Results 1 - 20 of 78
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184636 | ||
Hi Brian, From the wording of your question I presume you would like me to reply. Your first question would require a long winded reply so I will leave it. Are we in a race in which we have been passed on the baton? See Hebrews 12.1-2 along with chapter 11. What happens to the sheep nations? If we accept Jesus answer to the question at face value they go immediately into everlasting life or everlasting punishment (Matthew 25.48). God has been reigning over the earth from the beginning of time (Psalm 22.28; 103.19; 93.1; 97.1; 99.1). Christ began reigning over the earth when He ascended into Heaaven and was enthroned (Acts 2.36; Ephesians 1.19-22). The souls of the departed began to reign over the earth when they died (Revelation 20.4). There is no suggestion anywhere that they reign ON the earth. Satan has been bound since Christ came and bound him (Mark 3.27 and parallels) and will continue to be so until he is let loose. We are the remnant of Israel over whom He reigns. |
||||||
2 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184611 | ||
Hi Jeff, I note your comments. One problem, however, as I'm sure you will have appreciated if you have noted the people to whom I have directed replies, is that I have been bombarded with 'replies to your posting' to which in courtesy I have had to provide replies. I do not like to refuse an answer to someone who contacts me through the forum however difficult the question, indeed it would be wrong for me to do so. And I have received a constant stream of questions. With regard to angles I am sure you will be aware that different Biblical writers do write from different angles For example the authors of the former prophets strongly emphasise God as the first cause of everything, thus saying that God caused David to number Israel. The Chronicler looking from a different angle says that it was Satan who caused David to number Israel. The writer in Ecclesiastes takes up a very different angle from the Psalmists. Daniel approaches things from a different angle to the other prophets. The Gospel writers each approach the life of Jesus from a different angle. Paul undoubtedly writes from a very different angle to that of James. The book of Revelation writes from John's own particular visionary and apocalyptic angle. Thus in the midst of unity there is great diversity, which is a very good thing as the Scriptures are not just for Western minds or for scholars. Eastern minds will interpret them very differently from us, and so will the young. And each of us will see them differently as we advance in age and spiritual maturity. But that is the genius of the Scriptures. For they are greater than all of us. And even Dr Scofield did not comprehend them all as B B Warfield and Edward J Young among others pointed out :-)))). That is why the Scriptures can be read both by children and by greybeards and be helpful to both. And they are so spiritually deep and extensive in what they teach that every single one of us can only hope to grasp facets of the truth even after a lifetime of study. Thus each of us must inevitably approach things from the angle of the position we have reached, and the particular emphases with which we have been brought into contact. So I can't quite agree that there are no angles in Scripture, even if we ignore the different angles from which we approach them. They are deliberately written in order meet a diversity of needs, and to provide for growth in knowledge and understanding over long lives. The truth of Scripture is unchanging, but our intepretation of it is ever changing. And it will be a sad day for us when that ceases to be so. Not everyone will agree with what I put forward, any more than I agree with all that they put forward,but it is precisely because I back up my arguments with Scripture that they have to be so detailed. And I do not think you can genuinely accuse me of not focusing on the truth of God's word. With regard to my profile originally I only provided my email address and it was suggested to me that I should put in my website address. With all best wishes Jonp | ||||||
3 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184603 | ||
Hi Thank you Brad for your advice. I am sure you are trying to be helpful. It is however a little difficult to be brief when questions are asked which require detailed and complicated answers, and detailed back up from Scripture. Especially when I am then criticised for not explaining enough. With regard to forum rules and guidelines I consider that I have quite satisfactorily maintained them. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
4 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184600 | ||
Hi Thank you Searcher for your kind advice. I was advised by the powers that be that there was no problem with putting my site in my details. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
5 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184599 | ||
Hi Thank you Searcher for your kind advice. I was advised by the powers that be that there was no problem with putting my site in my details. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
6 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184592 | ||
Hi stj. I did not think your repentance would last long :-)))). Perhaps you should equally apply your words to yourself? Are you really walking in the truth? That is of course something that you must judge for yourself. I would not dare to try to make such a judgment on one of Christ's own. Who am I to pass judgment on one of Christ's servants?. It is to your own Master that you stand or fall (Romans 14.4). Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God -- so each of us shall give account of himself to God (Romans 14.10-12). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
7 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184591 | ||
Hi stj The one problem I have with your outline is that you are not doing what Jesus did, focus on His church and what He is doing today. Most of what you have described focuses on what you think will happen after the rapture, all of which will not affect us, and is based on one or two very doubtfully interpreted Scriptures (Daniel 9; Revelation 20). Your idea of the Great Tribulation is not mentioned in the Bible (you read your interpretation into it), who the 144,000 are is very much disputed (James calls the whole church the twelve tribes of Israel - James 1.1), and no reign of Christ ON earth is mentioned even in Revelation 20. So your summary is very lopsided. The whole of the Old and New Testament is summarily dealt with, and you concentrate on one or two controversial ideas. By all means hold on to them if they help you but do also recognise that neither Jesus, not Paul and Peter, saw them as important enough to mention. Perhaps you might do well to follow their example rather than that of Dr Scofield. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
8 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184590 | ||
Hi Brian. The word Basileia actually refers to 'Kingly Rule' and not to a 'Kingdom'. A Basileia reaches as far as the king's influence and no further. The church ('congregation') are the true congregation of Israel. Old and new Israel are not my ideas. They are the ideas of Jesus and of Paul. The church has not 'taken up' the responsibility of others, it has fulfilled its own responsibility as the continuing Israel. Peter and the other Apostles, including Paul, would have denied hotly that they were replacing Israel. Peter addresses the church as 'the Dispersion' (Israel scatted abroad). James calls them 'the twelve tribes of Israel. The Apostles saw themselves as carrying forward their task as the renewed Israel. The Kingly Rule of God began at creation. It will never end, for it is everlasting. But it was especially brought home on earth by Jesus Christ as He brought the Kingly Rule of God to men's attention and sought to draw men into it. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
9 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184589 | ||
Hi stj, nobly put and I accept it in the spirit in which it is given. I can assure you that I am as hot for the truth of the word of God as you are, but I do recognise that it comes to us from many angles. Nor am I ever cavalier in my attitude towards it. I am too conscious that I am dealing with the word of God. But for that very reason it is necessary to go back to what was originaly given. And that is what Bible translators try to do. But it can never be done perfectly. And despite the claims of some, no one, not even the most fervent literalist, ever takes the Bible wholly literally, for it is not written in that way. Thus what we must each do is seek to obtain a balance. Very best wishes Jonp | ||||||
10 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184588 | ||
Hi WOS Out of courtesy I will reply, at least partially, to your criticisms, but may I suggest that if you seriously wish to take them up with me you do so by email. As I see it the forum is for positive Biblical contributions, not discussions on each other (we have wandered far from the tree of life). My email address is given in my details. I would however lovingly suggest that I have not ever called the kettle black. I constantly strive not to blacken others, and especially not simply because they disagree with me. I recognise that we are all sincerely seeking to find the truth, and will hold many different positions. When I put my points over (apart from when I am answering posts like this one) I always try to do so positively citing Scriptural backing, or in some cases the very surprising lack of it. I am not surprised that you find the situation confusing. That is one of the problems of having to deal with a vast and complicated subject by answering totally different types of questions in smallish snippets. To set out my position fully (as for anyone seeking to set out a position) I would have to write a book. As Jesus and Paul were not seeking to attack Millennialism there was no reason why they should mention it negatively if they did not believe in it, but as they both dealt constantly with eschatological matters I would certainly have expected them to mention it had they actually believed in it. The fact that they did not would be quite extraordinary. The argument from silence is therefore sound. With regard to your suggestion of lack of clarity. Has it struck you that those who are 'clear' on such a vast and complicated subject, are the ones who are naive and just accept a simplistic position? The only problem is that their 'clarity' results from ignoring everything that disagrees with their position. The Bible is in fact a vast and complicated book looking at things from many different angles. Thus bringing it all together is a huge and complicated task. I love your definition of me as 'a semi-partial preterist with a futurist impression'. Does it not strike you that that might support my position? The reason that there are both preterists and futurists among genuinely seeking Bible students is precisely because something of both positions is found in Scripture. I would therefore expect a balanced student to come somewhere between the two. With regard to Baruch, as with all such literature there is a problem with dating, but it was certainly early enough to have affected Papias' position (which was partly my point as Papias is the first known example of millemarianism, excluding a possible but doubtful reference in Revelation 20 which you will note does not mention a reign ON EARTH) and that must almost certainly date it in 1st century AD. As there was no New Testament as such until the mid-second century AD (only individial books being slowly gathered together)it can therefore be described as intertestamental. Furthermore there is little doubt in most scholars minds that it reflects earlier Jewish teaching. But I do not want to make a big thing about it. I was responding to a request for evidence of my statement that Jewish literature was partly responsible for millennial belief in the early church. It is irrelevant to Biblical exposition. With regard to the use of what you call 'symbolism' (a rather loaded term as it simply suggests not being literal, as though being 'literal' was somehow superior, while in fact most language is symbolic) we all have to feel our way through what is to be taken absolutely literally and what is to be taken as only partially so. To take the simple example of Jesus' statement 'if any man does not hate his father and mother he cannot be my disciple'. I hope none of us would take His words literally. The truth is we constantly have to read into statements and interpret them. Like others I do so the best I can. I would certainly never claim to be always right. Only an arrogant fool would do so. But with regard to books like the Book of Revelation I am always careful to interpret its symbolism in the light of other Scriptures, for that is what the write intended. It is chock full of references to earlier Scripture. If you do wish to take up anything of this, please do so by email so that we do not unnecessarily bore the forum. I have already been accused of doing so :-))))). Of course I recognise that what bores some, interests others. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
11 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184564 | ||
Dear Brother stj, May I lovingly suggest that you consider whether your recent submissions are honouring to Christ and in accordance with His teaching. Failing I may be as a disciple of Jesus, I have never suggested otherwise, but I would remind you that whatever you say about one who belongs to Christ you say to Christ Himself (Acts 9.4). With genuine love in Christ Jonp | ||||||
12 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184563 | ||
Hello Steve, I am quite happy for you to take up whatever position you consider agrees with the Scriptures, Indeed that is what I would expect of you. I am quite prepared to let each person judge for themslves by comparing the Scriptures. You asked me questions and I showed you the courtesy of replying to them. I have lived long enough not to try to get Christians to change their mind. In response to questions I have stated my case. I am then happy to leave it with God to reveal to people what He wills. But if you do not find the silence of both Jesus and Paul convincing I do. No modern teacher who believed in the Millennium would have been so silent about it. I have constantly stated, however, that I do not think a person's view about the supposed Millennium is important. It is a peripheral doctrine and not central to the Christian faith or to the evangelical position. If you find it helpful by all means hold on to it. For myself I found that discovering what I see as the truth about it made the Bible come alive to me in a new way. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
13 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184562 | ||
Hello Brian. You have asked me to define the Kingly Rule of God. The Kingly Rule of God has in one sense been established in Heaven right from the beginning (see Psalm 22.28 - 'the Kingly Rule is of the LORD, and He rules over the nations'. See also Psalm 103.19). God's original aim was to establish His Kingly Rule over Israel (Deuteromy 33.5) but this aim was thwarted by their rebellion (1 Samuel 8.7). They rejected His Kingship. The prophets therefore began to look for it to be established in the future. Thus when John the Baptist came he informed Israel that the Kingly Rule of God was at hand. Now they were again to be given the opportunity of coming under His Kingly Rule. Jesus emphasised that by casting out evil spirits He had demonstrated that the Kingly Rule of God had come upon them (Matthew 12.28). Thus He could say, 'the Kingly Rule of God is among you' (Luke 17.21). All who would could come and respond to Him and as a result they would come under the Kingly Rule of God. Indeed tax collectors and sinners were already flocking into it (Matthew 21.31). But no one could 'see' it unless they were 'born from above' (John 3.3). So in order to enter into it men had to be born from above by The Spirit of God (John 3.5-6). It was being established through the preaching of the word (Matthew 13). This establishment of God's Kingly Rule as something open to all who would respond to Jesus is common in the New Testament (compare Acts 28.21; Romans 14.17). But there is also a future aspect to the Kingly Rule of God, which again is constantly emphasised, and that is the everlasting Kingly Rule of God in Heaven (Matthew 5.10; 7.21; 8.11-12 and often). Many references could in fact refer to both. This is not surprising for God is the King and all those who have submitted to His rule by believing in Jesus and accepting Him as their Lord will come under His rule both in this world and the next. As a result of the failure of many Jews to respond to Him Jesus declared that 'The Kingly Rule of God will be taken away from you, and given to a nation producing its fruits' (Matthew 21.43). For Jesus had come as the true Vine, the representative of the true Israel (John 15.1; Matthew 2.15). All who were united with Him by being fruitful branches of the vine would become part of the new Israel. The remainder were cast off. For He had come to found His new 'congregation' (of Israel) on the rock of His Messiahship (Matthew 16.18). This new Israel was formed first of the Apostles and their fellow disciples and then grew rapidly after Pentecost as many Jews were 'added to the congregation' (the 'congregation' (ekklesia) was a word used to describe Israel in the Old Testament). Israel had always accepted Gentiles into the covenant when they sought the God of Israel (as long as they would be circumcised), and soon the Apostles were guided to allow Gentiles to enter the congregation. That caused a dispute as to whether they needed to be circumcised. This demonstrates that they all saw these Gentiles as becoming a part of Israel as it was formulated from the beginning. The decision made was that it was unnecessary because they were united with Christ and had therefore already been circumcised in the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11). Paul makes clear in Romans 11.17-28 that these Gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree of the covenant, while the Jews who have not believed in Jesus have been cast off and are therefore no longer a part of the covenant. Israel is now made up of both Jews and Gentiles who have become a part of the household of God (Ephesians 2.13-22) through faith in Jesus. So the new Israel, which is the genuine Israel united with Christ as the true Vine (as opposed to the false vine of the old Israel), have replaced those who saw themselves as the old Israel. The new 'nation' has replaced the old. All the promises therefore now apply to the new Israel, because they are the true Israel, and it is they who are the true sons of Abraham (Galatians 3.28-29). This is the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 6.16). I feel that is sufficient for this post so I will deal with the remainder of your question in another posting. Best wishes Jonp. |
||||||
14 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184555 | ||
Hi again Brian. My previous note may well have raised questions in your mind. May I just therefore add a few words about the interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. In Genesis 13.15-17 God promised to Abraham, 'all the land which you see I will give you and to your descendants for ever. -- I will gve it to you.' Note the 'for ever'. How was Abraham to see this? Hebrews 11.10, 14-16 tells us. 'He looked forward to the city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God -- people who speak thus make clear that they are seeking a country If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city'. These words come in the midst of a series of practical fulfilments. What better evidence that earthly promises are to be seen as pointing to heavenly fulfilment? Compare again Haggai 2.6-8. 'Once again in a little while I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the sea and the dry land --'. Compare Hebrews 12.27. 'This phrase "yet once more" indicates the removal of what is shaken, in order that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken,--.' Once again the prophecy is interpreted in heavenly terms. Note also how the reference in Haggai to the riches of the nations is interpreted in Revelation 21.24, 26 in terms of the everlasting kingdom. Compare also how in Hebrews 12.22 the writer says, 'We have come to Mount Zion', (that is, what the old Testament has been speaking of when it spoke of Mount Zion). And what does it signify? It signifies the city of the living God (which Abraham had been seeking) the heavenly Jerusalem, which is where the angels are gathered and where the glorified people of God can be found, 'the spirits of just men made perfect'. It is thus clear that the word of God constantly interprets Old Testament promises in heavenly terms. Paul does the same when he declares that the true spiritual descendants look to the heavenly Jerusalem and not to the earthly (Galatians 4.25-26). One more example and I will finish. If we take Isaiah 2.2 literally it means that the (so-called) coming Temple is to be built on Mount Zion. But in Ezekiel 43 it is made clear that the coming Temple will be built in a holy place, surrounded by a large holy area, both of which are outside Jerusalem. If these prophecies are to be taken literally they are clear contradictions. However if we see them both as pointing ahead, first to the building of the Temple which is the people of God, founded on Christ (1 Corinthians 3.10-16; Ephesians 2.18-22), and then to the heavenly Temple, all is resolved. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
15 | emotion and soul | Gen 2:7 | jonp | 184554 | ||
Hi The temr 'spirit' can refer to the Holy Spirit, it can refer to an evil spirit, and it can be used to describe the inner man, our 'spirit' The 'spirit of fear, love and sound judgment' is the latter. It does not refer to 'a spirit', but to the man's own spirit through which he has contact with God. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
16 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184553 | ||
Hi Steve, You will note that what I have done is put up possibilities, and explained the Hebrew. I have been very careful not to be dogmatic. But I must point out that 'the literal statements' are in Hebrew and that we must therefore ask ourselves how the people of Israel would have interpreted them, for the Scriptures were initially addressed to them. And there is no doubt that the people of Israel used 'bore' and 'begat' in a much wider sense than we do today, (as indeed did all the nations round about). It is of course possible that there were two Amrams, each of whom was married to a Jochebed. I have no quarrel with that as a possibility. And it widens the options. Thank you for mentioning it. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
17 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184552 | ||
Hi Steve. Thank you for your courteous reply. What I actually said was that Baruch was the source from which Papias and Irenaeus quoted. If you will compare their quotations with Baruch I think you will agree. (I did not say that it was the source of Revelation 20). So we are left with Revelation 20 as the only New Testament source for possible teaching on the millennium, something which is quite remarkable if the doctrine is true. Clearly neither Jesus nor Paul thought it important enough to mention it. Perhaps we might learn a lesson from them? However I will try to give a brief resume of what I see to be the meaning of Revelation 20. In my view Revelation is split up into a number of visions each of which leads up to the second coming. Thus we have Revelation 6 which ends with His coming being implied in verse 17. We have Revelation 14 which ends with His coming in verses 14-20. We have Revelation 16 which ends with His implied coming in verses 19-21. We have 17-19 which ends with His coming in 19.11-21. And now chapter 20 which ends with His coming in verses 11-15, a depiction from another angle of what we find in Matthew 25.31-46. All are of course using metaphorical language. The reality will be beyond description. It will be such that it COULD NOT be described literally. So coming to Revelation 20 (in the short space permitted). Firstly Satan is bound. That event is described also by Jesus in Matthew 12.29; Mark 3.27; compare Luke 11.20-22. And this binding is for 'a thousand years' (i.e. a long time of unknown duration, compare 2 Peter 3.8). AFTER that he is loosed for a little while as described in 9.1-11; 12.12. Then we go back in time from the end of the 'thousand years' and see thrones set and those to whom judgment is committed. This is described by Jesus in Matthew 19.28; Luke 22.28-30. Along with the Apostles are all the martyred saints sharing in their triumph. They too all reign with Christ over the 'thousand years' that lie ahead. Along with them we have the company of all believers who have not worshipped the beast or accepted 'the mark of the beast'. These have taken part in the first resurrection. The first resurrection is described in Ephesians 1.19-2.6; John 5.24-25; Romans 6.4, 11; Philippians 3.20). For all of us who are in Christ have been raised with Him and are seated with Him in heavenly places. We share with the heavenly saints in the glory of His rule (Hebrews 12.22-24). Compare Revelation 5.10. You will note that I am taking Scripture literally. We are delivered from the second death, and reign with Him. Then Satan will be released for his short period (verse 3; 9.1-11; 12.12) until Jesus' coming brings about his defeat. At that point the 'second resurrection' will take place (John 5.28-29; 1 Thessalonians 4.15-16; 1 Corinthians 15). Finally comes the judgment of the end times. You will note that all my interpretations are based on solid Scripture and that all the incidents described have previously been described in Scripture as happening before Christ's second coming. It really is in my view too much of a coincidence that Revelation 20 follows exactly the pattern which occurred before Jesus'coming, if it does not apply to that. With all best wishes. Jonp | ||||||
18 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184551 | ||
Hi WOS, Well now you have me quite frankly puzzled. How can I possibly give a credible source for what I believe to be erroneous teaching? That is precisely my point. That early millennial belief, before the church as a whole condemned it, was based precisely on such undependable documents as I cited. There are no credible documents which teach a millennium in the sense in which millennialists teach it. I do not actually want you to buy in to millennial teaching. I was rather answering the question as to which intertestamental teaching was responsible for erroneous doctrine. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
19 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184550 | ||
Hi CDBJ The Gospel message is the whole of the Old and New Testaments, beginning at Genesis 3.15, (although the creation was also good news) as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is that the Kingly Rule of God has come and all who believe in Jesus may enter it and receive all the benefits that He has bought for them. I like your quotation. Nothing about a Tribulation period and a Millennium there. Good sound Christian doctrine. Yes I am very satisfied with it. And yet it does not mention the heavenly kingdom so it does not cover the whole of the good news or of the doctrine of salvation. After all that is not what Paul is trying to do, and I would not want to pick on him and pull him up because he does not include everything in one statement. Oh how I wish it was true that the majority of believers were relying on Bible doctrine and God's promises. What a saintly church you must belong to. The problem is (as any godly American minister will tell you) that far too many are depending on promises made in books which put on a pretence of being Scriptural and then make outlandish claims. Of course it is not possible to state in a few sentences what all Americans believe. To pretend to be able to do so would be absurd. Many are a-millennialists. Some are no doubt post-millennialist, and then we have pre-tribulational, mid-tribulational and post tribulational pre millennialists. But there is no doubt that the American church and the American public is bombarded with eschatological teaching much of which is of an extreme kind (in a way that is not true of the rest of the world), and that large numbers of American Christians spend too much time on thinking about eschatology at the cost of sound doctrine (and I have this on the word of godly American preachers). Equally of course there are good numbers who do not. In the end American belief is as diverse as that anywhere else. It is just that some emphases are different in different parts of the world, and one of the emphases of the American church is on eschatology, something which cannot honestly be denied. Yes like the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 11 I am 'proud' of being in a long line of saints, in which I have been placed as a result of the grace of God,and as the Scriptures tell me to do I look at them and rejoice in what they accomplished and then in the greater illumination God gave in the New Testament which I can enjoy, so that I can then look off to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of my faith. Do you not? May I suggest that you read Hebrews 11-12. May I also suggest that it is neither gracious nor helpful simply to take statements out of context and make them mean what every sensible person knows that they do not mean? We are supposed to be trying to understand each other, not getting at each other. All I have done is explain my position to people who have been asking about it, having first of all tried to dissuade them from asking. Genuine cordial best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
20 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184531 | ||
Hi Brian, I can clearly only deal with your question quickly but the answer is simple. The prophecies cover three periods. Firstly the time when God brought Israel back to its land and gave them prosperity, secondly the period of the Kingly Rule of God established by Jesus over the new Israel of God (Galatians 6.16; John 15.1-6), and thirdly the period of the everlasting kingdom, given in language that the people at the time could understand. Thus Joel 2.21-27 comes BEFORE the pouring out of the Spirit which Peter applied to Pentecost in Acts 2.18. In Joel 2.20 we are told that 'Judah will be inhabited for ever, and Jerusalem to all generations'. That requires everlastingness. Isaiah 35.1-2 was fulfilled prior to the coming of Jesus while verses 3-9 are fulfilled in the coming of Jesus (compare Matthew 11.3-5), and verse 10 refers to the everlasting kingdom, the only place where everlasting joy could be obtained. Isaiah 2.2-4 was fulfilled in the coming of Christ and the sending out of the Gospel. It was describing how Jerusalem would be the place where God revealed His blessing, followed by the new Temple of God's people becoming the source of life to the world. Acts 15.16-18 demonstrates the fulfilment of Amos 9.9-12, while the remainder speaks of the everlasting kingdom in idealistic terms. Note again 'they will never again be plucked up out of the land'. That requires everlastingness, not just a millennium. Micah 4.17 is not in my Bible :-)) Isaiah 11.4-10 is again describing the everlasting kingdom (do you really think it could happen at the same time as blood offerings were being made in the Temple?). Compare Isaiah 65.25 which is specifically in the new heavens and the new earth (65.17). Zephaniah 3.20 was partially fulfilled when Israel was restored prior to the coming of Christ, verse 19 in the coming of Christ. Habakkuk 2.14 is in process now, and will receive its final fulfilment in the everlasting kingdom. Haggai 2.7-9 had a partial fulfilment in the Temple of Herod, and a final fulfilment in the new Temple of God composed of His people, followed by the Temple in Heaven. Zechariah 8.3-5 is pictured in a slightly different way in Revelation 21.22-27. Zechariah 14.16-21 is a picture in terms in which the people could understand of everlasting worship, stressing why it will be universal. Jeremiah 31.31-34 speaks of the new covenant made by Christ and fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of God. Jeremiah 33.12-26 cannot possibly refer to a period that will end for it promises 'there will NEVER lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel', while the covenant with David is so everlasting (compare Isaiah 55.3) that it cannot ever be broken. This requires an everlasting kingdom. Ezekiel 36.33-38 took place during the restoration period. Ezekiel 37.24-28 (why omitted?), 'David my servant will be prince for ever' and 'my sanctuary is in the midst of them for evermore' again requires an everlasting kingdom. Revelation 20.4-6 refers to Christ's victory in the present age. I will later post evidence of this if you wish. Meanwhile you must be careful not to just ignore the significance of everlastingness. The answer to the remainder lies in the establishment of God's Kingly Rule in the church followed by the everlasting kingdom. Running out of space Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |