth accomplished by the baptizing ministry of God (1 Cor. 12:13).
18a Believing Jews prior to Pentecost, believing Jews during the tribulation, and believing Jews during the Kingdom reign of Christ are not members of the body of Christ.
18b Believing Jews and Gentiles from Pentecost to the Rapture are members of the body of Christ.
19a Israel’s place of worship centered in Jerusalem (Dan. 6:10; John 4:20) and this will also be true in the Tribulation (Dan. 9:27) and in the Millennium (Isa. 2:1-5).
19b The Church’s place of worship is “Where two or three are gathered together in My Name” (Matt. 18:20; John 4:21-24). Christ is in the midst of His Churches (Rev. 1:13, 20).
20a Israel is likened to the wife of Jehovah, often an unfaithful wife (Hosea).
20b The Church is the beloved Bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7-8) to be one day presented blameless and spotless (Eph. 5:27).

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/israelch.htm

Nathan Jones said...

Excellent comparison list, E.I.! I especially think the lack of a Temple during the Church Age and then there being a Temple during the Tribulation is a great point. The Church is indeed the Temple of the Holy Spirit and so there's no need for a physical Temple while the Church is on Earth.

Thanks, too for posting the source should anyone want to present those points elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

I know you’re not kidding, Mitchell. I do apologize for the moon jibe but I do notice a tendency for you to get excited over speculative stuff when it suits your view. I notice you argue for a restricted use of the word “earth” in Revelation when “world” is perfectly appropriate. I once asked you what you thought of Walid’s novel idea about the true meaning of 666 and when you answered that you were open to it – that pretty much gave me an insight into you. I think you’ve made up your mind and have come to conclusions about certain ideas that you fervently defend no matter what.

Speaking of “exegesis” and “hermeneutics”, I went through Mayhue’s argument with a fine tooth comb. What people may not realize is that after Mayhue first read Grundy, he was ready to accept post-trib. However, he ended up reading Grundy several times and was eventually able to see flaws in his arguments. Rev 3:10 is one of them. While that verse does not categorically state there will be a pre-trib rapture, it does say that “someone” will be kept OUT of the time of testing. Your final argument/suggestion is that people are protected spiritually rather than physically. But that is not a literal reading of the text and seems a redundant promise seeing that that is the current status of every true believer.

rg

Anonymous said...

Oh and deepest apologies to Gundry (not Grundy) for mangling his name!

rg

Expected Imminently said...

There are links to follow but after the challenge that there are no scripture's to prove distinctions it is worth copying the following as well.

The Use of Israel
in the New Testament
by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm

Part 1

Covenant Theologians boldly state that the Church is the new Israel and sometimes make it sound as if that claim is an obvious foregone conclusion of the New Testament. Cox even claimed that the two terms are used interchangeably. The truth is that the term “Israel” is used a total of 73 times in the New Testament. As the following list shows, such a bold claim is unwarranted from the evidence:

1. Matthew 2:6 Quotation of Micah 5:2 which prophesies that the Messiah “shall be shepherd of my people Israel.”
2. Matthew 2:20 Geographical reference concerning the family’s return to “the land of Israel.”
3. Matthew 2:21 Matthew 2:21
4. Matthew 8:10 and Luke 7:9 Jesus contrasts the faith of the Roman Centurion with that of unbelieving Israel: “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
5. Matthew 9:33 The response of the multitudes to the miracles of Jesus, “It was never so seen in Israel.”
6. Matthew 10:6 The disciples are instructed not to go among the Gentiles
and Samaritans but to go only “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
7. Matthew 10:23 Geographical notation of the work of the disciples in “the cities of Israel.”
8. Matthew 15:24 Christ’s ministry was “unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”
9. Matthew 15:31 The multitudes “glorified the God of Israel” when they saw the miracles of Jesus
10. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 The disciples are promised authority over “the twelve tribes of Israel.”
11. Matthew 27:9 Quotation of Zechariah 11:12-13 which prophesied that the Messiah will be sold out for thirty pieces of silver by “the children of Israel.”
12. Matthew 27:42 and Mark 15:32 Jesus is mocked as “the king of Israel.”
13. Mark 12:29 Quotation of Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear O Israel.”
14. Luke 1:16 The ministry of John was to get “many of the children of Israel” to turn to the Lord.
15. Luke 1:54 God has provided the Messiah to give help “to Israel his servant.”
16. Luke 1:68 A reference to God as “the God of Israel.”
17. Luke 1:80 John was in the deserts until “the day of his showing unto Israel.”
18. Luke 2:25 Simeon was looking for the Messianic Hope as “the consolation of Israel.”
19. Luke 2:32 While the Messiah was to he a light for revelation to the
Gentiles,” He is also to be for “the glory of thy people Israel.”
20. Luke 2:34 The Messiah is appointed to be “for the falling and rising of many in Israel.”

Expected Imminently said...

Part 2 http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm

21. Luke 4:25 An historical reference to the “widows in Israel” in the days of Elijah.
22. Luke 4:27 An historical reference to the “lepers in Israel” in the days of Elijah.
23. Luke 24:21 The two Emmaus disciples describe Jesus as the one they hoped would “redeem Israel.”
24. John 1:31 The Messiah was to “be made manifest to Israel” through John’s baptism
25. John 1:49 Nathanael described Jesus as the “King of Israel.”
26. John 3:10 Jesus refers to Nicodemus as “the teacher of Israel.”
27. John 12:13 The multitudes at the triumphal entry describe Jesus as “the King of Israel.”
28..Acts 1:6 The disciples ask, “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel?” Obviously, the disciples had ethnic Israel and not the
Church in mind in this context.

29.Peter is addressing an unbelieving Jewish audience and states, “Ye men
of Israel.” Contextually, this could hardly be the Church.
30Acts 2:36 This is the same audience as the above reference.
31.Acts 3:12 Peter is again addressing an unbelieving Jewish audience with the words, “Ye men of Israel.” As unbelievers, they could hardly be the Church.
32.Acts 4:10 Peter clearly has the whole ethnic Israel in view when he declares to “all the people of Israel” that the lame man was healed “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
33.Acts 4:27 Israel is listed along with the Gentiles as being guilty of the crucifixion. This could hardly be the Church
34.Acts 5:21 A reference to “the senate of the children of Israel” Who were unbelievers and, therefore, not the Church
35.Acts 5:31 Peter offers “repentance to Israel.” Israel is in unbelief at this point and so is obviously not the Church.
36.Acts 5:35 Gamaliel addressing his fellow members of the Sanhedrin states, “Ye men of Israel,” none of whom were believers.
37.Acts 7:23 Stephen is making an historical reference to “the children of Israel” of the time of Moses.
38Acts 7:37 Same as above.
39.Acts 7:42 Same as above.
40 Acts 9:15 God declares that Paul will proclaim the gospel to Gentiles and to “the children of Israel.” This is a reference to Jews who do not believe as yet.
41Acts 10:36 Peter refers to the now historical fact that Jesus came to preach
the gospel “unto the children of Israel,” the majority of whom did not believe
the message and so did not constitute the Church.
42.Acts 13:16 Paul is addressing an unbelieving Jewish audience when he
states, “men of Israel.”
43.Acts 13:17 Paul refers to the historical “this people Israel” of the time of the
Exodus.
44.Acts 13:23 Paul mentions the historical fact that the Messiah had come to
the Jews in fulfillment of the “promise brought unto Israel.”
45.Acts 13:24 Paul refers to the historical fact that John the Baptist preached
“repentance to all the people of Israel.”
46.Acts 21:28 The “men of Israel” in this verse is the mob who attacked Paul.
47.Acts 28:20 Paul declares that he is chained for “the hope of Israel,” a
reference to the Messianic Hope and not the Church.
48.Romans 9:4 Paul lists the privileges God gave the “Israelites” already
discussed.
49.Romans 9:6 Paul draws a contrast of two Israels: Israel the whole, and
believing Israel within Israel the whole. Both Israels comprise Jews only.
While some Covenant Theologians wish to make the believing Israel the
Church, other Covenant Theologians agree that this verse contrasts Jews
who believe and Jews who do not.

Expected Imminently said...

Part 3. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm

50.Romans 9:27 Another contrast between unbelieving Israel and the
believing remnant.
51.Romans 9:31 A reference to unbelieving Israel who “did not arrive at that
law.”
52 Romans 10:19 Paul declares that Israel received the message, but did not
accept it.
53.Romans 10:21 God’s hands are stretched out to unbelieving Israel still.
54.Romans 11:1 Paul refers to himself as an “Israelite” nationally and
ethnically..
55.Romans 11:2 Paul makes an historical reference to the fact that “Elijah pleaded with God against Israel” because of Israel’s unbelief.
56.Romans 11:7 Paul again draws a contrast between Israel the whole that
failed to obtain what she was seeking for with the remnant, “the election,”
that did.
57.Romans 11:25 Paul speaks of the blindness that had befallen Israel.
58.Romans 11:26 The prophecy that all Israel will be saved. Covenant
Theologians are split on the meaning of this verse. Generally speaking,
Covenant Amillennialists see this as a reference to the Church, while
Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Premillennialists see it as a
reference to national ethnic Israel.
59.1 Cor. 10:18 The “Israel after the flesh” is obviously national ethnic Israel.
60.2 Cor. 3:7 An historical reference to “the children of Israel” at the time of Moses
61.2 Cor. 3:13 Same as above.
62.2 Cor. 11:22 Paul refers to both unbelieving Jews and to himself as
“Israelites.”
63.Galatians 6:16 Paul’s reference to the “Israel of God” is the only reference
used by all Covenant Theologians to prove that the Church is called
Israel. This verse will be discussed in detail below
64.Ephesians 2:12 The “commonwealth of Israel” is contrasted with the Gentiles and with the “one new man” which is the Church.
65.Philippians 3:5 Paul refers to himself us coming from “the stock of Israel,” an obvious reference to his national ethnic origins.
66.Hebrews 8:8,10 A quotation of’ the New Covenant of Jeremiah.
67.Hebrews 11:22 An historical reference to the Israel of the Exodus
68.Revelation 7:4 A reference to the twelve tribes of Israel
69.Revelation 21:12 Same as above

The above list is the total times that “Israel” is mentioned in the New Testament and it is obvious even to Covenant Theologians that the vast majority of the times it refers to national ethnic Israel. In fact, only three passages are used by Covenant Theologians to try to prove their Church-equals-Israel equation. On two of these, Romans 9:6 and 11:26, they are not unanimous, for even some Covenant Theologians see these verses as speaking of national ethnic Israel. The only one verse on which all Covenant Theologians are unanimous is Galatians 6:16. This is the one and only verse that even comes close to saying what Covenant Theologians want it to say. Therefore, it will be given its own separate treatment.

For the remainder of this study please go to the link.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm

CONCLUSION

For Dispensational Israelology, the conclusion is that the Church is never called, and is not, a “spiritual Israel” or a “new Israel.” The term “Israel” is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular.

Mitchell said...

EI said, "The Words of Jesus are plain enough for even me to understand. Jesus’ home is heaven – so that is where He will take the Church after He meets with her in the air – next stop our ‘prepared place’ in the Father’s house for 7 years until we return with Him from heaven to earth to end the Tribulation."

Let me make sure that I understand you correctly. You believe that Jesus, after He ascended to heaven nearly 2000 years ago, has been building and preparing actual mansions in heaven for all this time (mansions that He says already exist, by the way) and that you will only live in them for 7 years and then at the end of those 7 years everyone will vacate those "mansion", come back to earth with Christ and then stay here for 1000 years during the Millennial Reign? And, by the way, we remain here forever even after the "new heaven and new earth" (Rev 21:1). That makes no sense at all EI, and sounds quite silly when you really think about it. Let me help you, if I may, to understand my position.

First, there is nothing in the text -- anywhere -- saying that we will be going to heaven at the rapture. Instead of assuming and reading a pre-trib meaning into the text that is not there, we should be only reading meaning out of the text that is.

Second, does Jesus ever say that He will build something at some point in Scripture? Yes, He does. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says that "I will build My church". So, what is Jesus doing right now -- is He building His Church, or is He busy building lovely mansions in heaven, eco-friendly and complete with air conditioning? :)

Third, Jesus never refers to heaven as "my father's house." The word translated as "house" is "oikia" (G3614) and it literally means "a dwelling place", or "room". In Luke 2:14-16 Jesus was furious at the merchants for selling oxen, sheep and doves at the temple and says "Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" Heaven is never called the Father's house. The Father's house was the Temple.

Now, this should immediately bring to mind something significant that we, as believers in Christ, have become. 1 Cor 6:19 says "do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" If our bodies are the temple does this mean that we have become the "Father's house"? Are there any verses that tell us that God will dwell in us? Yes! In John 14:23 Jesus says that "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."

So you see, as Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, what He is building for us is His Church, where the Spirit, the Father, and the Son all dwell within the many "dwelling places" that are each of us individually! He is building this so that when He comes again, He will receive us unto Himself so that where He is, there we may be. And when He comes again He is coming back straight to Earth to rule from Jerusalem.

One more point -- Acts 3:21 says that "He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." According to the prophets, the restoration of everything does not come until the Day of the Lord -- Armageddon -- so my question would be how can Acts 3:21 clearly say that Jesus must remain in Heaven until this time, yet the pre-trib teaching says that He leaves Heaven prior to the tribulation for a pre-trib secret rapture?

Mitchell said...

EI Says, "1Thess.4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout... AND THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE FIRST.

If you are looking for this event at the end of the 7 years, of course you won’t find it, it isn’t there."


Yes, we do find it, and let me show you where. The dead in Christ rise first before the rapture, and then we who are alive and remain will be caught up with them (1 Thess 4:16-17). When does this resurrection take place? This is an extremely important question, and it is what turned the light switch on for me many years ago.

Revelation 20 is clear to show us that this resurrection happens after the tribulation. Rev 20:4,5b reads "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... This [is] the first resurrection."

Now consider the logical implications of what John is telling us: If the First Resurrection is after the tribulation as Revelation 20 clearly states, then there is no resurrection before it, and if there is no resurrection before the tribulation then there is therefore no rapture before the tribulation. It is impossible. (Also, why would the text in 1 Thess 4:17 say those who are "alive and remain" if the rapture was pre-trib? It wouldn't make much sense.) The only way for the pre-trib position to get around this serious dilemma is to invent a separation of the First Resurrection into "phases", which is not supported in Scripture at all. In fact, due to the "phases" contention, the pre-trib position is essentially stating that the rapture takes place before the First Resurrection is even fully completed, yet Scripture is clear that the dead in Christ rise FIRST, and THEN we who are alive and remain will be caught up. According to Revelation 20:4 there are obviously still those who are dead in Christ at the end of the tribulation who will be raised in the First Resurrection.

According to Scripture, the Second Coming of Christ immediately after the tribulation is the only time when the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the rapture can take place, and not before it.

Some have pointed to 1 Cor 15:22-24 claiming that it talks about "phases" to the First Resurrection, but if we look at what the text is saying, Paul in 1 Cor 15 is simply telling us an order of three distinct resurrections, not about "phases" to the First Resurrection. Here are the three resurrections we are told of:

1. Christ's resurrection -- He is the First Fruits
2. Those in Christ who are resurrected at His coming -- Rev 20:5b tells us that this First Resurrection of the dead is after the tribulation, not before it.
3. Then the end. Rev 20:5a tells us that the rest of the dead after the post-trib First Resurrection are not resurrected until the thousand years have finished.

Notice that [cometh] in 15:24 is often in brackets or italics in the text of many translations. Your Bible will tell you that the word "cometh" is not in the Greek text. After this passage is examined closely, we come to the inescapable conclusion that there are no phases whatsoever to the First Resurrection.

I've also considered the argument that there were saints who were "resurrected" when Christ was resurrected. However, those who were resurrected when Christ was resurrected were raised to be a testimony for Christ. They did not receive immortal bodies. They were raised to life, like Lazarus, only to die again later. They are still to be resurrected at the First Resurrection after the tribulation, as is Lazarus, so that argument falls flat. Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection, and only Christ.

Mitchell said...

RG says, "Your final argument / suggestion is that people are protected spiritually rather than physically. But that is not a literal reading of the text and seems a redundant promise seeing that that is the current status of every true believer."

And it will be the status of every true believer during the tribulation as well. Matt 24:24 says, "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." So why are we not deceived? Rev 3:10 tells us why.

Mitchell said...

EI quotes, "For Dispensational Israelology, the conclusion is that the Church is never called, and is not, a “spiritual Israel” or a “new Israel.” The term “Israel” is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular."

Through Christ we are spiritually considered Jewish because Christianity represents the maturation of Judaism. The Old Testament is the context for the New Testament, even as they are both fully and completely Jewish. Therefore, Biblical doctrines are Jewish in nature (the Jewish people were a chosen, called-out people of God. Christ was Jewish as was the apostles and none of them ever renounced Judaism or became a Gentile. In fact, no Gentile can be saved unless they understand that the Jews are God's people and that they too want to be considered part of this special group through Christ that are defined as being the children of Abraham).

Rom. 11:28-29, "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

John 4:22 "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

Those that follow the Messiah and become Christians are the true descendants of Abraham. They are truly Jewish in the best sense of the term.

Gal. 3:27-29 "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise."

Paul is saying that Christians are "spiritual Jews" and even calls them "the Israel of God." Christianity therefore represents a "new creation" as compared to Old Covenant Judaism. The New Testament Church is this new creation and it represents the second stage of Judaism.

Gal. 6:15-16 "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God."

Paul repeats this same point in Romans.

Rom. 9:6-7 "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: 'through Isaac your descendants will be named.'"

Thus it is clear that those that have the faith of the Gospel are the true children of Abraham. Messianic believers and Christians are the true Israel of God. They are "true Jews" that will be granted entrance into the Kingdom of God.

Rom. 9:8 "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

Moreoever, Paul is clear that both the Old and New Covenants are made with the house of Israel. In other words, there is no "Gentile Covenant". Nor is there any Gentile god, law, doctrine, or Judgment. The New Covenant is given only to those that received the Old Covenant. It is only made with Jews, not Gentiles.

Heb. 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says, 'Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah''

The Gospel, meaning both the Old and New Covenants, is written and administered by Jews. There is nothing Gentile about it. The Christian Faith is therefore 100% Jewish, no matter the doctrine. Just like the Old Covenant is 100% Jewish. The entire Bible is Jewish, not Gentile. The Gentiles are brought into fulfilled Judaism, which is Christianity. They are grafted into the Jewish paradigm, not into a Gentile one.

Eph. 2:11-22 "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands -- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."

Therefore, the New Testament Church represents fulfilled Judaism. The individual members represent spiritual Israel and the true descendents of Abraham.

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...
"Through Christ we are spiritually considered Jewish because Christianity represents the maturation of Judaism. "

Mitchell?!?
I don't think you even bothered to read and/or seriously ponder anything at all that EI just posted!

I am like wow! -even at my age!

I would like to send you my email address as I might want to try your special recipe of highly refined, dried & cured, male bovine excrement that can produce such a euphoric... or rather, horrific... vision of how we are required to endure the "Protestant Purgatory" of the 70th week...The time of "Jacob's trouble"...

Mitchell said...

RG says, "I don't think you even bothered to read and/or seriously ponder anything at all that EI just posted!"

Yes, I did. But it is an 'argument' against Covenant Theology and as I have said repeatedly, I do not agree with Covenant Theology. I do not believe that the New Testament Church has replaced Israel. Also, if you notice, the "list" of verses given and then the comments next to them you will soon discover that those comments are often heavily distorted with a traditional dispensational preconception, instead of accepting the plain, most straight-forward understanding of the text. Don't be fooled by what may appear to be so many verses that support a traditional dispensational position regarding the "parenthetical" nature of the Church, because the fact of the matter is that they do not.

THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE - 'PARENTHESIS' vs. 'PROGRESSION'

Traditional dispensationalists typically see the 'church age' as an interruption or parenthetical period in God's dealing with Israel. The church is seen as unrelated to Israel and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Believers of this dispensation are segregated from believers of other dispensations in purpose and destiny. Consequently, they see the new covenant as entirely future, concerning Israel during the Millennium. This segregation of saints is best seen in the concept of the 'Church' being exclusively the Bride of Christ to the exclusion of other saints. Progressive dispensationalists however believe the 'church age' is the fulfillment of certain promises in the Old Testament, regarding the new covenant, and salvation of Gentiles. Rather than being unrelated to God's program for Israel, the Church is an integral part of that program, and is currently participating in the new covenant promises in this dispensation. Progressive dispensationalists believe the New Covenant was inaugurated by Jesus Himself, by shedding His blood, [Luke 22:20, Heb. 8:6, Heb. 9:15]. Jeremiah prophesied the New Covenant would be made with Israel [Jer. 31:31-34]. A look at the Gospels shows the 'good news' was originally presented to Israel exclusively. In fact, when Jesus sent His disciples out to preach the gospel the first time He explicitly told them not to preach to Gentiles [Matt. 10:5,6]. Later we find Paul's acknowledgment of this fact with the words, "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" [Rom. 1:16, 2:9,10]. The crucial difference can be summed up as whether the Church is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and whether saints of various dispensations should be seen as segregated.

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

JESUS INAUGURATED THE NEW COVENANT - ISRAEL NOT CAST ASIDE

God did not cast Israel aside, or withdraw the offer of the New Covenant because of Israel's rejection. Rather, Jesus established the New Covenant with a believing remnant of Israel, His Jewish disciples. Jesus said to them, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. [Luke 22:20]. In Romans 11, Paul argued strenuously that God has NOT cast Israel aside. "I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. ... Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace." [Rom. 11:1,2,5]. Paul's point is NOT that God's program for Israel has been suspended, as Traditional Dispensationalism teaches, or even that God is finished with Israel, as 'Replacement Theology' teaches. Rather, "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." [vs. 25]. Consequently, part of Israel was not blinded. It was with this remnant that Jesus established the New Covenant.[Rom. 11: 16-29]

Paul concluded his thought in Romans eleven with the parable of the Olive Tree. Jews who did not accept Jesus were likened to natural branches broken off of the olive tree. That some natural branches remained in the tree, both before and after the unbelievers were broken off and wild branches grafted in, demonstrates a CONTINUOUS status of believing Jews both before and after Christ. The grafting in of the wild branches shows a uniting of Gentiles with the believing part of Israel. So, in effect, Paul has illustrated a continuation of God's fulfilling His covenants and promises with Israel in this dispensation, albeit with only a remnant. But, isn't that the way it has always been? Only a small remnant went into the 'promised land.' Only a small remnant returned from the Babylonian captivity. And only a remnant have received the New Covenant.

The fact that Gentiles of this dispensation partake in the Jewish covenants and blessings is clearly established in Scripture. For example, Paul encouraged the Gentile saints to collect an offering for their Jewish brethren in Jerusalem who were in need. "For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things." [Rom. 15:27]

PROBLEMS OF TRADITIONAL DISPENSATIONALISM RESOLVED IN PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM

Major Problem #1 Old Testament Prophecy applied to the Church by New Testament writers.
If the present dispensation is a 'parenthesis' in God's plan for Israel, and the Church is not related to OT prophecy, we would not expect New Testament writers to apply Old Testament prophecy to the Church. Yet, there are many examples of this very thing. The most obvious example is the Day of Pentecost, where Peter interpreted the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Church as the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. Notice, Peter said, "this IS that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." [Acts 2:15-21]. Peter's application of Joel fits right in with Progressive Dispensationalism. A few other noteworthy cases of Old Testament prophecy directly applied to the Church, are as follows: Acts 10:43, Acts 15:14-18, Rom. 1:1,2, Rom. 4:13-17,23,24, Rom. 9:32,33, Rom. 15:4,8-10, 2 Cor. 6:16-7:1.

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

Major Problem #2 The New Covenant, promised to Israel, is now in force.
Paul wrote to the church in Corinth regarding their observance of the Lord's Supper, as a reminder of Jesus' establishment of the New Covenant. "In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." [1 Cor 11:25-26]. This would hardly be appropriate had the New Covenant not been inaugurated, or if it applied exclusively to physical Israel. Paul also saw himself as having a role in the spread of the New Covenant among the Gentiles. "Who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant." [2 Cor. 3:6]. Jesus was the "mediator of a better covenant, which was established [past tense] on better promises" [Heb. 8:6-13]. The writer then quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 and applied the prophecy of the New Covenant to the Church. This is not to say that everything related to the New Covenant has been completely fulfilled. Jeremiah's prophecy said "after those days ... all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." The universal acceptance of the New Covenant by Israel will only occur after the partial blindness is removed. With the Mosaic Covenant, most of the promises and benefits pertained to their dwelling in the 'promised land.' Yet, these promises were not realized by the very generation who received them! For more than 40 years they wandered in the wilderness. Does this mean the Covenant made at Mt Sinai was suspended while they wandered in the wilderness? No! They simply had to wait until they reached Canaan before they could enjoy the full benefits of this covenant put into place at Mt. Sinai. The same is true of Israel under the New Covenant. The 'promised land' of the New Covenant is the Millennial Kingdom.

Major problem #3 God Continues to Deal with Israel in this Dispensation.
Certain things have and are occurring in Israel's history since the Day of Pentecost that are the direct fulfillment of prophecy. This makes the traditional dispensational 'parenthetical' theory untenable.

a. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the direct fulfillment of Daniel 9:26.
b. The regathering of Israel into their land is the likely fulfillment of Ezekiel 37.
c. God is also using the salvation of the Gentiles to provoke (unbelieving) Israel to jealousy. [Rom. 10:18,19 & 11:11].

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

Major Problem #4 Only a Remnant of Old Testament Israel is Saved.
Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" and the "Church" as two distinct peoples of God. While all true members of the "Church" are saved, and will be resurrected at the resurrection of the just, this is not the case with Israel. Traditional Dispensationalists are comparing apples to oranges here, when they refer to two different peoples of God. Israel is a "nation," not a spiritual entity. Dispensationalists fail to address the fact that the Old Testament promises to Israel will be fulfilled literally in the Millennium, but ONLY by the righteous remnant who are raised at the resurrection of the Just. [Daniel 12:1-3,13, Mal. 3:16 - 4:3, Rom. 11:2-5]. Most of Israel is lost. This has been true throughout their entire history. The unfaithful majority of Israel will not be resurrected or inherit anything in the Kingdom. Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" as a nation, yet they fail to clearly distinguish the believers from the unbelievers within Israel. Consequently, they speak of the Old Testament promises being fulfilled for "Israel" in the Millennium, yet imply that this is merely all the Jews still alive after the tribulation. They have forgotten about all of the saints of Hebrews 11 from the Old Testament, who will receive the literal fulfillment of those promises to Israel in the Millennium, in resurrected bodies.


Progressive dispensationalists have simply taken this fact to its logical conclusion. Jews saved after Christ are still as much "Jews" as are the patriarchs, and will still partake of the promises along with the patriarchs, in resurrected bodies. All saints make up the "Church." Yet, Jewish believers have special promises from the Old Testament that are not cancelled for them just because they happen to live after Pentecost.

Progressive dispensationalism maintains the distinction between Israel and the Church, not by segregating them into two separate "peoples of God." But, by nationality, and recognizing that one group is merely a nation, and the other a spiritual entity. Israel is a nation made up of believers and unbelievers. The Church is a spiritual organism made up of the remnant of Jewish believers and the remnant of Gentile believers. Consequently, we have three entities - the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God - the Church having members from both groups. The Jewish Millennial inheritance will be realized by the Jewish members of the Church. And the general promises of inheritance will be realized by the whole Church.

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

And finally ...

Major Problem #5 Multiple Plans of Salvation
Many traditional dispensationalists have devised different plans of salvation for Israel and the Church. Pre-tribulationists usually claim that during the tribulation, the plan of salvation will incorporate the Old Covenant in some way. Salvation for the Old Testament saints is seen as having to do with works along with faith. Progressive dispensationalists see only one means of eternal salvation, through the blood of Christ. All saints are united in Christ by the blood of Christ, regardless of whether they lived before or after the cross. Animal sacrifices "could never take away sin." For the Old Testament saints who died in faith, Jesus' blood sacrifice is retroactive for them, to purchase eternal redemption for them after the fact. Hence, Paul, in Hebrews nine proclaims, "And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9:15). And after giving a list of some of these people of faith from the Old Testament, he writes, "And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us." (Heb. 11:39,40). Eternal redemption and the promise of eternal inheritance comes only through the blood of Christ via. the New Covenant. Old Testament saints are brought into the New Covenant, and made complete along with us.

http://www.pfrs.org/pd/001.html

Expected Immininently said...

Mitchell

It is said “there are none as blind as those who do not want to see”. That limp, wet lettuce excuse for a comment has proved the saying true. I can’t call it a ‘reply’ as it was devoid of a response to anything I wrote.

Your argumentative remarks are frequently ‘straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel’. There is no doubt about it; you are playing us all for silly beggars from an imagined vaulted position of feigned superiority using the ‘Concordance Greek’ Alan warned us about.

If I were asked to advise Nathan, I would recommend him to clear this blog of all your contentious remarks, and not to give your deliberately contrary views any further legroom. You are using this space to evangelize your erroneous doctrine in the hope of winning proselytes to your heretical corner. God’s Word informs what we are to do about such unprofitable words.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11. Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. KJV.

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, but thou art rich and know the BLASPHEMY OF THEM WHICH SAY THEY ARE JEWS, and are not, but are the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN.

Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall GREIVOUS WOLVES enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Between us we have successfully ‘drawn you out’, and your own words condemn. It’s not for me to question your Salvation Mitchell, but a faulty end time doctrine clearly infects all areas of canon. Those whom the Lord loves He chastens, I leave you with Him.
EI

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...

"...Pre-tribulationists usually claim that during the tribulation, the plan of salvation will incorporate the Old Covenant in some way. Salvation for the Old Testament saints is seen as having to do with works along with faith."?!?

PUB! - Pure, Unadulterated Bunk!

These are horribly contrived straw-men points that would be an embarrassment to any real researcher/scholar!

No wonder you think we're off-base!

PUB! - Pure, Unadulterated Bunk!

My faith was not strengthened by EI's postings... It's as strong as ever! Rather, it was just a deep joy to read through all those point of faith!

I wish I could say the same, but your stuff is depressing and fruitless... and I told you that I would probably go EI on you...

"it’s your chosen method of interpretation that I refuse to debate with. Endless genealogies and all that!" -EI

Mitchell said...

DrNofog says, "PUB! - Pure, Unadulterated Bunk!

These are horribly contrived straw-men points that would be an embarrassment to any real researcher/scholar!"


So you agree then that the Old Testament saints were justified by faith only by looking forward to Messiah, and were not saved because by the Law or by animal sacrifices? And you agree that saints on the earth during the tribulation are saved only by grace through faith, that they will be drawn by the Holy Spirit to the knowledge of Christ?

PAUL AFFIRMS THE BASIC PREMISE OF PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM

That Paul did not hold to Traditional Dispensationalism or a 'parenthetical Church age' is clearly indicated in his defense before Agrippa. He saw his mission to the Gentiles as the fulfillment of Israel's hope! "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers. To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews." [Acts 26:6,7]. Paul then recounted his conversion on the road to Damascus, and Jesus' sending him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, ... "having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come-- "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." [Acts 26:19-23]

Nathan Jones said...

The Covenant Theology view that Old Testament saints were saved because they were looking forward to the Messiah is very problematic. Even a partially realized concept of the Messiah was not in place till deep into Israel's history, and then there's the saints who came before the Law who had very little concept of the Son of God. Until Jesus' resurrection the people's concept of the Messiah was deeply flawed. Even today modern Jews think the Messiah will be merely a man who will rise to the occasion.

No, as Hebrews 11:1-2 explains - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for." In other words, their faith was in God based on the amount of revelation that was given at the time. In other words (here it comes...) - Dispensationalism.

Mitchell said...

DEVELOPING THE BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM

1. Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:6-13, 9:14,15, & 10:9-17. The New Covenant, promised to Israel is now in force.

2. Matthew 21:33-44, Luke 12:31,32, & Luke 22:28-30. Since the rulers of the Jews rejected Jesus, the positions of authority in Messiah's Kingdom was taken from them and given to the Jewish Disciples.

3. Matthew 8:11,12, Matt. 19:27-29, Luke 13:26-29, John 10:16, Hebrews 11:39,40. The Kingdom was also given to Gentile saints along with the believing Jewish remnant. (Notice the unified relationship between the Gentile saints and the Old Testament saints). All are 'one fold' and covered by the blood of Jesus.

4. Romans 2:28,29, Romans 4:13-16, Romans 9:6-8, Hebrews 6:12-20. Real 'Jews' in this dispensation are those with a circumcised heart. As adopted sons of Abraham, Gentiles also receive the Old Testament promises.

5. Romans 11:1-7, Romans 11:16-27. Not all Israel rejected Jesus Christ. The disciples and many other Jews believed. The rest were blinded. God fulfilled His "NC with the house of Israel" in the Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and believing Gentiles were 'grafted in.'

6. Romans 1:16, Rom 15:8-12,26,27. Jesus came to the Jews first. The Gentiles being added to the faithful remnant of Israel fulfills several Old Testament prophecies according to Paul, Psalm 18:49, Deut. 32:43, Psalm 117:1, Isa. 11:1,10. The Gentiles are partakers of the Jewish blessing, [vs. 26,27].

7. Galatians 3:6-29. Gentiles are the adopted children of Abraham. Because we are 'in Christ,' we are heirs of the Old Testament promises.

8. Galatians 4:4-7, Galatians 6:15,16. God established His New Covenant with THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW (Jews), then believing Israel received ADOPTED SONS (Gentiles). We now have the same blessings and promises as natural sons of Abraham.

9. Ephesians 1:4-14, Eph. 3:14,15, Eph. 4:4- 10. Old Testament and New Testament saints are 'in Christ.' This union had already taken place prior to Paul's writing to the Ephesian church.

10. Ephesians 2:11-22, Ephesians 3:4-6. Gentiles were formerly "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" and "strangers from the covenants of promise." Under the New Covenant we are "MADE NIGH" to Israel and are "fellow citizens," having become part of the "household of God." [see also Phil. 3:2,3]

Nathan Jones said...

I wouldn't say Mitchell's out to destroy the faith or is working for Satan (chuckle). He'll be with us in the Rapture and I'll have a seat next to him at some point during the Marriage Supper. He loves the Lord and honestly believes in what he's concluded in.

Now, why he's a modern day crusader for the Post-Trib view, I cannot fathom. I know he wants us to be spiritually prepared for the Tribulation, but only salvation can prepare anyone for eternity, so he's preaching to the choir.

He's not one of those angry MacPherson followers either, which is so refreshing. He's a solid example of what the Post-Trib crowd should be, and not the "you'll have the blood of millions on your hands" that I usually get from them. Thanks for that, Mitchell!

Mitchell said...

DrNofog quotes, "it’s your chosen method of interpretation that I refuse to debate with. Endless genealogies and all that!"

My method is to accept the most plain and straightforward meaning of the text, to interpret the Scriptures literally when it is in accordance to its intended meaning, and to employ sound Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis using the full counsel of Scripture. The same cannot be said for pre-tribism, where Scripture is approached and interpreted in light of a pre-trib preconception.

EI, Drnofog and RG, we'll obviously disagree on the nature of Israel and the Church. However, it is clear that when it comes to the idea of a pre-trib rapture ALL verses point decisively to a post-trib rapture of the elect instead. The fact that there are no proof-texts whatsoever supporting pre-tribism should be very telling to any serious student of Scripture, for at the end of the day one comes to the inescapable conclusion that pre-tribism cannot be supported unless they add meaning to the text that isn't there and take Scripture out of its intended context.

Scripture always points to a post-trib rapture:

Paul ties in the gathering with the Day of the Lord (2 Thess 2:1), which comes immediately after the tribulation -- post-trib

Jesus teaches the gathering is immediately after the tribulation (Matt 24:29-31) -- post-trib

Paul says the dead in Christ rise first before the rapture (1 Thess 4:16) and John puts this first resurrection after the tribulation (Rev 20:5) -- post-trib

We meet Jesus in the air and escort Christ immediately to earth per the "apantesis" of 1 Thess 4:17 -- post-trib

The Blessed Hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2, 2:13) is actualized at the "epiphaneia" of Christ (2 Thess 2:8) -- post-trib

The rapture is found in Revelation 10 at the last trump -- post-trib

Not appointed to wrath is always "orge" wrath only, which is only found after the tribulation (Rev 6:17,11:18,14:10,16:19,19:15)-- post-trib

The Marriage Supper of the Lamb is after the tribulation (Rev 19:2-3,6-7) -- post-trib

Jesus must remain in heaven (Acts 3:21) until the restoration of all things -- post-trib

Peter suggests that we will be here to witness the revealing (apokalypsis) of the glory of Christ (1 Pet 4:13) -- post-trib

We will only appear with Christ when He appears [made manifiest, visible, realized] (Col 3:4), which is after the tribulation (Mat 24:29-31) -- post-trib

The "144,000" (Rev 7:4) are only seen by John after the tribulation, and the meaning of the 144,000 reveals the union of Christ's elect with Him -- post-trib

I can go on and on, but you get the picture ...

Mitchell said...

Nathan says, "The Covenant Theology view that Old Testament saints were saved because they were looking forward to the Messiah is very problematic. Even a partially realized concept of the Messiah was not in place till deep into Israel's history, and then there's the saints who came before the Law who had very little concept of the Son of God."

I'm a progressive dispensationalist. :) The way that I see it is this -- the first promise given of a Redeemer is alluded to in Genesis 3:15 after Adam and Eve fell, and though they did not fully understand and early OT saints were only able to see types and shadows, it was faith in God's promise of a Deliverer that justified all. As you and I know, there is only one name given under heaven whereby we can be saved ...

Nathan says, "I wouldn't say Mitchell's out to destroy the faith or is working for Satan (chuckle). He'll be with us in the Rapture and I'll have a seat next to him at some point during the Marriage Supper. He loves the Lord and honestly believes in what he's concluded in.

Now, why he's a modern day crusader for the Post-Trib view, I cannot fathom. I know he wants us to be spiritually prepared for the Tribulation, but only salvation can prepare anyone for eternity, so he's preaching to the choir.

He's not one of those angry MacPherson followers either, which is so refreshing. He's a solid example of what the Post-Trib crowd should be, and not the "you'll have the blood of millions on your hands" that I usually get from them. Thanks for that, Mitchell!"


Thank you for the kind words Nathan, God bless you!

Nothing wrong with healthy debates and differences of opinion with secondary issues. Iron sharpens iron. :)

Expected Imminently said...

Nathan
According to Arnold Fruchtenbaum in 'Israelology', what firmly yokes Covenant Theology together with all forms including P.D. is their shared view on Israel. The claim that Israel is the Church in the O.T., and the Church is Israel in the N.T.,essentially claiming to be Jews but are not, is said in Scripture to be of ‘the synagogue of satan’? Not a healthy ‘yoking’ I would have thought, and can hardly be said to be ‘building up in the most holy faith’.


I would like to start a correction of the many ‘straw man’ arguments Mitchell has wrongly levelled against what I actually wrote and also address some faulty interpretation, but it is only basic as I don’t have the time or energy to do it the justice it deserves.

Mitchell did NOT understand me correctly, so he has argued against his own faulty ‘straw man’ perceptions.

The ‘mansions’ or rooms obviously already exist for “in my Fathers house ARE many mansions.. .” The Father abides in heaven, so naturally that is where His house also abides.

Jesus is PREPARING, not building a room for us, this preparation is akin to us making up the bed, putting out fresh towels ready for occupation. Not using bricks and mortar to build with.

When the Father gives leave, and the rooms are ready, Jesus will come for the Church as His bride when its building is finalised at the Rapture. As a combined, completed and adorned Church/Bride, He will take her into the Father’s house in heaven.

Jesus dwells in the Fathers house, seated at His right hand, which is IN heaven, and He takes her to be with Him there, this is what constitutes the marriage ceremony, obviously that is where the church/Bride will be also. Wherever Jesus goes, He assures us we will forever be with Him.

The tabernacle, the Temples built with stones, and the Temple built with living stones, are but patterns or a type of the Heavenly Temple that is in heaven. The Church, our bodies are but a temporary residence for The Holy Spirit to dwell in on earth. Just as importantly the Church is Christ’s BODY on earth and He is the Head presently in heaven.

Corrections from a traditional dispy and pretribber are welcome.
EI

DrNofog said...

I understand that Mitchell is arguing from what off-base stuff that he's been fed. My point is where he got it. [http://www.pfrs.org/pd/001.html] - "Pristine Faith Restoration Society" indeed!

I would have expected the like on a Mormon, JW, or even an Islamic site...

It's one thing to argue your position by pointing out legitimate errors of the opposition, but when a so-called "scholar" at PFRS resorts to misrepresenting by fabrications, then that puts him at the Biblical injunction in Romans 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

DrNofog said...

Forgot to add... of course, even if his source is an off-the-wall fringe group [that I have never heard of] to show the extreme, he should still be compelled by honesty to go with the majority opinions, so he is still not off the hook.

Mitchell said...

EI, so you're saying that for nearly 2000 years Jesus has been "preparing rooms up in heaven" in mansions that you will live in some day for only 7 years and then at the end of those 7 years you -- along with everyone else -- will vacates those "prepared rooms", comes back to earth with Christ and then stay here for 1000 years during the Millennial Reign, and forever in a whole new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:1)? Is that what you're saying?

Expected Imminently said...

The Day of Christ (which is only associated with blessing) when the end of all things begins with the Pretrib Rapture, and runs virtually parallel with the Day of the Lord (which is always associated with Judgment) which begins at the start of the 7 year Tribulation.

The Rapture will end the Dispensation of Grace followed by the judgment so the new grace of God, the Millennial Dispensation, can begin, and in turn will also end in judgment when satan is released; followed by Eternity and God’s unending Grace.

Every dispensation has an element of God’s grace provided first, and then ends in judgment. God’s grace of the Dispensation of Grace is the Pretrib Rapture, followed as always by judgment – the 7 year Tribulation.

Resurrection concern’s life after physical death. The FIRST Resurrection is the resurrection of the BELIEVER. There are three instances when BELIEVERS are seen to be resurrected.

a.The resurrection of the Church, who are the believers from when the Church
was born in Acts 2. completed at the Pretrib Rapture.

b.The resurrection of the O.T. saints who will take part in the marriage SUPPER
of the Lamb.

c. The Tribulation saints who are judged by those who sit on the 24 thrones. (Rev.4:4) as the apostles which includes all the Church saints will be judges. The thrones are empty when seen by Daniel in his vision, waiting for the Church saints to occupy them. 24 being the representative number of government, ruling and reigning with Christ.

Blessed are they who are in the First/believers Resurrection.

Expected Imminently said...

As usual Mitchell you have to build up your straw man because you are unable to deal with basic Scriptual facts.

Read what I said, then you will know precicely what I said, then you won't have to keep asking me what I said.
EI

Expected Imminently said...

Mitchell said "Nothing wrong with healthy debates and differences of opinion with secondary issues. Iron sharpens iron." :)


Yep! but cutting straw with it makes it blunt.

Mitchell said...

DrNofog, I became post-trib many years before PFRS, and even came to an understanding of "progressive dispensationalism" on my own before I had ever heard of the term. This was through my own studies and through prayer.

DrNofog says, "... he should still be compelled by honesty to go with the majority opinions ..."

Just because a "majority" may believe one thing, does not necessarily make it right. Let's travel back to the Middle Ages when the Church believed that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or back to the days of Christ when the majority did not believe that Yeshua was the promised Messiah. Go to the Middle East today where the majority are Islamic. Go to Utah where the majority are often Mormon. Go to another denomination where the majority may be amillennial. Or blend in with the Western church where the majority are currently pre-trib. Take your pick.

Just because a majority may hold to one view does not mean it is Truth that I must therefore follow. I will adhere only that which is revealed in the whole of Divinely inspired scripture, to what I have come to believe through my convictions from the study of God's word, to where I believe the Word of God leads. I will rightly divide the Word of Truth, to test ALL things in light of Scripture, for I will stand firm and hold fast to that which is good in the Word of God, not in the traditions and teachings of men.

Be convinced in your own mind what you will believe. I am fully persuaded in mine, and stand firm.

Expected Imminently said...

Actually it is a fallacy that anyone believed the earth was flat. The Bible is clear the earth is round and hangs suspended in space.

It was a US author/ journalist that wrote that fable around the
19th Century, and people have said it ever since!


There is safety in an abundance of counsellors!

Mitchell said...

EI says, "As usual Mitchell you have to build up your straw man because you are unable to deal with basic Scriptual facts."

Examples please? What has been claimed so far to be a "pre-trib fact" has only been biased interpretations through a pre-trib lens, far from the plain and straight-forward meaning of the text, void of exegetical and/or hermeneutical support. I have demonstrated many previous examples.

EI states, "Read what I said, then you will know precicely what I said, then you won't have to keep asking me what I said."

Alright. So you believe that for nearly 2000 years Jesus has been "preparing rooms up in heaven" in mansions that you will live in some day for only 7 years and then at the end of those 7 years you will vacate your "prepared room" (that you probably won't spend much time in anyway since you'll be spending most of your time at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb), then you'll come back to earth with Christ and then stay here for 1000 years during the Millennial Reign, and forever in a whole new heaven and new earth. If this is incorrect, please show me where and why.

EI says, "The Day of Christ (which is only associated with blessing) when the end of all things begins with the Pretrib Rapture, and runs virtually parallel with the Day of the Lord"

So, if The Day of Christ runs virtually parallel with the Day of the Lord, then the Day of Christ must therefore be after the tribulation as well, like the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:31 cf Mat 24:29).

EI, the majority of Greek manuscripts (and KJV/NKJV) read "the day of Christ." But, a small number of early manuscripts (and most modern versions) have "the day of the Lord." From a post-trib perspective, either reading is acceptable because those who believe in a post-trib rapture view the "day of Christ" and the "day of the Lord" as being the same post-trib coming. However, the pre-trib view has a serious problem either way. If "the day of Christ" is the correct reading, you must agree that every other occurrence of "day of Christ" in the New Testament refers to our hope - the rapture (Phil. 1:10, Phil. 2:16). Once again, this is consistent with 2 Thess 2:1 which speaks of "our gathering together unto Him". Yet the next verse plainly says that this day (our gathering together to Him - the Day of Christ) cannot come until after the Antichrist is revealed. Therefore, if "the day of Christ" is the correct reading, this passage plainly puts the rapture after the revelation of Antichrist, and makes the pre-trib idea of "imminence" utterly impossible. "Day of Christ" is consistent with the post-trib scenario, and very problematic for the pre-trib scenario.

At any rate, if you wish to change your mind and place it somewhere else on the eschatological timeline, then please also tell me where these days will fall as well:

1 Cor 1:7, "The Day of our Lord Jesus Christ"

1 Cor 1:14, "The Day of the Lord Jesus"

Phil 1:6, "The Day of Jesus Christ"

2 Pet 3:12, "The Day of God"

Expected Imminently said...

I thought it best to back up my claim.

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety (Pro 11:14).

"I've often said also, "In the multitude of counselors there is confusion." There are people who shop for counselors. They'll come up and they say, "I was talking with Pastor Romaine, and I talked to Chuck Mattier, and I talked to Jerry Westburg, and I wanted to talk to you about this." Well, you know that they're really not looking for counsel. It's that the other three guys haven't agreed with them yet, and they're looking and hoping someone's going to agree with them somewhere along the line. They're looking for confirmation rather than real counseling, real guidance. And people just shop around until they can find someone who'll say, "Oh well, that's fine. Go ahead and do it. Yes, that's wonderful." They're really not wanting to be guided. They're only wanting affirmation that what they're doing is all right to do, is the right thing to do. And so in the multitude of counselors, quite often there is confusion. The more you go to, the more different things you hear. And you get to you don't know what to do. Chuck Smith

(And some found P.D.)


The Myth of the Flat Earth Concept.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=13

“ …The story which has become so much a part of American history textbooks; the story that Columbus was warned that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he sailed west: well, that story is the invention of a struggling American author of fiction - Washington Irving (1783-1859). Yes, the story of the flat earth and Columbus is the work of the author of the Sketch Book (1820), which included his stories of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (The Headless Horseman) and Rip Van Winkle…”
By Dr. Grady McMurtry

It’s a great read.
EI

Expected Imminently said...

The Various Days of Scripture.

A. Creative Day’s
B. Sabbath Day
C. The Lord’s Day
D. The Day of the Lord
E. The Day of Christ
F. ‘Other Day’s

Chapter Four. The Day of the Lord, and the Great Tribulation.

“There has been a great deal of confusion over the location of the Day of The Lord. Some writers have placed it at the start of the Rapture, others at the time of the Revelation, and still others, as a bridge which spans the two.

Posttribulational writers make the Day of the Lord synonymous with the Day of Christ …………They dismiss with a wave of the hand any possibility that such terms, although related, are none the less distinguishable from one another …

…The Day of Christ is a time of great expectation for the Church, and is associated with rapture and reward. …. Even a cursory examination …should convince …the Day of the Lord, in both Testaments, does not concern the Church but is a time of God’s wrath and great judgment upon the world. It is not a twenty-four hour day, or one single event, but a period of time which starts after the Rapture of the church and incorporates the entirety of the Tribulation period…”

Note.Posttribulationalism thus joins forces with amillennial theology, both in its attack against (traditional) dispensationalism and in its identification of the Day of Christ with the day of the Lord.

The Day of Christ.

The Day of the Lord is always associated with the wrath of God and the judgment of God, while the Day of Christ is distinguished by the fact that it is universally spoken of as a time of blessing. Nothing is predicted as having to take place before the Day of Christ shall come, but the coming of the Day of the Lord is marked by signs in the heavens and notable events upon the earth. The Day of Christ concerns the Church and is to be looked forward to with anticipation…”

1Cor.1:7,8; 1Cor.5:5; IICor.1:14; Phil.1:6,10; Phil.2:16.

The Day of Christ evidently is the termination of the Church’s pilgrim journey upon earth . . . . “ Yet in spite of the obvious differences between the two ‘days’, Posttrib requires that they be made identical - Alexander Reese….prefers to call the Day of Christ ‘the Messiah’s Day’ ….any such inference completely ignores the fact that Christ is Messiah of Israel, not the Church, and blurs over any distinctive meaning the Day of Christ may have for the Church in her relationship to her coming Lord…Any premise which makes these two days synonymous, both applicable to the Church on earth, must completely ignore the characteristics of each as displayed in
Scripture.

It hardly needs to be said that conclusions based upon faulty premises are likewise in error and must be rejected.”

“Kept From the Hour” by Dr.Garald Stanton Th.D. Introduction by Dr.John F. Walvoord

DrNofog said...

The Flat Earth Myth was an attack on "religion", and Christianity in particular, as an impediment to progressive science". I did a little "myth-busters" ditty at "church" [not Israel] a couple a yrs ago on this... Tons of good info out there on it - http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html
"Inventing the Flat Earth" by Jeffery Burton Russell (1991). - His specialist knowledge is in the intellectual history of the medieval world.

Compte (1798-1857) developed the philosophy of positivism, with it's concept of progress, step by step from superstition to science, basically portraying that religion was merely a step beyond superstition and definitely a step backward from science.

William Whewell, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University in 1837 coined the term 'warfare' as describing the relationship between religion and science. Then John Draper, in The History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1873) and Andrew Disckson White in History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896)

During this same era, an American, Washington Irving started to propagate the idea that there was opposition to Columbus' voyage from flat-earthers. He wrote "History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828) as a romantic fiction loosely based on history. Readers picked up on the idea of flat-eathers opposing Columbus, and suddenly the idea was accepted as fact by millions of people, even to the place where it found it's way into history textbooks.

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...

DrNofog says, "... he should still be compelled by honesty to go with the majority opinions ..."

Just because a "majority" may believe one thing, does not necessarily make it right. Let's travel back to the Middle Ages when the Church believed that the world was flat,


I think I am seeing the "problem" and you are beginning to confirm my suspicions and that is why I made this comment earlier:
I don't think you even bothered to read and/or ponder anything at all that EI just posted!

Putting my post back into proper context; "Forgot to add..." means that the following statement will belong to the previous post and will remain in the same context.

Referring to the PFRS "scholar's" misrepresentations, I said "of course, even if his source is an off-the-wall fringe group [that I have never heard of] to show the extreme, he should still be compelled by honesty to go with [ie. properly represent] the majority opinions [of what "traditional" dispies claim that they believe],! [emphasis mine]

If one's case is correct, there is no need to hold up a fringe group [if any] as mainstream, and there is certainly no need to "fabricate" a straw-man; so he is still not off the hook.!!!

I don't believe that I butcher the language that bad [EI's opinions not withstanding. ;-) ] that my point of emphasis was that easily misconstrued.

Mitchell said...

EI quotes, "It is not a twenty-four hour day, or one single event, but a period of time which starts after the Rapture of the church and incorporates the entirety of the Tribulation period…"

Wrong, and I am surprised that this keeps getting repeated. If this writer would only search the Scriptures instead of repeating pre-trib talking points, they would quickly discover that it is impossible that the Day of the Lord "incorporates the entirety of the Tribulation period." Here is why:

There are passages that absolutely forbid the "Day of the Lord" from overlapping the tribulation. The two are mutually exclusive.

Here are five examples:

1. Throughout the Old Testament, very specific celestial signs are associated with the coming of the Day of the Lord. The darkening of the sun and moon will usher in that day (Isa 13:9,10, Isa 24:19-23, Joel 3:13-15). Here is one example.

Joel 2:31 "The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

Matt 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

These verses establish a clear sequence of events. They place the cosmic signs, the darkening of the sun and moon, between the end of the tribulation and the beginning of the Day of the Lord. This absolutely forbids any overlapping of the tribulation into the Day of the Lord. They are distinct events. No other interpretation is possible without purposefully twisting these passages.

2. The very first time the Day of the Lord is mentioned in the Bible, the text clearly forbids associating it with the tribulation. Isaiah describes the "Day of the Lord" as follows:

Isa 2:10-19, "Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust, From the terror of the LORD And the glory of His majesty. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, The haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, And the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the LORD of hosts Shall come upon everything proud and lofty, Upon everything lifted up — And it shall be brought low — Upon all the cedars of Lebanon that are high and lifted up, And upon all the oaks of Bashan; Upon all the high mountains, And upon all the hills that are lifted up; Upon every high tower, And upon every fortified wall; Upon all the ships of Tarshish, And upon all the beautiful sloops. The loftiness of man shall be bowed down, And the haughtiness of men shall be brought low; The LORD alone will be exalted in that day, But the idols He shall utterly abolish. They shall go into the holes of the rocks, And into the caves of the earth, From the terror of the LORD And the glory of His majesty, When He arises to shake the earth mightily."

Twice these verses indicate that the Lord alone will be exalted in the Day of the Lord. This is an exclusive statement. No one else can be exalted or worshipped during the Day of the Lord. Yet, during the tribulation, the Antichrist will be worshipped as God (Rev 13:3-8,14, 2 Thess 2:344) and his image will be worshipped as well. Isaiah's statements about the Lord alone being exalted, and the idols being abolished during the Day of the Lord forbids any overlapping with the tribulation and reign of Antichrist.

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

3. Zechariah 14:7 indicates that the Day of the Lord may just be a 24 hour day. The Hebrew text says “one day” — “But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, [that] at evening time it shall be light.” (Also see Isaiah 10:17).

4. In Isaiah 13:9, Joel 2:1 and Zech 14:1 we read in each of these verses that “the Day of the Lord COMETH”, and in each verse the text immediately begins to describe the battle of Armageddon. The word “cometh” or "at hand" is the Hebrew word “bow” and it means "to come" or "arrive", and it implies the beginning of the Day of the Lord. In each case the arrival of the Day of the Lord brings about the battle of Armageddon.

5. Joel 3:9-17 describes the gathering of the armies of the nations around Jerusalem for the battle of Armageddon, the cosmic signs, and the coming of the Lord. AFTER the armies are gathered, but BEFORE the cosmic signs, Joel wrote that the Day of the Lord is “near.” The Hebrew word means “at hand,” “imminent,” or “next in sequence”. The Day of the Lord must begin AFTER the armies of the nations are gathered for the battle, which occurs at the end of the tribulation, according to Rev 16:13-16.

The pre-trib position tries to stretch the Day of the Lord into the tribulation, but no one has ever provided any biblical requirement for doing so -- because they can't. In fact, none of the Old Testament passages support this pre-trib idea, as we can clearly see above. It comes only from a preconceived assumption of a pre-trib rapture superimposed on the text. It is "reverse engineering" of the Scriptures in order to get the desired outcome rather than applying sound rules of interpretation.

Mitchell said...

EI quotes, "The Day of the Lord is always associated with the wrath of God and the judgment of God, while the Day of Christ is distinguished by the fact that it is universally spoken of as a time of blessing. Nothing is predicted as having to take place before the Day of Christ shall come, but the coming of the Day of the Lord is marked by signs in the heavens and notable events upon the earth. The Day of Christ concerns the Church and is to be looked forward to with anticipation…"

If there's one thing I agree with in the above quote, it is that the Day of Christ concerns the Church and is to be looked forward to. However, EI, please answer this question for me -- is not Christ the Lord? When we read in Zech 14:1-5, "Behold the day of the Lord cometh ... then shall the Lord go forth and fight ... and His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives ... and the LORD my God shall come and all the saints with Thee", do you not agree that the Lord whose feet will stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives is the Lord Jesus Christ? Since the Christ of the New Testament is so emphatically the Messiah of the Old, such a proposed distinction is shattered by one of the simplest facts of Scripture -- that "Jesus Christ is Lord." And if Christ is Lord, the Day of Christ is therefore the Day of the Lord. Here is why.

In numerous passages of Scripture the day of the Lord is connected with salvation and reward. Isa 35:4 says, "Behold your God shall come with vengeance, your God with a recompence; He will come and save you." In Isa 40:9-10 we read, "Behold your God! Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him: behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him..." This should sound familer to us, for in Rev 22:12 Jesus says, "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work." In Acts 2:20-21 we read that "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

In fact, the plain, straight-forward and direct statements of the Lord Christ Himself where He tells us when He will reward His disciples refutes Dr. Gerald Standon's assertion of a distinction between the "Day of Christ" and the "Day of the Lord". In Matt 16:27 Jesus says, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of the Father with His angels, and THEN He shall reward every man according to his works." This is where the judgment seat of Christ comes in. This is His post-tribulational coming! How do we know this? We see this repeated again in Matt chapters 24 and 25!

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

Again, in direct opposition of the so-called "distinction", we see in the Olivet Discourse that Christ depicts Himself coming as Lord after the tribulation (Matt. 24:42), as rewarding His servants (25:21,23), as Bridegroom, coming to the marriage (25:1-13), and as Shepherd-King with His flock (25:31-46). In fact, in 1 Thess 4 where we find one of the most popular rapture passages that pre-trib authors love to quote, there is no distinctive word of Him as Bridegroom, no word about bride or marriage, nor is there anything about Him rewarding His servants! There is, however, an eight-fold emphasis on His Lordship in chapter 4 alone! (1 Thess 4:1,2,6,15,15,16,17,17).

Just as the Lord is spoken of in Scripture by many titles and in many ways, it is always the same one Lord that the text speaks of. Likewise, that His day would also be spoken of in various ways yet be referring to one specific Day should be no surprise to us as well:

1. "the day" 1 Cor 3:13; Heb 10:25, 2 Pet 1:19.
2. "that day" 2 Tim 1:18,4:8.
3. "the day of Christ" Phil 1:10
4. "the day of Jesus Christ" Phil 1:6.
5. "the day of God" 2 Pet 3:12.
6. "the great day" Jude 6.
7. "the day of the Lord" 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10.
8. "the day of the Lord Jesus" 2 Cor 1:14.
9. "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" 1 Cor 1:8.

It should be noted that the Thessalonian passage does not even contain either of the phrases that Standon would claim as referring to the Day of Christ. Instead, the emphasis is on His Lordship. Thus, "the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout ... we shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air ... and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

In light of these undeniable facts, pre-trib's confusion over the "Day of Christ" and the "Day of the Lord" is more than evident. The fact that "Lord" is a repeated focus throughout numerous verses in the full context of 1 Thess 4 and 5, not to mention the fact that the Day of the Lord is also obviously associated with salvation and reward, should make it quite clear to us that "that day" which Paul speaks of in 1 Thess 5:4 is none other that the Day spoken of throughout the ages by the prophets of old -- the Day of the Lord.

Mitchell said...

EI quotes, "It hardly needs to be said that conclusions based upon faulty premises are likewise in error and must be rejected."

Amen to that. It is therefore now time to reject not only the premises upon which pre-tribism is built, but pre-tribism itself. ;-)

DrNofog said, "The Flat Earth Myth was an attack on "religion", and Christianity in particular, as an impediment to progressive science"

Thank you for sharing that. I heard about that before, and should have known, so I stand corrected. My prior point, however, is undiminished.

Time for bed!! My fingers hate me and I fear they will begin falling off come the morning ...

Expected Imminently said...

DrNofog

Great posts!

We all 'strangle the Kings English' at times, even the English, yet it is yielding enough to bend with it and be enriched by 'error's'. No complaints from me - I always have my intergalactic interpretor thingy to help me. Only one complaint, it refuses to make sense out of Covenant Theology/ PD interpretation!

Do you agree with the following distinctions?

Christ - The Anointed one, who came as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the whole world. Whose heart of love came to save man from the penalty of sin. Who has built a Church that is His Bride for whom He will take to Himself in the Pretrib Rapture before the judgments begin.

Lord - All Powerful, the mighty King, administers justice and will destroy his enemies with the sword from His mouth - His Word and will direct the judgments during the 7 year Tribulation.

Clear distinctions of who Jesus the Son of God is and His distinct roles. Like a Judge who can administer punishments upon criminals. Then return home to play piggyback with his children.:)
EI

Expected Imminently said...

We (Britain); have adopted one of your own New Yorkers. His name is James Jacob Prasch of ‘Moriel Ministries’, and although he is Midtrib (yet accepts imminency?) he is for me, a trusted Bible teacher that I respect.

Half Jewish Jacob teaches Midrash, and I think this is where Postribs fail to understand the teaching of Pretrib? A literal interpretation is of essence, and Midrash or type, will not change the literal meaning of a text, but rather develop the ‘mysterion’, or the veiled meanings in all Hebrew writings, even though written in Koine Greek. That is my poor attempt at the definition of Midrash. Jacob’s quote follows.

“If you look at the way the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it is clear that the apostles did not use western Protestant methods of exegesis or interpretation. Jesus was a rabbi. Paul was a rabbi. They interpreted the Bible in the way other rabbis did – according to a method called Midrash.”


http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/midrash.htm

DrNofog said...

Mitchell said...

"My prior point, however, is undiminished."

Your "prior point" was misconstruing what I said about the "majority opinion" and then going off on a tangent of whether or not the "majority opinion" could be wrong.

Or did you mean your "prior to that point" of posting PFRS's misrepresentation of TD's "majority" of beliefs??

Either way, your "prior point" is, in fact, diminished!

Nathan Jones said...

The New Jerusalem is not for 7 years but our home for eternity. It will come down to a revitalized Earth after the Millennial Kingdom (more info see The Earth in Prophecy).

EI and DrNoFog, we've been around and around and around with Mitchell for over a year. Your all's conversation could well go on into the eternal state! :)

Mitchell said...

EI says, "Clear distinctions of who Jesus the Son of God is and His distinct roles."

Dear sister, you are straining for "distinctions" that are unwarranted, and forcing a meaning that is not in the text. Is Jesus only Lord, or only the Christ, at any given time? Is He not both Christ and Lord and Savior and the Lamb of God together all at the same time? Was He God and man separately, or do you deny the hypostatic union?

The truth is that Jesus is all of these things and more together, at once. He is Lord, He is Christ, and Scripture bears this out repeatedly, even many times within the very same verse time and time again. Here are some examples:

Acts 10:36, "You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all."

Rom 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Rom 8:39, "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

1 Cor 1:2, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours"

1 Cor 1:9, "God [is] faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord."

2 Cor 11:31, "he God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not."

Gal 6:14, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

Phil 2:11, "And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Phil 3:20, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ"

1 Thess 1:1, "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians [which is] in God the Father and [in] the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Thess 2:19, "For what [is] our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? [Are] not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?"

1 Tim 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;"

1 Tim 1:14, "And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."

1 Tim 6:3, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness"

2 Pet 2:20, "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

And pay particular attention to 1 Thess 2:19 -- when Jesus returns He does not just return as either Christ, or Lord. He comes as Jesus Christ the Lord.

I can go on and on, but this will suffice.

Mitchell said...

EI says, "Who has built a Church that is His Bride for whom He will take to Himself in the Pretrib Rapture before the judgments begin."

EI, can you then explain to me why the Bride is described as being joined to Christ after the tribulation? If you don't believe me, you'll be quite amazed to read on...

It may be surprising to some, but the 144,000 are not mentioned until *AFTER* the tribulation. Even the second time they are mentioned in Rev 14:1 is in a post-trib context.

To begin, let's look at the list of the twelve tribes and how they are listed in Revelation 7. This is the only place in the Bible that the list appears in this form. In Hebrew they often named the child a word that had a phrase/meaning to the name. For example, when Leah gave birth to Judah she said “I will praise the Lord.” When Reuben was born she said “He has looked upon my affliction”. Normally the first born is listed first, but in this list in Revelation 7 Judah is listed first, not Reuben. Dan and Ephraim are completely left out, so it’s a very interesting list. Here is the list and order they appear in Revelation 7:

1. Judah
2. Reuben
3. Gad
4. Asher
5. Nepthalim
6. Manasses
7. Simeon
8. Levi
9. Issachar
10. Zabulon
11. Joseph
12. Benjamin

When we take the tribes as listed in that order, and then discover the meaning of and/or why those names were given, we get something interesting after constructing it in the order that the names are listed. Here are all the verses with the names: (KVJ/NASB):

Judah -- Gen 29:35 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, NOW WILL I PRAISE THE LORD, therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.

Reuben -- Gen 29:32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said Surely THE LORD HATH LOOKED UPON MY AFFLICTION; now therefore my husband will love me.

Gad -- Gen 30:11 Then Leah said, “HOW FORTUNATE!” So she named him Gad.

Asher -- Gen 30:13 And Leah said, HAPPY AM I for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.

Nepthalim -- Gen 30:8 And Rachel said, WITH GREAT WRESTLINGS HAVE I WRESTLED with my sister, and I have prevailed and she called his name Naphtali.

Manasses -- Gen 41:51 Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: “FOR GOD HATH MADE ME FORGET ALL MY TOIL and all my father’s house.”

Simeon -- Gen 29:33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, BECAUSE THE LORD HATH HEARD THAT I WAS HATED, HE HATH THEREFORE GIVEN ME THIS SON also: and she called his name Simeon

Levi -- Gen 29:34 “And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, NOW THIS TIME WILL MY HUSBAND BE JOINED UNTO ME, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi.

Issachar -- Gen 30:18 Then Leah said, “GOD HAS GIVEN ME MY WAGES because I gave my maid to my husband.” So she named him Issachar.

Zebulon -- Gen 30:20 Then Leah said, “GOD HAS ENDOWED ME WITH A GOOD GIFT; NOW MY HUSBAND WILL DWELL WITH ME, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun.

Joseph -- Gen 30:24 And she called his name Joseph; and said, THE LORD SHALL ADD TO ME another son.

Benjamin -- Gen 35:17-18 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; THOU SHALT HAVE THIS SON also. And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

--- Continued

Mitchell said...

Now, when we take them all and put them in the order that the tribes appear, we get the following:

“Now will I praise the LORD, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction, How fortunate!, Happy am I, With great wrestlings have I wrestled and I have prevailed, For God hath made me forget all my toil, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated he hath therefore given me this son, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, God has given me my wages, God has endowed me with a good gift; my husband will dwell with me, The LORD shall add to me, thou shalt have this son.”

Benjamin literally means “Son of My right hand” so another reading of the last portion could be “The LORD shall add to me the Son of [His] right hand.”

The way that they are listed describes the Bride of Christ and the battle between good and evil. This is the complete story of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ marrying His bride after delivering her from her affliction.

John 17:14-17 Jesus prays, “I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

Mark 13:19 “For [in] those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.”

Eph 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”

Who is His bride? The 12 Tribes of Israel were listed. The Bride of Christ is ISRAEL!! It always has been! And to be more specific, spiritual Israel! Though God has made promises to national Israel and will restore them (Rom 11:26), spiritual Israel is all believing Jews, *and* now it is also all believing Gentiles who have been grafted in (Rom 2:28-29). You and I are a part of Israel, for we have received circumcision of the heart. WE ARE A PART OF JACOB, for we have become fellow citizens with the saints and are members of the household of God. We are ONE body, and it is no surprise to me that after John describes the 144,000 that he then sees a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations (including Israel!), and kindreds, and people, and tongues standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

Ephesians 2:11-16,19-20, “Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh–who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands–that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who HAS MADE BOTH ONE, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, [that is], the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances, so as to create in Himself ONE new man [from] the two, [thus] making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God IN ONE BODY through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity… Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[stone]...”

-- Continued

Mitchell said...

Ephesians 5:31-32, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

Acts 7:37-38, “This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was IN THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us”

The timing of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb proves this as well, and like everything else in Scripture, points directly to a post-trib rapture. Where does John place the Marriage Supper of the Lamb? After the tribulation.

Rev 19:2-3,6-7, "For true and righteous [are] his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever ... And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready."

Who is the multitude? It is the exact same great multitude that came out of the Great Tribulation in Rev 7. After just describing the cosmic signs that Jesus says will happen immediately after the tribulation, John writes in Rev 7:9,14, "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb ... These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

As you can see from the real meaning of the 144,000, this is when the Church is married to the Lord Jesus Christ, not at a pre-trib rapture which is nowhere to be found.

Mitchell said...

DrNofog says, "Your "prior point" was misconstruing what I said about the "majority opinion" and then going off on a tangent of whether or not the "majority opinion" could be wrong."

Are you saying that just because the majority of Christians in the west believe in a pre-trib rapture, that all Christians everywhere should therefore believe it too?

My previous point still stands brother.

Expected Imminently said...

Nathan

Uh hu! Don't know if you noticed, but Mitchell is like one of those battery toys that don't stop until they run out of juice! Only one little word, not even directed to him. and he gets a recharge, and off he goes again.

He just keeps 'talking', he doesn't need a response 'cause he makes up his own reply on what he thinks folk have said. Does anyone actually read them? Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!
EI

DrNofog said...

#130... Mitchell said...

"Scripture always points to a post-trib rapture:

Paul ties in the gathering with the Day of the Lord (2 Thess 2:1), which comes immediately after the tribulation -- post-trib
[No, M inserts DOTL in PTR verse]
Jesus teaches the gathering is immediately after the tribulation (Matt 24:29-31) -- post-trib [Yes, for the Sheep/Goat judgment - PTR was 7yrs earlier]

Paul says the dead in Christ rise first before the rapture (1 Thess 4:16) and John puts this first resurrection after the tribulation (Rev 20:5) -- post-trib [Before?!? = reading/comprehension problem identified here. Count= 1- Lord himself descends, 2- loud command, 3- voice, 4- trumpet, 5- dead in Christ NT saints will rise first., 6- we which remain...clearly ordered PTR events. Rev20 = OT saints for the Sheep/Goat judgment]

We meet Jesus in the air and escort Christ immediately to earth per the "apantesis" of 1 Thess 4:17 -- post-trib [Wrong - No mention of return here, clearly leaves us in the air, with Him forever. He receives & "escorts" us to the place prepared]

The Blessed Hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2, 2:13) is actualized at the "epiphaneia" of Christ (2 Thess 2:8) -- post-trib [M inserts "blessed" at 1.2 where it is only found at 2.13 "blessed hope— the glorious appearing"]

The rapture is found in Revelation 10 at the last trump -- post-trib ["Rapture not found. Start new search?"... last trump of which "age"?]
Not appointed to wrath is always "orge" wrath only, which is only found after the tribulation (Rev 6:17,11:18,14:10,16:19,19:15)-- post-trib [this in spite of Alan trumping you that the words are interchangeable?]

The Marriage Supper of the Lamb is after the tribulation (Rev 19:2-3,6-7) -- post-trib

Jesus must remain in heaven (Acts 3:21) until the restoration of all things -- post-trib [Millennial verse not in dispute as air, -1Thes.4:16-17, is part of the heavens -Gen. 1, He does not visibly return to the "earth" at PTR]

Peter suggests that we will be here to witness the revealing (apokalypsis) of the glory of Christ (1 Pet 4:13) -- post-trib [we will witness... M inserts "here". No reference to which appearing -PTR]

We will only appear with Christ when He appears [made manifiest, visible, realized] (Col 3:4), which is after the tribulation (Mat 24:29-31) -- post-trib [Saints in heaven during Trib appear in glory with Him, white robes, body like Him, M inserts "only", confuses Col. 3.4 PTR with Matt 24.]

The "144,000" (Rev 7:4) are only seen by John after the tribulation, and the meaning of the 144,000 reveals the union of Christ's elect with Him -- post-trib [Wrong conclusion, since they are seen again in Rev 14:1-5 while the Trib is still ongoing!]

When I see what you do with scripture, I just have to shake my poor hurting head and think: Mitchell..., Mitchell..., Mitchell..., what were you thinking...???

DrNofog said...

#131... Mitchell said...

DrNofog says, "Your "prior point" was misconstruing what I said about the "majority opinion" and then going off on a tangent of whether or not the "majority opinion" could be wrong."

Are you saying that just because the majority of Christians in the west believe in a pre-trib rapture, that all Christians everywhere should therefore believe it too?

My previous point still stands brother.


No! I clearly said no such thing! What I'm saying is that I think your misunderstandings are due to the fact that you seem to have a reading/comprehension disability to some degree. [and I am NOT trying to be mean or disrespectful]

So for the 3rd time, and I will use different words to convey my statement:
-that it is dishonest to misrepresent a "commonly held belief system that would be found in "any sized group" irregardless of whether "they" are a minority "sized" group, or a majority "sized" group, AND irregardless of whether that "commonly held belief system is right or wrong at the point of first "presenting their opinions", PRIOR to disputing it!!!

Perhaps I can further illustrate this better by correcting your question posed here. "...the majority of Christians in the west believe..." a mix of things and PTR is most certainly NOT the majority "sized" group at all, due to the end-time apostasia! While Amillennialist, from what I have heard, seem to be the majority "sized" group, their "commonly held belief system amongst themselves, which uniquely identifies them as "Amillennialists", is certainly NOT the "commonly held belief system or "majority opinon" [if you will] of all "Christians in the west". The same could be said of any of the other groups in Christendom; Preterists, PDs, TDs, PTRs, all have their own "commonly held belief system or "majority opinions" amongst themselves, which uniquely identifies them...

Would you feel it proper to find a small, fringe sect of Amillennialists to represent "their" "majority opinion"??
Would you feel it proper to fabricate a straw-man to represent "their" "majority opinion"??

What I have been saying is that the "belief system" of "any sized group" should be accurately put forth according to what they say about themselves, NOT what we think they believe. Then, and only then, are you free to debate whether they are right or wrong!

So where, in all that I have said, is there anything that would remotely bring you to this assumption and question?!?
"Are you saying that just because the majority of Christians in the west believe in a pre-trib rapture, that all Christians everywhere should therefore believe it too?"

DrNofog said...

#132...
Nathan...
Have we hit the Guinness record yet or do we have a way to go yet?
;-D

Expected Imminently said...

DrNofog said “…Alan trumping you that the words are interchangeable?...”

Is that what that was, Alan was trumping me - you DO mean what I mean dontcha - a botty burp?

DrNofog! Respect bro. I bin gone an glazed over.
EI

DrNofog said...

EI...
Alan followed on the heels of your list asserting his Masters degree in Greek, studied Greek at Harvard Divinity, and am in a Ph.D. program in Greek, & then "trumps" Mitchell's statements with the following: "Thumos and orge are synonyms for God's wrath _where the context allows for it._ Further, just because the word orge (or for that matter thumos) is not found in a particular passage in Revelation does not mean that passage is not talking about God's wrath." Soooo, you lost me on that last one [speakin' that ferreign stuff again...]
In cards, the "trump card" takes all... Is that wut sent you careening off into left field?

DrNofog said...

EI said...
"Is that what that was, Alan was trumping me - you DO mean what I mean dontcha - a botty burp?"

DrNofog's brows furrow deeply... "Of all my tight-wadded ideas!... Why did I think it wuz totally unnecessary to buy that "19th & 20th Century Brit-Lang" upgrade?!?..." as he slams his Inter-Galactic translator on the console.

"trumping...", and "a botty burp?"...??? Such a ferrin language!

Apprehensive, to say the least, to discover the meaning: Who? He thinks... Who do I know that might have that upgrade?

DrNofog said...

P.S. "ferrin" is NOT derogatory. It's all-American, Arkansas red-neck speak for "foreign". As in "Them d^mn ferriners!"
;-D

Expected Imminently said...

DrNofog

Fret not lad, I aknowded wot yer ment. Gabby Hayes sp? taut I thatun on is chuck wagon on the films.

However, she said lowering her voice, have never been able to discover what a 'red neck' is? Is it a sore from sunburn making peeps a bit testy?
EI

Anonymous said...

Quoting someone from above.

Matt 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

Oops. Has the moon been darkened or is it red like blood?

If we wanna get Greek specific what does the Greek tell us?

And I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; Rev 6:12