Rev 4 & 11: The Rapture of the Church?

[Solly]

Could someone explain how the rapture of the church is found in these verses from Revelation.

Revelation 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.2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Moi: Christ is talking to John on the island of Patmos, After spending some time dictating correspondence to 7 churches, he then takes John in hand to give him an eyeful of the behind the scenes events that underlie what is going on around him, and in the future. There is absolutely NOTHING here about the rapture of the church. What is particularly noticeable is the use of personal pronouns:
Revelation 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.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

If all future history is laid out in these chapters of Rev, then why is this required of the raptured church: Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

I find only one man, going up for a look around, since there is no historical or biblical record that John was translated to heaven.

Revelation 11.7,12 ...kill them... And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

Moi: This tells me only two men DIE, and then are RAISED up and taken to heaven.

So how do you find the doctrine of the rapture of the LIVING COMPLETE CHURCH on earth in this? I would be interested to know the rationale and interpretive method used to come to this conclusion.

[Solly]

Bump

[Darth Xena]

Could someone explain how the rapture of the church is found in these verses from Revelation.


It's not.

[Solly]

Ah well, I'll go home then. :rofl:

[flipper]

*probably* on Patmos. There is some doubt, I have heard it said, about whether that is the same John. Although, I've been to Patmos and I think that a couple of years living in a cave on Patmos would make the Book of Rev seem like A.A. Milne.

[Darth Xena]

Yeah, there are some that say John the Elder, a different John, wrote the book. I have a Gentry tape series that defends pretty well it was the Apostle John. And what is really cool about Revelation is the way it just opens up when in light of the OT allusions and not the New York Times.

[bar Jonah]

Dee Dee Warren:
It's not.
Agreed. The only author in the Bible to refer to the Rapture is Paul. He's the only author to whom it was even relevant. :cool:

[Solly]

RI, could you expand on this? Why is it not relevant to any other writer except Paul, esp given the subject matter of Revelation.

Are you coming from a dispensational angle?

[bar Jonah]

Of course, Solly. That should be no secret by now. :)

God's original plan was for Israel to accept her election. But she failed. So God used Plan B -- Paul went to the Gentiles with a different gospel that didn't include God's covenant with Israel. After all, by definition, Gentiles didn't have this covenant. And when this happened, it changed eschatological matters as well. The Tribulation (which as any praeterist can tell you) began back then. But (and this is where a praeterist and I part company), when Israel failed her election, God cut her off, and consequently, the Tribulation was cut short after only a year or so. Therefore, the "End Times" plan was rewritten to take into account the age of the Mystery of the Gentiles, which would end upon the fulfillment of the "fullness of the Gentiles," whatever that means.

The Tribulation has or nothing to do with the Gentiles, directly. So there's no reason for the Gentile "Body of Christ" to be around when it occurs. Hence the Rapture, which removes the Body from the situation, at which point God returns to working with Israel on a corporate level again.

[Solly]

OK, then that still leaves my question in place. This is carried over from TOL where I posted this after Explosived made posts about these two verses pointing to the Rapture of the Church.

I know there are different brands of Disp, but perhaps you know that particular interpretation of the texts...

I'll leave the other things you mention for other threads, so as not to divert.

[bar Jonah]

Solly:
OK, then that still leaves my question in place. This is carried over from TOL where I posted this after Explosived made posts about these two verses pointing to the Rapture of the Church.

I know there are different brands of Disp, but perhaps you know that particular interpretation of the texts...

I'll leave the other things you mention for other threads, so as not to divert.
Still leaves your question in place? Do you mean that you feel I still haven't answered your question? If so, let me put it in even simpler terms.

The reason the Rapture is relevant only to Paul is because the Rapture is only for the Gentiles, and Paul is the only person in the entire Bible (with the possible exception of Luke, who worked for Paul) who wrote specifically to us -- the Gentiles. The gospels were written for the Jews. The epistles of Peter, James, John and Jude, and the book of Revelation, are written to the Jews. Their authors said they would only minister to the Jews, and I take them at their word. I'm not a Jew. So, while ALL of the Bible is useful for study, for correction... is beneficial to study... one should always go to Paul first for teaching.

[Solly]

RI

Thanks.

Yes, the question is in place because Exposived positively asserted that the doctrine of the rapture is to be found in these verses. I know not everyone of a dispersuasion sees it that way, but I was interested in those who do.

As to your own view, this explains Ex's old byline about everything in scripture not being spiritually applicable to us. I think that is a diminished view of scripture, with a sop thrown to the masses that, of course, it is still helpful to us. How? In what way can some texts written for a different bunch of people be helpful to us? I would have thought putting "Left Behind" in steel caskets with directions on how to find it would be more useful.

Oh wait, someone did... :argh:

I have been preaching out of hebrews this last few weeks, and I find it speaks directly to us, because Israel is a type, not only of fallen humanity in its rebellion against God, but also of the people of God, in their calling and troubles. That is the nature of the NT/OT hermeneutic.

Equally, if the rapture is only for the gentiles, then what happens to converted Jews alive at the time?

[bar Jonah]

Solly:
RI

Thanks.

Yes, the question is in place because Exposived positively asserted that the doctrine of the rapture is to be found in these verses. I know not everyone of a dispersuasion sees it that way, but I was interested in those who do.

As to your own view, this explains Ex's old byline about everything in scripture not being spiritually applicable to us. I think that is a diminished view of scripture, with a sop thrown to the masses that, of course, it is still helpful to us. How? In what way can some texts written for a different bunch of people be helpful to us? I would have thought putting "Left Behind" in steel caskets with directions on how to find it would be more useful.

Oh wait, someone did... :argh:

I have been preaching out of hebrews this last few weeks, and I find it speaks directly to us, because Israel is a type, not only of fallen humanity in its rebellion against God, but also of the people of God, in their calling and troubles. That is the nature of the NT/OT hermeneutic.

Equally, if the rapture is only for the gentiles, then what happens to converted Jews alive at the time?
Oy. It is apparent you know very little of the Acts-9 Dispensational view. (I'm not saying that to talk down to you, and I'm not putting you down; it's just a tad frustrating to have to start from the beginning over and over.) :)

Jesus taught a particular gospel message in His earthly ministry, and He passed that on to His apostles ("the Twelve"), who continued to teach what they learned from Him. But Jesus' message in His earthly ministry was meant only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not for the Gentiles. In fact, Jesus forbade the disciples from going to the Gentiles. Kind of goes against the principle of the Great Commission, doesn't it? Of course, the Great Commission came later.

But when Israel failed her election, God cut Israel off, and instead grafted in the Gentiles (us), and brought Paul in to deliver another gospel, one that didn't involve the Law of Moses (which Jesus' earthly-ministry gospel did). I keep saying "Jesus' earthly ministry" because Paul's message is also from Jesus, so both gospels come from Jesus. It has nothing to do with putting Paul over Jesus.

We believe Paul when he says he brought a different gospel than that of Peter and the Twelve. We believe Luke when he says in Acts that the believers under Peter were "zealous for the Law," and this being mentioned in a good light, not a bad one. We believe Peter when he said he had a hard time understanding Paul's teachings. And most of all, we believe Paul, Peter, James and John when they all agree that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews.

I take their word for it. So if Peter tells me he's going to minister only to the Jews... and I'm not a Jew ... then I know his letters aren't written to me. They certainly carry useful teaching; obviously, some teachings are universal and present in both gospels. But... if something isn't clear or even appears to possibly contradict something from Paul, who do I go to? Paul. Not Peter, James, John, Jude.

In fact, with the exception of Jesus, Paul is the ONLY person in the New Testament who says that if anyone preaches something different from his gospel, that person shall be accursed. He is very protective over his gospel and his flock. Unlike Peter and Co., Paul frequently talks about "my gospel... my gospel... my children... do as I do... my gospel...."

You've been preaching out of Hebrews. Great! It was written for Jews who were saved after Israel was cut off. Once Israel was cut off, all Jews were no different from Gentiles in God's eyes. Reduced in status from being actively His chosen people... no different from the lawless, unclean, heathen Gentiles. So they were saved under the new dispensation, the new "house rules" that Paul mentioned.

And so as far as the Rapture, they will be treated no differently from you and me... spiritually, the aren't any different. They are saved as Gentiles according to what Paul referred to as the Mystery of the Gentiles.

[Solly]

RightIdea:

Jesus taught a particular gospel message in His earthly ministry, and He passed that on to His apostles ("the Twelve"), who continued to teach what they learned from Him. But Jesus' message in His earthly ministry was meant only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not for the Gentiles. In fact, Jesus forbade the disciples from going to the Gentiles. Kind of goes against the principle of the Great Commission, doesn't it? Of course, the Great Commission came later.

Syropheonician woman?

But when Israel failed her election, God cut Israel off, and instead grafted in the Gentiles (us), and brought Paul in to deliver another gospel, one that didn't involve the Law of Moses (which Jesus' earthly-ministry gospel did). I keep saying "Jesus' earthly ministry" because Paul's message is also from Jesus, so both gospels come from Jesus. It has nothing to do with putting Paul over Jesus.

When was this cutting off? On the Day of Pentecost 3000 Jews were added to the church, and many more followed. Paul himself was a Jew. Paul, though the apostle to the Gentiles, went to the synogogue first. he wrote the letter to the Romans who were a mixed church. The church, with Peter at the head, received in the Samaritans, God fearers and Gentiles, and Peter gave his imprimatur to that event.

We believe Paul when he says he brought a different gospel than that of Peter and the Twelve. [quote]

Scripture? Gal 2? But paul is taking about sphere of operations there, not a different Gospel?

[quote]We believe Luke when he says in Acts that the believers under Peter were "zealous for the Law," and this being mentioned in a good light, not a bad one.

Hmmm, and how through that paul was ensnared by the public opinion of these same zealous law keepers.

We believe Peter when he said he had a hard time understanding Paul's teachings.

He didn't say he had a hard time, he just said there are some hard things to understand. I find hard things to understand, doesn't make me a Jewish Christian. LOL

And most of all, we believe Paul, Peter, James and John when they all agree that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews.

Yes, he went to the Gentile nations, but as mentioned, he alwasy went to the synagogue first.

In fact, with the exception of Jesus, Paul is the ONLY person in the New Testament who says that if anyone preaches something different from his gospel, that person shall be accursed. He is very protective over his gospel and his flock. Unlike Peter and Co., Paul frequently talks about "my gospel... my gospel... my children... do as I do... my gospel...."

Once Israel was cut off, all Jews were no different from Gentiles in God's eyes. Reduced in status from being actively His chosen people... no different from the lawless, unclean, heathen Gentiles. So they were saved under the new dispensation, the new "house rules" that Paul mentioned.

Mentioned that to Jerry Shugart?


I'm off now for a few days. Catch up with you then.
See ya

[Covenanter]

[Right Idea]
We believe Paul when he says he brought a different gospel than that of Peter and the Twelve. We believe Luke when he says in Acts that the believers under Peter were "zealous for the Law," and this being mentioned in a good light, not a bad one. We believe Peter when he said he had a hard time understanding Paul's teachings. And most of all, we believe Paul, Peter, James and John when they all agree that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews.

I take their word for it. So if Peter tells me he's going to minister only to the Jews... and I'm not a Jew ... then I know his letters aren't written to me. They certainly carry useful teaching; obviously, some teachings are universal and present in both gospels.
So was Paul's Gospel or Peter's an accused "other gospel" :bonk:

When Peter wrote to the Galatians in his first letter, was he aiming to put them right against what Paul had taught them :bonk:

Why did Paul continue to go to the Jews wherever there was a synagogue if he had agreed "that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews."????

Where did Peter tell you "he's going to minister only to the Jews" ?????

Note that Peter's first letter is clearly written to all believers, Jew & Gentile without distinction:

I will quote myself from the http://www.reachouttrust.org/forum/

THe Greek word translated "scattered" (diaspora) occurs 3 times. John 7:35, James 1:1 & 1 Pet. 1:1 . Look them up.
I think it reasonable to consider "diaspora" to refer originally to the Jews of the dispersion. However, believers likewise were scattered (diaspeiro, Acts 8:1 et al), & I see no good reason to restrict "diaspora" to Jews in Peter's context when the related word "diaspeiro" plainly refers to Christians.
THe Greek word translated "strangers" (parepidemos) occurs 3 times. Heb. 11:13, 1 Pet. 1:1 & 1 Pet. 2:11. Look them up.
In 1 Pet. 2:11, "parepidemos" is translated "pilgrims", while "strangers " is the translation of "paroikos" which is translated "foreigners" in Eph. 2:19 (which we are no more (!))
James refers to those having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory meeting in the synagogue, (James 2:1-2) which might mean whole synagogues of Jewish Christians, and writing to 12 tribes appears to indicate a wide acceptance of Christ by the Jews of James' time. Rather unlikely. I think rather it means that James is writing to scattered Jewish Christians, using words "carried over" from Jewish use.

Does this mean that Peter & James were writing specifically to Jews, so that their writings are not directly applicable to the church ??
Only if the Galatians rejected Paul's letter, & formed or separated into a Jewish ekklesia, or we have misunderstood Paul completely, & taken Gal. 2:7 as an indication that there were two "Gospels" to be preached, one for Jews & one for Gentiles. In that case, perhaps you can tell me which Gospel, Paul's or Peter's, was "not another" so that its preachers were cursed?

m, open 1 Peter & read it without "Open Bible Trust" blinkers. Note:
[i]1Pe 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:
10 Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Notice that ! Those who were not a people i.e. the Gentiles, are now the people of God, & now have obtained mercy. (See Romans 9 & Hosea 1) Not only so, but the wonderful promises for those who keep the Covenant (Ex. 19:5) are given them. THe people Peter was writing to have all the blessings of covenant-keepers. By God's grace, that includes you & me.

No, Michael. Don't let OBT bewitch you into tearing Peter & James out of your Bible, or reducing them to "profitable" but without authority. You need Peter for your witness against Popery. I hope you can see that when you say "The Reformers hd some of the truth but apparently did not build on or press on to discover more" that you are maligning those who were concerned to give us an accurate translation of the Scriptures, who wrote commentaries, & laid the groundwork for the Puritans, Matthew Henry, Strong, etc. We did not need to wait for Derby et al with their dispensational approach.

When the Bible was translated, folk wanted to read it & make its teaching theirs. Don't let OBT rob you.

[bar Jonah]

Solly:
Syropheonician woman?
First, do you admit Jesus said He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? That Jesus forbade the disciples to go to the Gentiles? I would assume so, since these things are unarguable primae facie.

Therefore, what happens with this so-called Samaritan or Syro-Phoenician woman? First, who had the authority to make an exception according to righteous judgement? Only Jesus, of course. But beyond that, look at the story closely. The woman comes up, telling of her demon-possessed daughter. A heart-rending story. And how does Jesus respond? He ignores her. She is pleading, begging for mercy, but the disciples say, "Send her away, for she cries out after us." Jesus agrees, adding, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." She still begs further. Jesus still says, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." It's noteworthy to mention that the term "dog" was a racial epithet in these days. Like pigs, dogs were considered to be filthy, unclean animals. Gentiles, likewise, were considered unclean. She was a filthy Gentile dog.

But here is where the story shifts. The woman doesn't disagree with our Lord. Rather, she agrees with Him! She accepts His authority and His words, and adds with great faith, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." And for her faith, Jesus relented and healed the woman's daughter. Crumbs. Jesus gave this little dog a crumb. Nothing changed in Jesus' mission or His instructions to the disciples.
Solly: When was this cutting off? On the Day of Pentecost 3000 Jews were added to the church, and many more followed. Paul himself was a Jew. Paul, though the apostle to the Gentiles, went to the synogogue first. he wrote the letter to the Romans who were a mixed church. The church, with Peter at the head, received in the Samaritans, God fearers and Gentiles, and Peter gave his imprimatur to that event.
When was Israel cut off? A year after Christ's resurrection. Jesus said Himself just before His death that Israel would have one more year to live. And though the church grew at first, Saul came a long and persecuted it until by his own confession later, he "destroyed" it. Wasted it. Demolished, disintigrated, overthrew it. Ended it.

Stephen's martyrdom is the straw that broke the camel's back. Saul presided over the death of Stephen. How can we know this was such a monumentally critical event? Because both Jesus and God the Father appear in this story. I'd say that's a pretty big sign. And right after that, we see several things. Peter receives a vision of the change to come -- unclean things now made clean! Symbolic of the Gentiles formerly unclean (and still having been unclean for this past year since Christ's resurrection), now made clean. And Peter is instructed to go preach the gospel to a Gentile. One Gentile, just one -- Cornelius. And what else? Jesus appears to Saul on the road to Damascus, and Saul becomes Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Here is the shift toward a new direction in Acts. Peter's ministry diminishes, and Paul's takes off. Peter recedes into the background, and Paul becomes the major player. God has cut Israel off, and chosen Paul to take His message of salvation directly to the Gentiles.
Solly: Hmmm, and how through that paul was ensnared by the public opinion of these same zealous law keepers.
What are you talking about? Be more specific?
Solly: He didn't say he had a hard time, he just said there are some hard things to understand. I find hard things to understand, doesn't make me a Jewish Christian. LOL
Hard things to understand in Paul's teachings, yes. This from the top disciple of Jesus?

[smilax]

RightIdea:
Therefore, what happens with this so-called Samaritan or Syro-Phoenician woman? First, who had the authority to make an exception according to righteous judgement? Only Jesus, of course. But beyond that, look at the story closely. The woman comes up, telling of her demon-possessed daughter. A heart-rending story. And how does Jesus respond? He ignores her. She is pleading, begging for mercy, but the disciples say, "Send her away, for she cries out after us." Jesus agrees, adding, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." She still begs further. Jesus still says, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." It's noteworthy to mention that the term "dog" was a racial epithet in these days. Like pigs, dogs were considered to be filthy, unclean animals. Gentiles, likewise, were considered unclean. She was a filthy Gentile dog.

But here is where the story shifts. The woman doesn't disagree with our Lord. Rather, she agrees with Him! She accepts His authority and His words, and adds with great faith, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." And for her faith, Jesus relented and healed the woman's daughter. Crumbs. Jesus gave this little dog a crumb. Nothing changed in Jesus' mission or His instructions to the disciples.Perhaps you may want to reconsider your interpretation in light of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html.

[Reba]

Matt 8:8-11
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
KJV

[bar Jonah]

Awesome scripture, Reba. Thanks! Further evidence that God's original plan was that the Gentiles would come to Israel and become proselyte Jews, rather than Israel being cut off. :)

After all, Jews couldn't sit down with Gentiles; only with other Jews. And as I already noted several times, Jesus Himself forbade His disciples from eating with the Gentiles, or preaching to them.

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
Perhaps you may want to reconsider your interpretation in light of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html.
Well, I went there, and found their interpretation interesting (though not entirely new or anything)... but when they got to the following line, they completely lost me:

5. They decide to approach Jesus about her, and ask him to grant her request and send her away (Mt 15.23)

This claim about the passages in question is categorically false. They did NOT ask Jesus to grant her request. The authors of this website just made something up and tried to pass it off to me as scriptural. They practically added to scripture.

At that point, I didn't even see any reason for continuing to read. I understand their basic premise, and I know they are dishonest in their portrayal of the passage in question. No offense intended, but why give them the time of day after that?

[smilax]

RightIdea:
This claim about the passages in question is categorically false. They did NOT ask Jesus to grant her request. The authors of this website just made something up and tried to pass it off to me as scriptural. They practically added to scripture.So you think that the disciples were asking Him to send her away empty-handed? (Not that that's even crucial to the argument... And considering that you don't believe in inerrancy, what's the problem?)

[Covenanter]

We have been discussing "right division" on the http://www.reachouttrust.org/forum/ . THe following posting should be self explanatory:

Rev. Charles Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carol) wrote the following:

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."
:bonk:

You have carefully explained that "expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, is different from Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ." [Acts 28]

You have also explained that only Paul's prison letters are to the [mainly Gentile] present dispensation church, the others being to the mixed Jew/Gentile New Covenant church which was suspended at Acts 28.

You have further shown that Paul has almost nothing to say about Abraham, Israel, the covenants, etc, in Paul's prison letters.

Now it is generally agreed that Paul's letters to the Thessalonians were his earliest. In them we read almost nothing about Abraham, Israel, the covenants, etc.
:bonk:

I have heard premils argue strongly that Paul taught the rapture in 1 Thess 4, & they get all sorts of end times teachig from 2 Thess 2. How could he possibly teach the rapture of the church to the Thessalonians before Christ had revealed the mystery to him in prison ?????
:bonk:

[Darth Xena]

A year after Christ's resurrection. Jesus said Himself just before His death that Israel would have one more year to live.

Ah, large contradiction then in your system for you then have Jesus predicting two distinct and mutually exclusive things... either they would be cut off after a year or they would not be and get to go through the "good" Tribulation. It cannot be both ways.

[Darth Xena]

Dear RightIdea:

I will review that Christian Thinktank article in light of your criticism... but let me tell you that I do know the author Glenn Miller who is an apologist of utmost integrity. He would never be purposefully dishonest. I will read the article and forward your concern to him... but I think that Smilax probably demonstrated where Glenn was drawing that inference from. Now if that is a reasonable inference, we can certainly disagree with the inference, but then it is not bold addition to the text or dishonesty. I am only butting in because Miller IMHO is one person that I hold in extraordinarily high esteem as an apologist... not because we agree on everything (we disagree on quite a bit) but because I have heard his heart and seen his character.

[Ourglass]

I have discussed my views a few different times on this site. You might want to look at my post, but the one with "End Times" that I started is probably most descriptive of my point.

I disagree with the posts indicating the tribulation started ~2000 years ago, or that only the Jews are saved, etc.

My take: G-d still has a plan for Israel. As we speak, Israel is preparing to rebuild their temple, they have the bloodline of the Levites preparing to head the temple, the proper attire is being prepared, etc. Israel will reinstate the temple worship, which will be part of the events to occur during the "last days" discussed in the Bible. Israel rejected their King when Christ was killed, therefore, the 70 weeks was placed on hold for the Church Age. The Bible was to be preached to every nation, land during this Chruch Age (which I believe we are coming to an end of now).

There is the old covenant (with G-d and the land of Israel) which will be completed when Christ comes to rule on earth and Israel rules with their G-d. The new covenant, which is the saving grace through the blood of Christ - the salvation available to the Gentile nations.

There are specifics in the Bible which refer to the rapture of Christ's church, and saving her from the day of tribulation, the end times, etc.

I believe, the Jews that believe in Christ at the time of the rapture will be raptured with the rest of Christ's Church and will not experience the tribulation. But they will come to see Christ as their King, and this is to take place during the trials and tribulations on earth during this 7 year period. There is another post of mine on this site as to why I indicate the 7 year period. Check Daniel 9, and also the Book of John because he talks about the two 1,260 day periods.

So, have I muddied the waters enough with my ramblings? Interested to know your take on my POV.

[Solly]

Today @ 03:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188908#post188908)
Ourglass:

First off, belated welcome to Tweb Ourglass.
Second, nothing like exhuming old threads; I had forgotten about this - but then, it is nearly seven months ago.

My take: G-d still has a plan for Israel.

God had a plan for national Israel; to bring forth the Messiah. As for whether he still has a plan, you would have to show that the Secular nation State of Israel and the Occupied Territories fits the same category; which I don't believe it does.

As we speak, Israel is preparing to rebuild their temple, they have the bloodline of the Levites preparing to head the temple, the proper attire is being prepared, etc. Israel will reinstate the temple worship, which will be part of the events to occur during the "last days" discussed in the Bible. Israel rejected their King when Christ was killed, therefore, the 70 weeks was placed on hold for the Church Age. The Bible was to be preached to every nation, land during this Chruch Age (which I believe we are coming to an end of now).

I consider such actions abomination to God, and would warn all Christians not to be involved with such things. The Temple worship pointed to Christ, and has now been done away. The New Covenant has made the other one old, in that it has worn out, and is of no use. As for the "Church Age" idea, you will find many here who will take you through Daniel verse by verse showing that there is no such gap.

There is the old covenant (with G-d and the land of Israel) which will be completed when Christ comes to rule on earth and Israel rules with their G-d. The new covenant, which is the saving grace through the blood of Christ - the salvation available to the Gentile nations.

If there is a new covenant, then the old is done away, not to be resurrected. Don't mistake the national covenant God made with Israel, which covenant became void because of their disobedience. It was not an unconditional covenant, and once broken was broken for good. Israel were also typical - typical of fallen humanity in its rebellion, typical of the people of God in their blessings. All is fulfilled in Christ: the Land, the Temple, the Worship, the Law, the Promises, the Blessings.

There are specifics in the Bible which refer to the rapture of Christ's church, and saving her from the day of tribulation, the end times, etc.

There are specifics that speak of the church being saved from the wrath to come when Christ comes. When Christ comes, that is the end. Finito Benito. Salvation and Judgment in one event.

I believe, the Jews that believe in Christ at the time of the rapture will be raptured with the rest of Christ's Church and will not experience the tribulation. But they will come to see Christ as their King, and this is to take place during the trials and tribulations on earth during this 7 year period. There is another post of mine on this site as to why I indicate the 7 year period. Check Daniel 9, and also the Book of John because he talks about the two 1,260 day periods.

The "Tribulation the Great" has passed, old Jerusalem has been destroyed once for all. Though there will be troubles at the end of the age, yet the church will go through them, and be saved through them.

So, have I muddied the waters enough with my ramblings? Interested to know your take on my POV.

If you are up for hardcore debate, you will find quite a few who will wrestle every inch of ground with you, either in this forum, or in the Gym. Either way, enjoy your stay!!

[The Curtmudgeon]

Solly, to answer your original question from a Dispensational POV different than RightIdea's (I'm not Acts9; I guess you could call my position Schofield Dispensationalism heard of the term "Acts9 Dispensationalism", and disagree with its main tenet mightily]):

Rev 4:1 - This is seen as a portrayal of the Rapture due not solely to the use of the phrase "Come up hither" but mainly because from 4:1 on, the Church is absent from the rest of the book (until re-appearing as the Bride, of course), unless one chooses to believe that God pours out His wrath indiscriminately on the Church as well as on the world (which those of the "Schofield school" [so to speak] do not choose to believe). I fully realise that other POVs take the position that God will miraculously provide protection for the Church during the Tribulation; we essentially agree, but believe that the form of the protection is to remove the Church to heaven before the Trib starts.

Rev 11:12 - This is not seen as having anything to do with the Rapture of the Church, because that occurs between Chapters 3 and 4 (since we accept Revelation as sequential in nature). This verse, as you believe, applies only to the specific Two Witnesses as individuals.

I realise your opposition to my POV on 4:1, so you needn't rehearse it here unless you just want to. But you asked "how", and I disagreed with (aspects of) RI's answer, so I thought you (and other readers of the thread) should at least be presented with another side of the coin.

The (that coin's got too durn many sides already) Curtmudgeon

[Solly]

Thanks The (I'll answer the question as well) Curtmudgeon.

I wasn't interested in debating, at least not now. This would be in Intro to Theology if started anew.

[Daniel927]

Solly,

I'm relatively new to this site, and have been "mining" for threads that I might express concerns re: millennial - ism! I won't get into all that, BUT thought I would comment on your original question.

While Rev. makes no mention of the church from chapter 4 until she appears as the bride, COULD be for several reasons.

First, there is nothing written in the text that remotely indicates the church is raptured at that point. You are correct in your assessment!

IF - IF - there is some semblance of chronological order to Revelation, then we clearly see in chapter 12, the recorded account of Christ AND him being caught up to HIS throne! YES???????

Okay! If this portion/event of salvation/redemption DOESN'T OCCUR UNTIL CHAPTER 12 -- HOW CAN THE "RAPTURE" OF THE CHURCH OCCUR IN CHAPTER 4?????????????

Guess what? IT CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next - I would like to think (personal thought zone) - That because Christ has "done away" with the "old" order, covenant, temple, priesthood, etc. (read Hebrews chap. 5 -10), That what is "left" - IS THE CHURCH!!!!!!
(BTW these same chapters do deal with - "ONE TAKEN, ONE LEFT")

Therefore when he begins the "vision" with John - BECAUSE the church is in the "here and now", the "present", the NEW, the forefront - He begins WITH the letters (things) THAT CONCERN THE CHURCH! The church is the "issue" that is at hand - so Christ addresses the church first! How proper is it to "deal" with "things" that are at hand?

I want to think that is "why" Christ presents that to John first - THEN he takes John and shows him things that are eternal - from the "present, past and future (WHO IS, WAS and is YET TO COME)".

I guess this was the LOOOOOONG answer to a short question, sorry!

Bless,

D

[Covenanter]

Daniel,

Having contributed two replies on this thread, & having met Solly at his home & church, I will jump back in.

THe thread is resurrected, & I consider that texts used to justify the "rapture" are in fact "resurrrection" texts teaching the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ at the end of the present age.

If the absence of "ekklesia" in Rev. 4-21 means that the chapters relate to events during the 7-year tribulation when the church is raptured, then Peter's & Jude's letters (which have no reference to "ekklesia") are also for some other dispensation. My earlier post on this thread shows that such a view is untenable.

While Rev. makes no mention of the church from chapter 4 until she appears as the bride, COULD be for several reasons.

First, there is nothing written in the text that remotely indicates the church is raptured at that point. You are correct in your assessment!

IF - IF - there is some semblance of chronological order to Revelation, then we clearly see in chapter 12, the recorded account of Christ AND him being caught up to HIS throne! YES???????

Okay! If this portion/event of salvation/redemption DOESN'T OCCUR UNTIL CHAPTER 12 -- HOW CAN THE "RAPTURE" OF THE CHURCH OCCUR IN CHAPTER 4?????????????

Guess what? IT CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is Revelation as a whole chronological? Surely not, although there are several series of chronological events each of which end with the return of Christ. They are thus recapitulations of tribulations inflicted on the earth during the present dispensation.

THe return of Christ is stated to take place in the following verses:
6:12-17, 11:15-18, 14:20, 19:11-20, 20:9-15, 21:1ff.


Next - I would like to think (personal thought zone) - That because Christ has "done away" with the "old" order, covenant, temple, priesthood, etc. (read Hebrews chap. 5 -10), That what is "left" - IS THE CHURCH!!!!!!
(BTW these same chapters do deal with - "ONE TAKEN, ONE LEFT")

Therefore when he begins the "vision" with John - BECAUSE the church is in the "here and now", the "present", the NEW, the forefront - He begins WITH the letters (things) THAT CONCERN THE CHURCH! The church is the "issue" that is at hand - so Christ addresses the church first! How proper is it to "deal" with "things" that are at hand?

I want to think that is "why" Christ presents that to John first - THEN he takes John and shows him things that are eternal - from the "present, past and future (WHO IS, WAS and is YET TO COME)".

I guess this was the LOOOOOONG answer to a short question, sorry!

Bless,

D
Well stated. IMHO the Holy Spirit formally declared the Old Covenant formally & finally ended when he declared the Jews to be uncircumcised when they lynched Stephen. Stephen declared their covenant history, stressing their uncircumcised hearts & ears. With Stephen's death the 70 weeks ended.

The New Covenant is now in force. Paul carefully explained that Jews were no longer "the circumcision" but that Gentiles were now truly in that spiritual status. Jewish circumcision is now mutilation.

Phl 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

THis echoes the words of the Lord Jesus to the Samaritan woman:

Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

I hope this is helpful & will bring to an end the myth of the rapture.

[Covenanter]

I recommend Vaughn Elliott's web site http://insight2bp.homestead.com/ giving many studies on Bible Prophecy.

He has a new book "Nobody Left Behind" which discusses much more than the popular fictional writings of Tim & Jerry. Read about it & the complete chapter in which he discusses the issues on http://www.nobodyleftbehind.net/

[Daniel927]

Cov,

Thanks for the "come-back", I'm never sure that someone is out there "watching" at these old threads!

I have a tendency to agree with your thoughts along the line of "recapit". The reference to Christ in 12, while the church is in 3, was to throw some "prickly pears" out to those who do hold to "rapture" in 3/4!

The "rapture" that I hold to occurs in both Thes. and Corin.! It is a "catching away/catching up", just as those provisions proclaim. It is the event that fulfills this "age" and ushers in the New, Eternal, "age" (which we look forward to).

A couple questions:

Why are the 144,000 referred to as, "the firstfruits"? Doesn't that designation follow along the lines of the "tithe"? Just as that is, to be the "firstfruits" unto God? The FIRST of the increase?

This number, that no man could number, 7:9, 14, out of great tribulation, out of every nation, tongue and peoples. Where are they from?

For the sake of argument -- IF -- there were to be a 7 year "great tribulation", HOW IS IT THAT THEY ARE INNUMERABLE? We, as man, are able to "count" the people of the earth, right now! So how is it that God's word says "these" are innumerable, OR UNABLE TO "COUNT" THEM?

While we have 6/7 (forgive my ignorance, as I cannot remember which) billion people on the planet, NOT many of those are "saved and alive" in Christ Jesus! Narrow is the gate, and straight is the way, AND FEW BE THAT FIND IT! So, the "redeemed" would be far fewer than that! Yet they are said to be "uncountable"!

For MY answer, I wish to believe that in John 5:28, 29, Christ is speaking of what WILL TRANSPIRE within the same time frame, as his resurrection.

That causes me to know that the 144' are OLD TESTAMENT JEWS, those of Abrahams' bosom, that are redeemed, as Matthew 27:53 says,"...AFTER his resurrection".

I keep hearing that "MOST" scholars do not hold to that, but I think that is due to a "misreading" of verses :52/53.

So that (perhaps) makes these 144' as, Rev. 6:9-11, "...under the altar". Also Chapter 7:1-8, and 14:3, :4 (ref. II Cor. 11:2, ...that I may present you as a chaste virgin).

Those that were "kept", pre-Christ, until the glorious appearing of Jesus, that died, believing, "UNDER" the old covenant (ALTAR).

That would make those in Rev. 7:9- , as believers in Christ, who died, "post"-Christ! Since the time of Calvary, until the great day of his coming.

Now, with that, you would have an "innumerable" number. We've been adding to it for 2000 years, and who knows how long it will be before his return!

Hope I didn't "ramble" too much.

In Christ,

Dan

[Ted]

Rev 4:1 - This is seen as a portrayal of the Rapture due not solely to the use of the phrase "Come up hither" but mainly because from 4:1 on, the Church is absent from the rest of the book (until re-appearing as the Bride, of course), unless one chooses to believe that God pours out His wrath indiscriminately on the Church as well as on the world (which those of the "Schofield school" [so to speak] do not choose to believe). I fully realise that other POVs take the position that God will miraculously provide protection for the Church during the Tribulation; we essentially agree, but believe that the form of the protection is to remove the Church to heaven before the Trib starts.
This is the classic position. It suffers from three irreparable faults.

1. As noted earlier in the thread, John is taken up. There is no one with him, and there is no biblical indication that he is to be taken as a type. This is a presumption on the Dispy side. Types require biblical confirmation of their application. (The lamb as sin offering/lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, etc.) Since there is no such use of John, the application is incorrect.

2. Revelation 4-22 is a classic Jewish apocalypse. It uses the same pattern as several intertestamental apocalypses in which the seer is taken to heaven with an angelic guide. He sees many symbolic scenes in heaven, then reports what he has seen to an audience by writing it down. No seer is ever identified as symbolic in himself as the Dispy position requires.

3. The church is most emphatically seen in the visions after chapter 4 and before the Bride. In Rev 7, we have John hearing “the number” of the 144,000, then turning to see an unnumbered multitude “from every nation and tribe and people and tongue.” This is the church. The two descriptions are of the same group. (This is a typical Revelation pattern. Rev 5 has a lamb standing as if slain as the visual after the Lion of Judah is introduced. Rev 21 has the Bride identified and the City seen, etc.)

Also, the “saints” are mentioned numerous times. Since this is the universal NT word for God’s people, the church is in fact in the book all throughout.

**

The use of John as symbolic of the church is required by classic Dispensationalism. It has no textual, contextual, or intertextual basis whatever. In fact, he fits a completely different mold when seen within the literary heritage from which Revelation springs. If a person were to study Revelation using good methods, but without a Dispy background, there is no way that he would arrive at the Dispy conclusion. To declare that John typifies the rapture of the church in 4:1 is eisegesis.

Daniel927: We are in complete agreement here on your first post. Surprise! Major agreement on the second.

Covenanter: Ditto. Well said.

Ted

[Covenanter]

Ted, Daniel,

I hope the dispensationalists are looking in :eek: I have debated the subject with others, & they rely on the literal interpretation of selected Old Covenant Scriptures to "prove" their case.

Ted, I have just read your chapter on "Israel" in your book & consider it unanswerable. Israel comprises believers only, Jew & Gentile as one body IN CHRIST.

ALL ISRAEL will be saved. THe dispensationalists cannot maintain that glorious truth. THe most honest answer I have had is "one third of the tribulation Jews."

[Ted]

Thank you.

Ted

[Covenanter]

Cov,

Thanks for the "come-back", I'm never sure that someone is out there "watching" at these old threads!

I have a tendency to agree with your thoughts along the line of "recapit". The reference to Christ in 12, while the church is in 3, was to throw some "prickly pears" out to those who do hold to "rapture" in 3/4!

The "rapture" that I hold to occurs in both Thes. and Corin.! It is a "catching away/catching up", just as those provisions proclaim. It is the event that fulfills this "age" and ushers in the New, Eternal, "age" (which we look forward to).

You use "rapture." Do you agree that the Scriptures the dispensationalists use to support the rapture in fact relate to the resurrection when Christ returns, & that the only dispensation then remaining is the eternal New Heaven & New Earth.


A couple questions:

Why are the 144,000 referred to as, "the firstfruits"? Doesn't that designation follow along the lines of the "tithe"? Just as that is, to be the "firstfruits" unto God? The FIRST of the increase?

This number, that no man could number, 7:9, 14, out of great tribulation, out of every nation, tongue and peoples. Where are they from?

I'm not sure anyone can offer a definitive explanation of "firstfruits" in this context. My suggestion is:

THe 144,000 are servants of God living on earth, & who will live through tribulation. That they are "tribes of Israel" no longer means "Israel after the flesh" as Israel comprises all & only true believers, regardless of ethnicity. Our Lord warned us that we would suffer tribulation. (John 16:33) Paul also warned the Thessalonians. THis tribulation suffered by believers comes from unbelievers, not from God, & is distinct from the tribulation inflicted by God. (2 Thess. 1) There is of course tribulation inflicted by God on the world, in the wars, earthquakes, & the plagues of Revelation, etc.

As God's servants on earth, we are counted among the 144,000.

Why "firstfruits?" THe firstfruits are the new & immature fruit that give promise of the full harvest. Our imperfect praise is a promise of the glorious praise of the great multitude in glory.

Where are they from? Earth of course. The church has suffered tribulation down the ages, & is suffering intently in some parts of the world to this day.

This relates to Rev. 20 & the present millennium. The saints who have suffered & died are even now living & reigning with Christ in glory. Their first resurrection gave them eternal life (John 5:24ff) & that life did not end with their martyrdom. (Mat. 10:28)


For the sake of argument -- IF -- there were to be a 7 year "great tribulation", HOW IS IT THAT THEY ARE INNUMERABLE? We, as man, are able to "count" the people of the earth, right now! So how is it that God's word says "these" are innumerable, OR UNABLE TO "COUNT" THEM?

While we have 6/7 (forgive my ignorance, as I cannot remember which) billion people on the planet, NOT many of those are "saved and alive" in Christ Jesus! Narrow is the gate, and straight is the way, AND FEW BE THAT FIND IT! So, the "redeemed" would be far fewer than that! Yet they are said to be "uncountable"!

Try counting using letters (Roman numerals). We cannot count the total number of believers living today. How much less the total number for all time?


For MY answer, I wish to believe that in John 5:28, 29, Christ is speaking of what WILL TRANSPIRE within the same time frame, as his resurrection.

That causes me to know that the 144' are OLD TESTAMENT JEWS, those of Abrahams' bosom, that are redeemed, as Matthew 27:53 says,"...AFTER his resurrection".

I keep hearing that "MOST" scholars do not hold to that, but I think that is due to a "misreading" of verses :52/53.

So that (perhaps) makes these 144' as, Rev. 6:9-11, "...under the altar". Also Chapter 7:1-8, and 14:3, :4 (ref. II Cor. 11:2, ...that I may present you as a chaste virgin).

Those that were "kept", pre-Christ, until the glorious appearing of Jesus, that died, believing, "UNDER" the old covenant (ALTAR).

That would make those in Rev. 7:9- , as believers in Christ, who died, "post"-Christ! Since the time of Calvary, until the great day of his coming.

Now, with that, you would have an "innumerable" number. We've been adding to it for 2000 years, and who knows how long it will be before his return!

Hope I didn't "ramble" too much.

In Christ,

Dan
Jesus speaks of two resurrections in John 5. Conversion, or the spiritual resurrection (24-5), & the resurrection of the dead at the last day. I don't see Mat. 27 fulfilling John 5:28-9. Those under the altar are the same as the martyrs in Rev. 20. They died on earth, & live in heaven. THe same people as the great multitude.

Hope that helps. We are all thinking aloud.

[Daniel927]

Cov.,

You'll have to forgive me, because I REALLY struggle sometimes, to not only ask the right "question" (scenario), but to ask it correctly. Look careful, because there are "two" points of difficulty there!

Thanks for the patience!

I do not hold to some form of "rapture", be it partial, secret, or otherwise. Christ is going to return, at the "end" of this age, and usher in the "new" age, the beginning of eternity for ALL the redeemed.

Hope that clears that little issue up.

I have a SERIOUS problem with the understanding of the Jew, and the Jew! Check out my opening remark!!!!!!!!

Okay!

Since the time of Christ AND his atonement, Paul, in the scriptures, fully relates, leaving no question, that the BELIEVER, is the JEW! I think that you have said exactly that in this thread. I couldn't agree with you more!

There is no language/scripture, that I find, that refers to "US" as a "replacement" Jew. WE ARE the children of Abraham, because we are partakers of the covenant of God, through Jesus Christ.

That is "one" of the two Jews, that I can relate to.

Now, the "only other" Jew that I can identify, and here is where I guess I have a problem, is the Jew, that clearly existed prior to the atonement work of Christ on Calvary! Or, perhaps better known as "OLD TESTAMENT"- Jew.

As Paul fully states in Heb., chapters 6-10, ALL the "OLD" order was completely done away with. In Rm. 11, he tells of the Jew, as a branch, as being 'broken off". Yet, if they abide not still in unbelief, they can be "grafted" back into the tree.

But that would require them to believe in God, by believing in Christ, whom God sent. YES?

Even so, at that point, while they would then become a covenant Jew, they would be no - "more or less" - a Jew, than someone who was also under the same covenant. By that, I mean - a Gentile who has gone through the conversion - and was now a "NEW TESTAMENT" Jew! YES?

So attempting to get a real good hold on all this, this is where I'm going to leave off.

This would be a good place to start, because the "best" is yet to come!

God bless,

D

[Ted]

Cov,

The issue of “firstfruits” in relation to the 144,000 is not easy. The basic problem is the imagery of “firstfruits.” Looking at technical theological work, I’m not sure that theologians have clarified the imagery to a satisfactory degree.

The obvious western approach is reflected in your comment. Why "firstfruits?" THe firstfruits are the new & immature fruit that give promise of the full harvest. Our imperfect praise is a promise of the glorious praise of the great multitude in glory.
I’m not sure I can argue effectively with this sense of the word. After all, the firstfruits were the very first harvested grain. But it wasn’t immature. It did, however, seem to be, as you suggest, a promise of continuing harvest. But is this the sense in which it is used in Rev 14:4?

As I look through the OT, I find the definitional passages all identify the firstfruits as holy. They were “the priest’s due,” a “tithe” (Deut 18:4, 2 Chron 31:5). They supported the priests, who were denied the right to own land. One commentary indicates that the first fruits were given to God to show that all the crop belonged to Him. The remainder was to be used by the people and was not therefore holy. As one author suggests, the first fruits are holy so as to “desacralize” the rest of the crop.

But how can this type be applied properly?

Jesus was the “firstfruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor 15:20). I see two approaches to this. First, as the antitype of the first fruits, through corporate identity, Jesus represents all the saints. All the dead rightfully belong to Christ, but only a remnant are saints. The vast majority are wicked, and therefore not holy. This works, but to a western mind, it isn’t terribly satisfying.

The second approach would say that Jesus is the promise of the harvest to come. But when we look at Rev 14:4, we find that the attributes of the 144,000 are not only “first fruits,” but “the ones who have not been defiled with women” (i.e. not adulterers), “the ones who follow the Lamb,” and so on. Note the definite article. If this group is only part of the saints, then the definite article seems out of place. After all, “the” seems to indicate the complete number, not a representative few. (I know this can be stretching the Greek use of the definite article, but it seems appropriate.)

Neither approach seems to give a good answer by itself. But if we continue into the chapter, we find a pair of harvests. The first is the harvest of the saints, which by definition would match the “first fruits.” It is also “holy” since the saints are holy. And it is a minority of the total harvest. The second harvest is definitely unholy, since it is the harvest of the wicked. It is also much larger, matching the desacralized part of a natural harvest.

This seems to give a better approach to the first fruits. The total number of the saints are the first fruits to God. And it matches the imagery of the 144,000 in Revelation 7. There John “hears” the number, then turns and sees an unnumbered multitude from every people and tribe and nation. Thus, he hears a symbolic representation of the body of the saints, then turns to see the reality. And this pattern occurs several other times in the apocalypse.

I don’t want to argue this as absolutely conclusive, but it seems to make good sense. The type represents the remnant who are holy to the Lord. Applied to Jesus, it is used in a corporate identity sense. This is foreign to western ears, since we are individualistic. But ANE peoples thought in a corporate sense. (That’s our problem in the Middle East! We don’t realize the the individual is unimportant, the group is the identity, and the group must survive. But that’s another subject.) Applied to the 144,000, they are all the saints of all ages.

As Paul fully states in Heb., chapters 6-10, ALL the "OLD" order was completely done away with. In Rm. 11, he tells of the Jew, as a branch, as being 'broken off". Yet, if they abide not still in unbelief, they can be "grafted" back into the tree.

But that would require them to believe in God, by believing in Christ, whom God sent. YES?

Even so, at that point, while they would then become a covenant Jew, they would be no - "more or less" - a Jew, than someone who was also under the same covenant. By that, I mean - a Gentile who has gone through the conversion - and was now a "NEW TESTAMENT" Jew! YES?
I recognize the difficulty here. Remember that “seed of Abraham” is Paul’s term for ALL the saved (see Gal 3:16-29). Look at John the Baptist’s rejoinder to the Pharisees in Matt 3:9. The terminology is consistent, and is unrelated to New and Old covenants (Psalm 105:6). To solve your problem, take Romans 11:16-27. Parse every sentence. Identify every term. Identify every logical relationship. Follow Paul’s logic to see his argument. In other words, do the structural and cultural analysis. If you do this carefully, you may surprise yourself. I’m not going to state your conclusion here, since I have stated it in other places. Let us know what you find.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Ted, Cov.;

I am attempting to determine whether there is sufficient scripture to suggest a resurrection occurring at the time of Christs' resurrection. Yes, I know that Matt. 27 speaks of events that could be understood as such.

I know that many events "swirl" around this time of Christs' passion, and I'm just trying to "filter" some things out.

In order to adequately consider this event, I thought the beginning of the answer/solution might be found in the determining of the -- JEW.

That is why I posed the questions concerning the Jew. Yes, I know a Jew, ..is a Jew, ..is a Jew. Just like the question earlier.

But..........

There was a Jewish nation, out of Abraham, which existed, Pre-Christ.

Christ arrived on the scene, and "that" order was ushered OUT. YET, Christ ushered in a "new" order, a "new" JEW, the POST-Christ Jew.

STOP ME, - if I'm missing it -, because it is necessary to get the "basic" concepts correct, for any of this to be seriously contemplated.

Christ establishing this "new", did not eliminate/exterminate the "old" order Jew, it just brought that "age" to a close.

So, it seems to me that there are "two", distinct Jews, in that one order was Pre-Christ and the other is Post-Christ.

That is the premise that I am suggesting and I would like get your input, as to whether that is a correct assumption.

If so, I'll attempt to move this "...on down the line", and get to the "heart" of the scenario.

Bless

D

[Lizard]

There are many who would say that that is the correct assumption.

I am not one of them.

I think Paul in Romans (and elsewhere, but most notably in Romans) that Faith is what makes one a member of True Israel, not lineage, physical circumcision, or anything else apart from Faith.

I suggest you read all of Romans with this in mind (or at least chapters 4-9), but I will provide a few “highlights” to get you started (all scripture is ESV):

1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

So it is NOT according to the flesh (lineage) that one is justified, not in the Old Covenant nor in the New. ]

13For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

16That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,


Here Paul is stating that it is those who share the faith of Abraham that are counted as his off-spring (which he elaborates on in Chapter 9 which I will post later).


1Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

In Chapter 4 Paul talks about the faith of Abraham. He then goes on in Ch. 5 to declare that it is the same faith that we have in Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul emphatically declares that all righteousness came into the world through Christ. The righteousness of Abraham (from Ch. 4) and the righteousness of his audience (Jewish and Gentile believers).

And next we have (for me anyway) the “clincher” Romans 9:6-8:

[verse=Romans 9:6-8] 6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Paul clearly (clear to me anyway) says that ‘membership’ in true Israel is not based on lineage, but on “the promise” the promise that Abraham accepted on faith (mentioned in Chapter 4) and was counted righteous.

Also consider Galatians 3:7-29 (pay very close attention to v. 39)

And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

To me it is clear. While there is no “break” between the Old Covenant “Israel” and New Covenant “Israel”. The only “distinction” is that before Christ righteousness was accounted on faith in the promise, after Christ righteousness was counted on faith in the fulfillment of that same promise. In other words the only “distinction” is one of temporal relationship to the promise/fulfillment.

I hope that helps.

[Ted]

Faramir,

Well said --- and unanswerable.

Ted

[Lizard]

Faramir,

Well said --- and unanswerable.

Ted
:blush:

[Covenanter]

Cov,

The issue of “firstfruits” in relation to the 144,000 is not easy. The basic problem is the imagery of “firstfruits.” Looking at technical theological work, I’m not sure that theologians have clarified the imagery to a satisfactory degree.

It certain is a challenge, as we do not find the 144,000 in other Scriptures.
Covenanter

The obvious western approach is reflected in your comment.
I’m not sure I can argue effectively with this sense of the word. After all, the firstfruits were the very first harvested grain. But it wasn’t immature. It did, however, seem to be, as you suggest, a promise of continuing harvest. But is this the sense in which it is used in Rev 14:4?

Lev. 2:14 offers green ears of corn, dried by fire.
Covenanter

As I look through the OT, I find the definitional passages all identify the firstfruits as holy. They were “the priest’s due,” a “tithe” (Deut 18:4, 2 Chron 31:5). They supported the priests, who were denied the right to own land. One commentary indicates that the first fruits were given to God to show that all the crop belonged to Him. The remainder was to be used by the people and was not therefore holy. As one author suggests, the first fruits are holy so as to “desacralize” the rest of the crop.

But how can this type be applied properly?

Jesus was the “firstfruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor 15:20). I see two approaches to this. First, as the antitype of the first fruits, through corporate identity, Jesus represents all the saints. All the dead rightfully belong to Christ, but only a remnant are saints. The vast majority are wicked, and therefore not holy. This works, but to a western mind, it isn’t terribly satisfying.

The second approach would say that Jesus is the promise of the harvest to come. But when we look at Rev 14:4, we find that the attributes of the 144,000 are not only “first fruits,” but “the ones who have not been defiled with women” (i.e. not adulterers), “the ones who follow the Lamb,” and so on. Note the definite article. If this group is only part of the saints, then the definite article seems out of place. After all, “the” seems to indicate the complete number, not a representative few. (I know this can be stretching the Greek use of the definite article, but it seems appropriate.)

Is the "the" in the Greek? Young leaves it out, as do most translations.
Covenanter

Neither approach seems to give a good answer by itself. But if we continue into the chapter, we find a pair of harvests. The first is the harvest of the saints, which by definition would match the “first fruits.” It is also “holy” since the saints are holy. And it is a minority of the total harvest. The second harvest is definitely unholy, since it is the harvest of the wicked. It is also much larger, matching the desacralized part of a natural harvest.

This seems to give a better approach to the first fruits. The total number of the saints are the first fruits to God. And it matches the imagery of the 144,000 in Revelation 7. There John “hears” the number, then turns and sees an unnumbered multitude from every people and tribe and nation. Thus, he hears a symbolic representation of the body of the saints, then turns to see the reality. And this pattern occurs several other times in the apocalypse.

I don’t want to argue this as absolutely conclusive, but it seems to make good sense. The type represents the remnant who are holy to the Lord. Applied to Jesus, it is used in a corporate identity sense. This is foreign to western ears, since we are individualistic. But ANE peoples thought in a corporate sense. (That’s our problem in the Middle East! We don’t realize the the individual is unimportant, the group is the identity, and the group must survive. But that’s another subject.) Applied to the 144,000, they are all the saints of all ages.


I recognize the difficulty here. Remember that “seed of Abraham” is Paul’s term for ALL the saved (see Gal 3:16-29). Look at John the Baptist’s rejoinder to the Pharisees in Matt 3:9. The terminology is consistent, and is unrelated to New and Old covenants (Psalm 105:6). To solve your problem, take Romans 11:16-27. Parse every sentence. Identify every term. Identify every logical relationship. Follow Paul’s logic to see his argument. In other words, do the structural and cultural analysis. If you do this carefully, you may surprise yourself. I’m not going to state your conclusion here, since I have stated it in other places. Let us know what you find.

Ted
Logical thinking BUT - its stretching logic to argue that only the firstfruits are holy, & the main harvest corrupt when Paul argues the opposite.
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

The various references to "firstfruits" in the New Covenant Scriptures are either to living believers or to Christ. In some cases they are simply the first converts in an area. Rev. 14 is the problem, as the 144,000 there are in heaven, before the throne with Christ, and there is a great harvest to follow.

THat is the point (I think) of Dan's logic in saying that the 144,000 are pre-Christ believers. That would make sense in Rev. 14, but not in Rev. 7, where they sealed on earth prior to tribulation.

Are both bodies of 144,000 the same?

Another logic presents the first 144,000 as sealed on earth, & the second the same body seen triumphant in glory That presents competing pictures, as the 144,000 are sealed on earth prior to tribulation, while the great multitude are seen in heaven, under the altar.

I have looked at the argument in Romans 11, but I can't see a logic that would identify the firstfruits with the first harvest by the Son of man, as holy, while the main harvest as corrupt. The firstfruits are always representative of the main harvest.

Identifying the 144,000 as the tribes of Israel may refer to Jewish Christians who certainly suffered persecution, & thus be firstfruits anticipating the main Gentile/Jew harvest. They are however sealed against divinely inflicted tribulation.

I know we are trying to identify a signified truth. (Rev. 1:1) I look forward to your further thoughts.

[Daniel927]

Gentlemen,

I apologize for not being clearer in my earlier response/question.

By the way, I "have Ted" on another thread, and just told him tonight how busy I am at the moment, so this may not be long.

My mistake earlier, in speaking of the Jew, which I failed to clearly state, was that I was NOT referring to the "natural" Jew, after the flesh, according to their "linage".

I was making reference to the "faithful, believing, godly" JEW, which are both of Pre and Post Christ.

I agree with your response that to be considered "Abrahams' Children", we must "do" the works of Abraham, which is to "believe"!

Only, for us, because we have "seen" the mystery of God revealed, in Christ Jesus, we enter in to this covenant with the "atonement" clearly presented. Christ said that, "...many kings and prophets have desired to see the things you see...". Yet we are all (pre-post) united in that it requires "faith".

The issues that surround the 144'-, include this potential "resurrection", that I'm inquiring of. Is it possible to "contemplate" that all those verses which speak of them, just might be talking of "ONLY" one distinct group????

First - Look at Rev. 7 - It speaks of the angels standing on the four corners of the earth. Had Israel been scattered? In all their comings and goings? Into bondage and captivity? In and out of the nations of the earth?

So, --IF-- OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL, IS scattered....why wouldn't their "gathering" be visualized with four angels standing (the "extent" of this event) on the four corners? Could it refer to Israel being "gathered" from the four compass points, "reaches", of the earth?

I know that I have used the word "gather", while the verse talks about "sealed". But that is just to convey/present the main thrust of possiblity concerning the events surrounding the 144'!

In a "nutshell", I am inclined to think this "sealing", IS the Holy Spirit being "given" to the OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS! Who were preserved, in the bosom of Abraham, for the time, waiting for the "coming" of the redeemer.

The "giving" of the Holy Spirit would REQUIRE FIRST THE SHED BLOOD OF CHRIST? We, as the living, as the believer, would receive the baptism after Christ ascended, beginning with pentecost. Aren't these the faithful, who died "under" the covenant, Pre-Christ?

"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised Christ from the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies........BY HIS SPIRIT"!!!!!!!!

Is it possible that this account in Rev. 7, is showing the very "sealing" of OT Israel? "Grieve not the Holy Spirit, whereby you are "sealed" unto the day of redemption"? Wouldn't that be the "seal" of God, that is being spoken of here?

NOW, look at Rev. 6:9, it speaks of those who are "UNDER" the altar. They are given white robes (white linen is the righteousness of the saints?), and told to REST, as the "time" is not yet full?

Aren't these the same OT saints, pictured prior to chapter 7? Prior to being "sealed"? Christ has not yet (6:9) instituted the plan of redemption, and therefore "they" must WAIT until such time? "...Til their brethren that should be killed, -as they were -, SHOULD BE "FULFILLED"?

Now if Paul speaks that, "...absent from the body...present with the Lord", and that applies to all believers, WHY aren't these (who obviously are believers), "with" the Lord?

Again, --IF--, these are OT ISRAEL, they are "calling out" FROM Abrahams' bosom. They are in their "eternal" state, they are preserved, BUT still seperated from God, because Christ has not yet completed his work?

Would then the "ALTAR", that they are pictured "UNDER", NOT NECESSARILY be a picture of LOCATION (as in: I was "under" the table), BUT RATHER BE A PICTURE OF "POSITION/RELATIONSHIP" (as in: I was "under" the care of Ted)????????????

Would then that "picture" of being "under the altar", be presented because the "ALTAR", was where the Jew (believer) had and met the requirement for "covenant" relationship with God?????????? This "ALTAR" would be the avenue, the vehicle, for exhibiting their relationship wiith God????????

NOW, in Rev. 14, we again "see" this 144'! But unlike the picture of them in Rev. 6:9, before Christ arrives on the scenc, or, Rev.7:1-8, where they are actually experiencing the "in-filling" of the "seal" of God, we see the FULFILLMENT of the plan of God.

PROGRESSION

In Rev. 14, these 144' are shown in their "redeemed" state, in the kingdom? They are being shown, in the "inheritance" that is prepared specifically for them? That "ONLY" they can sing of this song? Why? Because these are the "ONLY" ones who have been "redeemed" out from the covenant --PRE-CHRIST???????????? That would certainly make them distinct from NT saints, wouldn't it?

As for the part, "..for they are virgins", please turn your attention to II Cor. 11:2, "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a .......CHASTE VIRGIN TO CHRIST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OT and NT saints may have some distinctions between them, but there are also similarities! We are ALL presented as "chaste virgins" to Christ. Without spot or blemish!

With ALL these possibilities, it does bring up the question of "resurrection"! This could very well be the picture that is presented in Rev. 20 -- where the "language" means an actual -physical, bodily, - resurrection. I know we talk of the "spiritual birth" as "resurrection", but this speaks of, "...This is the FIRST resurrection"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It certainly is all connected

I know it's alot.

Ted,

I apologize again, for not answering in a timely manner, I will do my best to "catch" you this weekend.

Bless all of you,

D

[Ted]

Logical thinking BUT - its stretching logic to argue that only the firstfruits are holy, & the main harvest corrupt when Paul argues the opposite.
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.
Be careful about the construction here. Paul makes two statements in parallel. The first notes the imagery of the firstfruits and unleavened bread. It’s in an “If A, then B” form. If you read Leviticus 23, you will see that the Firstfruits and Feast of Unleavened Bread happen at the same time. Thus, Paul properly links them, pointing out the holiness of both the offering and the unleavened bread. The second part looks back to common Hebrew references to such things as Jesus as the “Root of Jesse” (Isa 11:10) as the corporate identity of true Israel. The imagery goes back as far as Deut 29:18 where idolatry is a “root bearing poisonous fruit.” Thus, if the root is holy, of course the branches will be, too.

Thus, your argument about Paul is incorrect. Paul uses two sets of imagery, and neither suggests anything about the remnant of the harvest after the holy firstfruits.

The various references to "firstfruits" in the New Covenant Scriptures are either to living believers or to Christ. In some cases they are simply the first converts in an area. Rev. 14 is the problem, as the 144,000 there are in heaven, before the throne with Christ, and there is a great harvest to follow.
There are questionable underlying assumptions in your statement. That is, (1) Revelation is strictly sequential, and (2) Revelation follows the usual rules of physical reality. Neither is true. Verse 6 of chapter 14 introduces a new scene with “and I saw.” Verse 14 does this again. Thus, to suggest that the harvest following verse 14 takes place while the 144,000 are literally in heaven is to over-read the passage. There is nothing in the passage to tell us just when each of the parts of the chapter take place relative to each other.

Throughout the book we have a consistent use of “earth-dwellers” to speak of the wicked and “heaven-dwellers” to identify the saints. If this takes place during a hypothetical “great tribulation,” then to say that all who dwell on the earth celebrate the death of the witnesses (chapter 11) says that there are no faithful people dwelling on the earth. But this contradicts the Dispy idea of “tribulation saints.”

Of course, if we use the NT consistently, we find in Hebrews 12 that the saints alive on earth in Paul’s day are “heaven-dwellers.” Next, Revelation is a symbolic vision. It doesn’t play by normal rules. There is no reason why we shouldn’t see one entity appearing in more than one place in a single scene. One such is the first seal, where the rider in white is Jesus, even though Jesus opens the seal. (For you Dispy’s, Satan and his minions never get to wear white.)

I have looked at the argument in Romans 11, but I can't see a logic that would identify the firstfruits with the first harvest by the Son of man, as holy, while the main harvest as corrupt. The firstfruits are always representative of the main harvest.
I understand your point, but you are reading something into Paul’s argument that isn’t there. (See above.) We have to be careful about asking scripture to answer questions it doesn’t address.

The issues that surround the 144'-, include this potential "resurrection", that I'm inquiring of. Is it possible to "contemplate" that all those verses which speak of them, just might be talking of "ONLY" one distinct group????
Because ot the identical substantive language in Rev 7 & 14 of “144,000,” there seems to be little reason to suggest that they are not identical. At the same time, recall that in 7, John “hears” the number, then “sees” an unnumbered multitude. They are the same group.

First - Look at Rev. 7 - It speaks of the angels standing on the four corners of the earth. Had Israel been scattered? In all their comings and goings? Into bondage and captivity? In and out of the nations of the earth?

So, --IF-- OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL, IS scattered....why wouldn't their "gathering" be visualized with four angels standing (the "extent" of this event) on the four corners? Could it refer to Israel being "gathered" from the four compass points, "reaches", of the earth?

I know that I have used the word "gather", while the verse talks about "sealed". But that is just to convey/present the main thrust of possiblity concerning the events surrounding the 144'!
Not so fast! The angels are there to hold back the winds. Others are involved in the sealing. Look back at the imagery. While you might argue that it comes from Isa 11:12 for your gathering motif, the duties of the angels at the four corners indicate that Ezek 7:2 is a better source, speaking of impending doom.

It’s nice to see a possible connection. But your first glance needs to be backed up by careful analysis. And I can’t find any place where sealing implies gathering. Eph 4:30 is the closest parallel, and gathering is conspicuously absent.

NOW, look at Rev. 6:9, it speaks of those who are "UNDER" the altar. They are given white robes (white linen is the righteousness of the saints?), and told to REST, as the "time" is not yet full?

Aren't these the same OT saints, pictured prior to chapter 7? Prior to being "sealed"? Christ has not yet (6:9) instituted the plan of redemption, and therefore "they" must WAIT until such time? "...Til their brethren that should be killed, -as they were -, SHOULD BE "FULFILLED"?
Once again, be careful of your imagery. This is the place that the blood (the life! – Lev 17:11) of the sacrifice was poured out. Jesus declared that His blood was to be poured out (Matt 26:28). And Paul uses temple imagery regarding his impending death (Phi 2:17). He also gave us a whole book (Hebrews) devoted to the Temple as applied in the New Covenant. (I know, the authorship is contested…) So restricting this image to OT saints is really problematic. Of course, the fact that the book of Revelation is built around the Temple ought to suggest that such a restriction ought to be subject to very careful scrutiny.

Now if Paul speaks that, "...absent from the body...present with the Lord", and that applies to all believers, WHY aren't these (who obviously are believers), "with" the Lord?
Why didn’t I anticipate that question??? Again, you are leaping to a conclusion. Read 1 Cor 15. Paul anticipates leaving this “natural body (v. 44) at the parousia. Thus, Paul does not expect to be “absent from the body” until the parousia. Thus, as Paul says in 1 Thes 4:13-17, he is now “sleeping” in the dust of the earth.

BTW, don’t apologize for being busy. It happens to all of us. We’ll be here.

General comment:
As I discuss on the board, I repeatedly find people who do not go through the steps of careful analysis. In concept, they’re not very hard. And one of my hermeneutics students has already noted that they greatly enrich his preaching. (Halfway through the course.)

The first thing to look at is the subject matter. What is the author talking about? Often we reach conclusions unrelated to the subject in scripture simply by not noticing this first element of context.

Next, we need to analyze the structure of the passage. Break it into blocks and see what each block is about. Topic sentences for paragraphs are a great help.

Third, we need to be sure we understand all of the terms. If the text speaks of an altar (fifth seal), which altar is it? What happened there? For prophecy, what are the sources of the symbols?

Fourth, we need to consider the cultic and cultural milieu. This means that we can’t understand sanctuary language (most of Revelation) without a good working knowledge of the OT sanctuary type, including the festivals.

These steps allow us to begin to do a theological analysis. That analysis is continually revisited as new information is developed. It is also compared to results from other passages. Only when they all agree can we have confidence in our results.

I understand how prophecy is so enticing. Solving puzzles is satisfying. But I firmly believe that if you don’t have a command of some prerequisites, your work in symbolic prophecy will be seriously hampered. In particular, the Temple is the core of everything. It was in the OT, with the Temple on earth, and it is in the NT with the Temple in heaven. The first is the type, and points forward to the latter antitype. Learn about the Temple, in detail, and much of the prophecy will fall into place.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Ted,

Enjoyed, very much, your contributions. It just "tickles" me to no end when I see you "get" something that I've been "pounding" your way -- :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are correct about the four angels holding the winds, 7:1, and that John "only" heard the sealing. The imagery that I was looking to stress was that of the event "encompassing" the whole realm (eternal?), descriptive by the usage of "four winds".

Of course, that may be similar to 1:10, where he "heard" (the voice) behind him.

So John didn't "visualize" the 144' being sealed, but I would imagine that he "came into the knowledge of, or comprehended" that the "sealing" took place.

The "sealing" and "gathering" are two separate workings/applications/events. You'll notice that I even pointed out that fact. YET, even in our present case, for EVERY believer, we are FIRST sealed (after the blood, forgiveness)...[without my Spirit, you are none of mine], SO THAT WE MIGHT BE "GATHERED" (found worthy of eternal life).

So while in chap. 7, they are "only" SEALED, and not gathered, chap. 14 shows the "gathering" that has transpired, which was certainly preceded by the event of "sealing".

That was the "connection" that I was attempting to suggest. You can feel free to refer to it as a "new" concept, something that needs some contemplation. But it certainly "aligns" with the events of forgiveness/indwelling/redemption.


Your point that the angels were holding back a potential "doom", Ez. 7, -I would have a tendency to agree with. In Rev. 6:15-17, it clearly conveys the day of "wrath" against the ungodly. It speaks particularly of the "wrath" of the Lamb.

So is it possible that these two events are transpiring, in conjunction one with the other? If not almost simultaneous, certainly "linked" - timewise? I'm trying NOT to ask more of the verses than they provide, but these events would certainly "mirror" the - great and terrible day. Great for the believer, terrible for the ungodly?

The scripture does say the "great and terrible" day of the Lord, doesn't it? In this part of the passage it certainly implies that the "doom" is impending, almost immediate, merely waiting upon this act of "sealing"?

-----------------------------------------------------

I know that the "body" of Paul is in the ground. That's a point that even I wouldn't care to debate. YET, ......where is his eternal man/spirit?

In I Thes. 4:13--, Paul addresses those who have died (asleep) in Christ (which certainly includes him as well), that (14) "...even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God -- BRING WITH HIM".

You certainly have to help me here because I am under the distinct understanding that, THOSE THAT ARE ASLEEP IN CHRIST CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITH CHRIST (when he returns), UNLESS THEY ARE THERE PRESENT WITH HIM, AND THEREBY ABLE TO BE "BROUGHT WITH CHRIST" (at his return).

SO, what am I missing?

-----------------------------------

The "firstfruits" are these very same 144'! The first to partake of the "eternal consequences" that transpire for ALL those who believe in God. Redeemed at the time of Christ. Representative of the "whole" that are to be redeemed. FIRST FRUITS.

The "initial" fulfilling of eternal life to the believer. THEN "after this" (9), perhaps not meaning a: "time" identification; but more so, the NEXT STEP/PROVISION, in the covenant relationship of the Lamb?

Meaning FIRST the OT believers, and "after" them, the NT believers? Again, as a FINAL, ETERNAL PICTURE of the work of Christ? John is "seeing" the finality of many things, isn't he?

This is the point and distinction that I am attempting to point out. The Jew, OT, the first; the Jew, NT, the second.

It helps to properly set a "time frame" for some of these events in Rev. It is simply for the purpose of knowing the written word. AND it leads to "...line upon line, precept upon precept". It is all good!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------

Earlier I saw that you pointed out a fact that sometimes events are "conditional". The old - "IF' - "THEN" - scenario.

With Paul in Cor. 15, why doesn't this apply? He begins with, "...I show you a mystery, WE SHALL ALL NOT SLEEP". Why isn't he addressing that very "class" of believers (awakers)? He is!

Paul stipulates what the IF is! He does not state "IF" in the passage because HE is expecting the Lord to return while HE is still alive! But the "IF" is: "IF" - WE ARE STILL ALIVE AT THE RETURN OF THE LORD!

YET, Paul is STILL correct with his statement, BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE ALSO PART OF THE "WE" THAT HE SPEAKS TO IN THIS PASSAGE.

In Thess. he speaks of the scenario that "covers" those that have gone to be with the Lord. Here in Cor. he discusses the only other "option" to NOT being asleep in the Lord.

Alive and remaining.

Your point is correct -- Paul was expecting to "BE ALIVE". May I confide in you? I AM EXPECTING TO BE ALIVE AT HIS "COMING" AS WELL!!!!!!!!!! How about you? Aren't we "called" to be that way?

-----------------------------------------

Take notice that those "under" the altar, are PRE-crucifixion. That is the context I want to place it in. YES, we have our "own" portion of the altar, that would be in Christ. We are "made" partakers with/of/by Christ.

Their partaking of the OT altar, pre-Chrsit, could "ONLY" preserve them until the time of regeneration. Waiting for the Spirit, the Spirit of LIFE. WE have already received that Spirit of Life, through the ministry of Christ!

All "partakers", yet (dare I use - THE - word?), a different application, a different "dispensation"? OUCH.

To your point concerning Hebrews, the "pattern", "the type and shadow", but not the true. Christ "displacing" ALL those "types".

------------------------------

I appreciate your "comments" regarding understanding that we must consider "where" the end of our positions will take us. That we must excercise proper hermeneutics in attempting to "digest" the word of God. What they (considerations) will leave us "holding", as far as a theology goes. Care must ALWAYS be taken.

Although the working of the Spirit is different in all our lives, He still works to the unity, benefit, building up of the body.

SOME OF US HAVE to be the "hard" boiled types, so that those other "types" can have someone to help "straighten" out! Everyone has their place, yes?

---------------------------------------------------------

May the tender mercies of our Lord and Savior ever overshadow you. May He ever cause you to know and comprehend his glorious plan for all those that love him and eagerly await his appearing.

In Christ,

Daniel

[Ted]

So while in chap. 7, they are "only" SEALED, and not gathered, chap. 14 shows the "gathering" that has transpired, which was certainly preceded by the event of "sealing".
I’ve been teaching that for quite a while. The basic issue in sealing, however, is whether Rev 7 is treating “until we have sealed” as a one-time event or the conclusion of the process. I hold to the latter, since Paul speaks of the sealing as ongoing in his day (Eph 1:13).

One other point – I regard the gathering in 14 as the harvest of the earth (vv. 15-16), not the 144,000 in the praise scene. As noted before, there are at least three independent scenes in 14 – the praise scene, the three angels, and the harvests. Because of the symbolic visionary nature of Revelation, and the fact that the saints are regarded as dwelling in heaven before the apocalypse was written (Heb 12:18-24), seeing redeemed saints praising God in heaven before the parousia does not tell us that they are physically there.

Your point that the angels were holding back a potential "doom", Ez. 7, -I would have a tendency to agree with. In Rev. 6:15-17, it clearly conveys the day of "wrath" against the ungodly. It speaks particularly of the "wrath" of the Lamb.
Nice pick up. That’s one of the timing cues in the book. The fifth and sixth Trumpets happen during the sixth seal, after the last saint has been sealed, but before the Day of Atonement in the Seventh Seal and Trumpet. Note in 9:4 that the saints are protected at this time. This is the “hour of testing” (3:10) that comes to prove those who “dwell on the earth” (the wicked).

I know that the "body" of Paul is in the ground. That's a point that even I wouldn't care to debate. YET, ......where is his eternal man/spirit?
This is really a state of the dead question. I have three essays on the subject on my website. But the key is found in your question. You assume that there is an eternal, immortal part of man that persists. That is an Hellenistic idea that does not exist in scripture, but became a part of Jewish thought by Jesus’ day. Remember that Jesus said that He could “destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matt 10:28). The way He put this is an accommodation to that Hellenization. But we must also note that in 1 Cor 15, Paul says that immortality comes at the parousia. If our “soul” is immortal, then we already have immortality and Paul is wrong. But Paul recognizes that we do not have a soul, we are souls. Genesis 2:7 says that Adam “became a living soul.” Of course, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 calls animals “souls” as well.

In I Thes. 4:13--, Paul addresses those who have died (asleep) in Christ (which certainly includes him as well), that (14) "...even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God -- BRING WITH HIM".
Three items here. First, if the saints come from heaven, Paul is contradicting himself, because only immortal and sinless beings have access to heaven. Yet Paul expects to receive immortality at the parousia. Next, Jesus told the disciples (John 14:1-3) that He was going to prepare a place for them in heaven. If they aren’t immortal and sinless yet, they haven’t been there yet.

Finally, the verb translated “bring” doesn’t necessarily mean “bring.” BDAG notes that it can also mean “take” or “lead” (See Acts 20:12 and 23:18 NAS). That means that your translation depends on your theology. If you see live saints in heaven before the parousia, and the parousia leading to an earthly kingdom, you will translate it “bring,” as most translators do. After all, that is the basic theology of the vast majority of translators. But if you see the saints sleeping in the grave as Paul does (1 Thes 4:13), then you will translate it “take” or “lead” (cf. Psa 68:18, Eph 4:8). Jesus will come to “receive” (cf. John 14:3) the saints so that they can be with Him in heaven.

Paul stipulates what the IF is! He does not state "IF" in the passage because HE is expecting the Lord to return while HE is still alive! But the "IF" is: "IF" - WE ARE STILL ALIVE AT THE RETURN OF THE LORD!

YET, Paul is STILL correct with his statement, BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE ALSO PART OF THE "WE" THAT HE SPEAKS TO IN THIS PASSAGE.
Isn’t the Holy Spirit wonderful? He inspired that passage for just the meaning you gave it.

Take notice that those "under" the altar, are PRE-crucifixion. That is the context I want to place it in. YES, we have our "own" portion of the altar, that would be in Christ. We are "made" partakers with/of/by Christ.

Their partaking of the OT altar, pre-Chrsit, could "ONLY" preserve them until the time of regeneration. Waiting for the Spirit, the Spirit of LIFE. WE have already received that Spirit of Life, through the ministry of Christ!
I fear you are over-reading the passage. Recall that the earthly sanctuary was a type and shadow of the heavenly, the true sanctuary. Thus, we should expect that the earthly type would be echoed in the heavenly antitype. Since the blood (the life is in the blood!) was poured out under the altar (Exod 29:12), when we see “souls under the altar” (fifth Seal), that is symbolic of all the saints who have died. They were all killed by sin in the world, regardless of their own acts. Thus, they were “poured out” in a manner little different from the blood of the sacrifices. And since the antitype is present and active (Hebrews!), we should see the dead NT saints there just as the OT saints are.

As for “regeneration,” it is used in only two verses, Matt 19:28 and Titus 3:5. Titus uses the sense you note. But Matthew applies it to the disciples, who “in the regeneration” will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” From Acts, we know this didn’t happen at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out. So we have to find another meaning. And even if your sense is correct, since that promise didn’t happen at Pentecost, it loses its timing value.

**

I greatly appreciate the spirit in which you are engaging the discussion. It will serve you well.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Ted,

Knowing that the themes in Rev. are inseparable, it is difficult to not lose "focus" on the issue being discussed. So bear with me, as I attempt to raise the concept of OT Jew vs. NT Jew and how they dictate the timing of the various events that occur.

In my estimation, there are distinctions made between them, for this very purpose. I do not disagree that when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, WE ARE ALL JEWS, I just want to point out that there are differences between the New Jew and the Old Jew (in Rev.), and it serves a purpose.

John is told in 1:19, "...things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter".

I REALLY want to think that -- "things" -- which is referred to as; "...WHICH ARE and.... SHALL BE HEREAFTER...", is clearly making reference to "time elements" or "tenses". That being the case, I then want to also understand that when it speaks of; "...things which thou hast seen...", it is ALSO making reference to a "time" issue, YES?????????

What that would give us then, would be events that transpire in, "the past, the present and the future", YES????? So as the Lord instructs John to "write" all these things, we should know that certain of these happenings WILL BE "things" that took (past tense) place PRIOR TO this day of revelation.

Youn's, on that end, are probably well aware of this, I'm just trying to establish a "baseline". Sorry for the redundancy.

Take the issue of "sealing".

You are correct that Eph. clearly shows that we all, through the conversion, are continually "sealed". He is the "promise" of the gift of God to all who believe, He is our "seal". He is --ALSO-- the ONLY --- SEAL OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!

Now, as we look at chap. 7, where ISRAEL is "sealed", shouldn't we understand that this is an identical "work" done to them, that is done to us? God "seals" us the NT Jew, BUT He ALSO "sealed" them, the OT Jew! Isn't this what John sees and records?

So, to address your point; the "sealing" is an on-going event, in the believer's life, YET, this event which depicts the "sealing" of OT ISRAEL , was a ONE-TIME event! This group went into Abrahams' bosom, waiting on the promise, which was not JUST Christ, but also was the promise of God putting his Spirit IN them.

No different than anyone else, after the "blood", then the baptism of the Spirit. We, as believers are "sealed" individually, they, as a corporate body (of OT ISRAEL), were "sealed" all at once.

That is why you will see the differences in Rev. made between them and any other group.

Is it correct to consider that --IF-- these were/are - NOT- OT- Jews, then John, (whom I feel received a "very comprehensive" view of things in the eternal realm), did not "see", nor "record" any events that involved OT ISRAEL????????????

He continually spoke of "this" group of 144', but -- IF-- they are not OT ISRAEL, they HAVE TO BE - NT Israel. They have to be one or the other.

I cannot relate to them being some "modern day/future" Jew, that proselytize the world, and those "former" Gentiles are saved through this effort and are the ones depicted in 7:14!

That has always been a "consideration" of mine: IF they in chap's 6, 7, 14 are not OT Jews, and the ones' in 7:14 are NOT the church, the body, THEN NEITHER GROUP GETS ANY "INK" in Rev.

I would like to respond to many of the things that you spoke on, in your last post, but this has turned out quite lengthy, just speaking on OT-NT Jew! Perhaps in the up-coming ones, I can work in some of those issues.

JUST ONCE MORE , I would like to reinterate that the events, concerning those Jews; 6:11 represents - preservation/separation/sanctification; 7:4-8 represents -infilling/baptism/empowerment; 14:1 represents - redemption/regeneration/restoration.

This mirrors exactly the work of God in the converts' life since the time of the ministry of Christ:

Blood: -sanctification
Baptism: -empowerment to become the Sons of God
Resurrection: -redemption - regeneration - restoration.

Try not to have alot of "grief or heart-burn" over this, I've simply felt it best to try and give you a "grip" one some of the things that I "lean" towards!

Thanks,

In Christ,

D

[Ted]

John is told in 1:19, "...things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter".

I REALLY want to think that -- "things" -- which is referred to as; "...WHICH ARE and.... SHALL BE HEREAFTER...", is clearly making reference to "time elements" or "tenses". That being the case, I then want to also understand that when it speaks of; "...things which thou hast seen...", it is ALSO making reference to a "time" issue, YES?????????
Let’s first make a quick visit to grammar. If you look at different translations, you will notice that some have two “ands” and others only one (between “are” and “will be”). This reflects the variable use of kai in Greek. Thus, some who insist that all of the book is future are on shaky ground. Enough of that aside.

As for this being a time marker, its problematic. Yes, there are things that “shall be.” That’s clearly future. But when we get into the book, identifying which things are present versus those things that are future isn’t easy. John “saw” them all. For example, the fifth Seal has the “souls” of martyrs under the altar. Since Abel was the first martyr, this group begins around 4,000 years before John. We could go on. Each segment has to be evaluated and placed within the structure of the whole. And before that can be done, the structure of the whole has to be understood, and all of the symbols for the element have to be decoded. All in all, a daunting task.

You are correct that Eph. clearly shows that we all, through the conversion, are continually "sealed". He is the "promise" of the gift of God to all who believe, He is our "seal". He is --ALSO-- the ONLY --- SEAL OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!
Here I have to be certain of the intent of your first sentence. We can take it that I am personally undergoing a continual process, or a repetitive process of sealing. Alternatively, I can take this as a collective statement where each individual is sealed once, but the collective process is continual. That would make the Greek verb a “constative aorist.” If your meaning is the latter, then I agree.

Now, as we look at chap. 7, where ISRAEL is "sealed", shouldn't we understand that this is an identical "work" done to them, that is done to us? God "seals" us the NT Jew, BUT He ALSO "sealed" them, the OT Jew! Isn't this what John sees and records?
First, it is imperative to identify “Israel.” There are at least seven biblical definitions of the word, and they are all identified by context. In this case, the list of tribes is different from every other list of tribes in the Bible. This should suggest that there is something going on. Then, when we see the “I heard/I saw” pattern (as you noticed in 1:10ff), we must identify the “tribes” as the “great multitude.” That is, John “heard” one description of the group, then “saw” another. In each case where this happens (1:10-16, 5:5-7, 7:4-9, 21:9-10), the two descriptions are of the same entity. This denies your premise that the twelve tribes are OT Jew.

Incidentally, I would suggest that you abandon the idea of OT and NT “Jew.” Since that term is only applicable to the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin (with the Levites), it excludes all the prophets to the northern kingdom such as Samuel, Elijah, and so on. The better term is “Israel.” But even with that, you should research the term more carefully. While there is a secular ethnic application, in the redemptive context, “Israel” properly refers to the faithful throughout history. Those who rebel but claim the name are properly rebuffed as pretenders, such a John the Baptist’s rejoinder to the Pharisees in Matt 3:9-10.

So, to address your point; the "sealing" is an on-going event, in the believer's life, YET, this event which depicts the "sealing" of OT ISRAEL , was a ONE-TIME event!
This statement is incorrect in two ways. First, the individual is sealed when he accepts Christ. This is not a continuing process in an individual. Second, there is no basis for stating that it is a one-time event for OT Israel.

First, the imagery is of all peoples, not just Israelites. Second, the ancients were sealed at the moment they expressed their faith in Yahweh, just as we are when we express our faith in Jesus.

Finally, there is no verbal reason to require this to be a one-time event. The verb is morphologically aorist, but it can be a constative or culminative aorist, referring to the same aggregate process I discussed before. In other words, it can be legitimately translated “…until we have finished sealing…”

That is why you will see the differences in Rev. made between them and any other group.
Actually, Revelation blends the NT and OT saints in such a thorough way as to make them indistinguishable. I repeatedly note this in I Want to be Left Behind and in my new book on Revelation (partial on my website).

He continually spoke of "this" group of 144', but -- IF-- they are not OT ISRAEL, they HAVE TO BE - NT Israel. They have to be one or the other.
Not true. They represent all saints of all ages.

That has always been a "consideration" of mine: IF they in chap's 6, 7, 14 are not OT Jews, and the ones' in 7:14 are NOT the church, the body, THEN NEITHER GROUP GETS ANY "INK" in Rev.
It’s time to revise your thinking. Forget about distinctions between the groups. The saints are the saints – period. When they lived is unimportant. All that is important is their faith in God.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Ted,

It is a wonder that we EVER agree on ANYTHING!!!!!!!

Perhaps it is because we aren't that familiar with each other, familiar enough to know what each other means "when" we use a certain "terminology"!

Even the "cults" often use the same terminology as born-again believers