The Wall That Jesus Christ Broke Down; Rebuilt?

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

My understanding is that Gentile proselytes essentially became Jews. {See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte} I would also note that Jesus Christ did not have much good to say about proselytes to Judaism ...

That's what he said, and it is his point -- that the proselyte was saved according to the administration of God's covenant with the Jews, not through the covenant of grace.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
To many dispensationalists the Jews are still God's chosen people.

Both are "His people." That's the tripping point for you. You do not understand that God can have one plan of salvation, but administer it differently to differing peoples.

Are you claiming that the unbelieving Jews are saved?

 

[OldRegular]

That's what he said, and it is his point -- that the proselyte was saved according to the administration of God's covenant with the Jews, not through the covenant of grace.

Perhaps you should read that passage again:

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Jesus never said that proselytes were saved any more than HE said Pharisees were saved. Are you claiming these Jews were saved simply because they were Jews!?

 

[OldRegular]

You must understand that we don't "glorify Israel," but recognize it as the vessel that sustains and protects spiritual Israel, which is not the church.

Surely you jest! In light of what Jesus Christ did on the cross that statement is insanity if you are talking about national Israel since they conspired with Rome to crucify Jesus Christ! Salvation has always been by Grace, period!

 

[OldRegular]

You have continued to use the word "parenthesis" is a disparaging way, despite Ryrie's warnings to the contrary that the Progressive Dispensationalist, the Calvinist, the Covenantalist, uses it in that fashion.

I use the words "parenthesis" because Ryrie used it though Chafer said he preferred "intercalation"; Ironside apparently preferred "parenthesis" because he wrote a book, The Great "Parenthesis". Sad to say that you are responding in the same manner as do other dispensationalists on this Board.

 

[OldRegular]

That's what he said, and it is his point -- that the proselyte was saved according to the administration of God's covenant with the Jews, not through the covenant of grace.

The only thing with which God's covenant with the Jews had to do was {1}they were the means by which Jesus Christ came into the world and {2}the means through which he suffered for the sins of the Elect.

 

[The Biblicist]

My understanding is that Gentile proselytes essentially became Jews. {See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte} I would also note that Jesus Christ did not have much good to say about proselytes to Judaism so I am not sure what is your point!

Matthew 23:15. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

My point is that salvation included Gentiles prior to Pentecost (e.g. Abraham, Rahab, Ruth, etc.) and there was not one way to save Gentiles and another way to save Jews, but only one gospel (Heb. 4:2) one way (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6) and one way to receive remission of sin (Acts 10:43). The "middle wall of partition" had NOTHING to do with the manner in how God saved gentiles versus Jews. The middle wall of partition had to do with UNEQUAL worship in God's house between Gentiles and Jews.

True, since the Pharisees and scribes had perverted the gospel, their gentile converts were a "two fold more child of hell" than previously, as they traded their pagan religion for another religion without any true repentance and faith in the one and only true gospel.

 

[OldRegular]

My point is that salvation included Gentiles prior to Pentecost (e.g. Abraham, Rahab, Ruth, etc.) and there was not one way to save Gentiles and another way to save Jews, but only one gospel (Heb. 4:2) one way (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6) and one way to receive remission of sin (Acts 10:43). The "middle wall of partition" had NOTHING to do with the manner in how God saved gentiles versus Jews. The middle wall of partition had to do with UNEQUAL worship in God's house between Gentiles and Jews.

I beliEve there were many Gentiles saved prior to Pentecost. Job, some in Salem where Melchizedek reigned, those to whom Jonah finally preached, and I feel certain many others.

 

[The Biblicist]

I beliEve there were many Gentiles saved prior to Pentecost. Job, some in Salem where Melchizedek reigned, those to whom Jonah finally preached, and I feel certain many others.

Well, then obviously the "middle wall" had nothing to do with salvation. The "middle wall of separation" was found in the public house of worship that prevented Gentiles from EQUAL SERIVCE in God's house and EQUAL WORSHIP ACTIVITIES.

 

[OldRegular]

On the contrary, it is the Convenantalist who fails to make a literal interpretation of Daniel. The Convenantalist's view is that the vision is figuratively allegorical, making the whole thing pointless, and then he attempts to make a point of it that doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny.[/FONT][/SIZE]

First don't make the blanket assumption that the scrutiny by dispensationalists is inerrant. It is, in fact, the opposite.

Daniel 9:24-29
24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It is unreal that the dispensationalist could insert an unlimited amount of time in the 70th week, especially since they do not in the previous 69. Actually the opening sentence of Daniel in effect tells the story of the prophecy.

24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,

The Jews, or Israel as you say, "finished the transgression" when they conspired with Rome to Crucify the Messiah, because HE offered a spiritual kingdom, not a physical kingdom. The Jews, Israel as you say, were punished in 70 AD by their co-conspirators Rome. The Temp;e was destroyed so that useless sacrifices could no longer be offered!

The Apostle Paul says of the Jews:

Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

 

[OldRegular]

Well, then obviously the "middle wall" had nothing to do with salvation. The "middle wall of separation" was found in the public house of worship that prevented Gentiles from EQUAL SERIVCE in God's house and EQUAL WORSHIP ACTIVITIES.

I don't believe I ever said the middle wall had anything to do with Salvation. If I did I would appreciate you pointing it out to me!

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't believe I ever said the middle wall had anything to do with Salvation. If I did I would appreciate you pointing it out to me!

You seem to be quoting a Mr. Cox with approval and he said:

Jesus taught, in John 10:16, that there was one fold and one shepherd. Paul, the great theologian, certainly knew nothing of God's having two bodies. Let Paul speak: "For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph. 22:14-16)

Paul says here that God took two men (peoples) and created one man (people) from these two. Nor does the apostle teach that God had two peoples even before this. Rather, he teaches that God took Israel (who were his people) and added the Gentiles to them -- grafted the Gentiles, who up to that time had not been God's people -- into the same olive tree. The prophet Hosea had predicted that those who were not God's people should be called his people. This prophecy was fulfilled when the Gentiles were grafted as a wild shoot into the original olive tree of God (Israel).

Just what difference does it make whether one believes God has two peoples rather than one? Many have asked if this is not a minute theological point. The importance of this premise grows in magnitude as one studies the dispensational ramifications growing out of it. The New Testament teaches us that the church is the very apex in Christ's redemptive work and that Calvary was its purchase price. An example of this teaching is Ephesians 1:22,23: "And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." Whereas the Bible calls the church the very body of Christ and the very fullness of God, the dispensationalist teaches that the church is doomed to failure, that it is a temporary instrument, and that national Israel will have a far greater ministry, following the removal of the Holy Spirit, than the church will have under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Is this a minor point?

This quotation and every statement you and Mr. Cox have made about the "middle wall of partition" seems to apply that phrase to redemption alone.

The new public institution the church is not a universal invisible mystical body but a local visible body of water baptized believers. Indeed, the words "the house of God" is found only 88 times in Scripture and 1 Tim. 3:15 is the 86th time it occurs and in every single solitary previous instance it is descriptive of the institutional public house of worship where a qualified ministry administer qualified ordinances and that is precisely the context of 1 Tim. 3:1-3.

I believe that salvation, the gospel, the Savior have been the same since the Garden of Eden until Revelation 22. Prior to Isael God had an elect people. Israel as a nation was and still is God's elect nation, but not all ethnic Jews constitute that spiritual ethnic elect Israel. However, God as in all cases of election will save that nation at a point in time in the future (Rom. 11:25-28) completing His promise to Abraham of an elect nation from his own physical loins as he will also complete His promise to Abraham about an elect people from all nations. Romans 11:1-32 is designed to assure that God's election of Israel to Salvation is not God's election among the Gentiles. Church does not equal Israel any time in history, but rather the new institutional house of God built by Christ in his own earthly ministry provides EQUALITY of worship and status of Jews and Gentiles elect together, without minimizing or denying God's future election of ethnic Israel as a nation to salvation.

 

[OldRegular]

You seem to be quoting a Mr. Cox with approval and he said:

Jesus taught, in John 10:16, that there was one fold and one shepherd. Paul, the great theologian, certainly knew nothing of God's having two bodies. Let Paul speak: "For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph. 22:14-16)

Paul says here that God took two men (peoples) and created one man (people) from these two. Nor does the apostle teach that God had two peoples even before this. Rather, he teaches that God took Israel (who were his people) and added the Gentiles to them -- grafted the Gentiles, who up to that time had not been God's people -- into the same olive tree. The prophet Hosea had predicted that those who were not God's people should be called his people. This prophecy was fulfilled when the Gentiles were grafted as a wild shoot into the original olive tree of God (Israel).

Just what difference does it make whether one believes God has two peoples rather than one? Many have asked if this is not a minute theological point. The importance of this premise grows in magnitude as one studies the dispensational ramifications growing out of it. The New Testament teaches us that the church is the very apex in Christ's redemptive work and that Calvary was its purchase price. An example of this teaching is Ephesians 1:22,23: "And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." Whereas the Bible calls the church the very body of Christ and the very fullness of God, the dispensationalist teaches that the church is doomed to failure, that it is a temporary instrument, and that national Israel will have a far greater ministry, following the removal of the Holy Spirit, than the church will have under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Is this a minor point?

This quotation and every statement you and Mr. Cox have made about the "middle wall of partition" seems to apply that phrase to redemption alone.

The new public institution the church is not a universal invisible mystical body but a local visible body of water baptized believers. Indeed, the words "the house of God" is found only 88 times in Scripture and 1 Tim. 3:15 is the 86th time it occurs and in every single solitary previous instance it is descriptive of the institutional public house of worship where a qualified ministry administer qualified ordinances and that is precisely the context of 1 Tim. 3:1-3.

I believe that salvation, the gospel, the Savior have been the same since the Garden of Eden until Revelation 22. Prior to Isael God had an elect people. Israel as a nation was and still is God's elect nation, but not all ethnic Jews constitute that spiritual ethnic elect Israel. However, God as in all cases of election will save that nation at a point in time in the future (Rom. 11:25-28) completing His promise to Abraham of an elect nation from his own physical loins as he will also complete His promise to Abraham about an elect people from all nations. Romans 11:1-32 is designed to assure that God's election of Israel to Salvation is not God's election among the Gentiles. Church does not equal Israel any time in history, but rather the new institutional house of God built by Christ in his own earthly ministry provides EQUALITY of worship and status of Jews and Gentiles elect together, without minimizing or denying God's future election of ethnic Israel as a nation to salvation.

I pointed out that Cox was a "reformed" dispensationalist. That perhaps explains some of his rhetoric.

I have said on this Board numerous times that Salvation throughout time has been and will be by the Grace of God. I have posted the following on a number of occasions and most recently in the OP: The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000.

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

 

[The Biblicist]

I pointed out that Cox was a "reformed" dispensationalist. That perhaps explains some of his rhetoric.

I have said on this Board numerous times that Salvation throughout time has been and will be by the Grace of God. I have posted the following on a number of occasions and most recently in the OP: The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000.

I understand your position on the church as that was my own position at one time. I no longer hold to that position. The church's foundation and builder are New Testament in origin not Old Testament in origin. The baptism in the Spirit is Pentecost in origin not pre-pentecost. The church that Jesus built administers the "keys of the kingdom" containing ordinances unknown prior to the first coming of Christ. In every aspect, its builder, its first officers, members are all missing prior to the ministry of Christ.

There has only been one covenant of salvation and it is between the Three Divine Persons of the Godhead and no other being has covenant obligations to fulfill but those Three. This covenant has been been representative by various PUBLIC administrative with various emphasis between the holiness of God and the grace of God between Genesis and Revelation with different emphases. The clearest administration is found in the case of Abraham in the Old Testament prior to the first coming.

The only two "house of God" administrations are the Mosaic and the church administrations, the former being called the "old" and the latter called the "new" covenant (Heb. 9:1 "also.....and..."). Both are strictly administrative and declarative in function, neither being legislative or sacramental in function. The former anticipated and was fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, whereas the latter anticipates and is fulfilled in the Second coming of Christ.

Neither is coextensive with either the family or kingdom of God but both equally are entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom" to administer God's ordinances within the kingdom of God on earth (God's professing people - Mt. 13 and parable of the tares).

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

First don't make the blanket assumption that the scrutiny by dispensationalists is inerrant. It is, in fact, the opposite.

You err again. It is not just Dispensationalists that see the gap. Many conservative interpreters of Scripture who reject Dispensationalism nonetheless see the Daniel prophecy in the same light.

It is unreal that the dispensationalist could insert an unlimited amount of time in the 70th week, especially since they do not in the previous 69.

Again, it is not only Dispensationalists who see the gap, and the reason no one "infers" a gap in the first 69 weeks is that is none to infer.

Actually the opening sentence of Daniel in effect tells the story of the prophecy.

Yes it does, but we'll get that later. Your continuous fulfillment theory just doesn't work.

24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,

The Jews, or Israel as you say, "finished the transgression" when they conspired with Rome to Crucify the Messiah, because HE offered a spiritual kingdom, not a physical kingdom.

This is a very myopic view of the reason Christ died, and it is a very dangerous view because it could lead to the conclusion that somehow Israel/the Jews' sin was greater than our own. The truth is, Jesus took "the sins of the world" upon Himself at the Cross. Claiming that "only" the Jews or "only" Rome, or a combination of the two are responsible for Jesus' death is borderline heretical. My sin, your sin, the sin of the world put Jesus on the Cross. We all drove the nails into His hands and feet. If it was "only" the Jews or Rome, He would have died only for the Jews or Rome. That is ludicrous, nearly blasphemous.

As for the interval between the 69th and 70th week, it is plainly in the text in the original Hebrew, and the NASB does an excellent job of bringing it forward.

Daniel 9, NASB
26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined." [Emphasis added]​

"Then after the sixty-two weeks... " indicates that "Messiah's cutoff" -- Jesus' crucifixion -- is after the sixty-two weeks. The word is 'achar in the Hebrew. It means "behind, or after." It is not part of the 62 weeks. It stands alone outside of it. Nor does it start the 70th week. Therefore this verse effectively declares ends the 69th week before beginning the last, 70th week. The gap or interval is obvious.

I'm going to skip to "the end" for a moment. The Hebrew qets (end) translates "the end of time." Obviously Jesus' crucifixion was not the end of time. The verse continues, though, to indicate the events of the destruction of the Temple and the the city. We all know these occurred in 70 A.D. That's 38 to 40 years after the crucifixion, which totally negates a consecutive 70th week of years. It further confirms the interval between weeks 69 and 70.

To summarize, the cutting off of Messiah, and of the people of the prince, are stated to occur after the sixty-nine weeks. If this was intended to occur in the seventieth week, the text would have read here "during" or "in the midst of" as Daniel refers to the mid-Tribulation by the use of the Hebrew hetzi -- "in the middle of" -- in verse 27. This language implies that these events precede the 70th week, but do not immediately follow the sixty-ninth. Therefore, a temporal interval separates the two.

Now, back to the other highlighted phrase, "have nothing." What does that mean, that Messiah "will have nothing"? It has to refer, I believe, to the six purpose clauses in v. 24, which is said to be the goal of the prophecy for Daniel's people and city.

Daniel 9
24 "Seventy 1weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to 2make atonement for iniquity, to bring in 3everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. ​

If these items are to be fulfilled for Israel and Jerusalem in the same way the earlier parts of the passage where fulfilled, since they obviously did not occur in the past, they must take place at a time future even to our own day. This is where Covenantalists fail in their understanding. The passage proves that Israel/The Jews have a future, in Christ but differently than how the church has been dealt with by Christ.

Continuous fulfillment advocates must make the seven-year covenant mentioned in verse 27 between Christ and the church, while in reality it will be made between Antichrist and the nation of Israel. Since this covenant is broken in the middle of the week, that is, after three and a half years, their view means that Christ made a covenant that He then breaks. Not only is there no covenant mentioned that Christ made at His first coming; what biblically thinking Christian could conceive of a covenant that Jesus broke at any time? The language of verse 27 just does not fit what we know of Christ's Earthly ministry as clearly recorded in the Gospels.

The Apostle Paul says of the Jews:

Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

And in Romans 9-11, he clearly details how that is not a permanent condemnation, but a merely a chastisement of the same type Christians receive on a nearly daily basis, if they are paying attention. Continuous fulfillment of the 70 weeks, the idea that Israel is permanently abandoned -- ridiculous! Covenantal theology is the errant teaching.

 

[OldRegular]

TND

Daniel 9:24-27
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

You conveniently ignore what the Scripture says.

First: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

The first 7 weeks have already been discussed so the above tells us that AFTER 69 WEEKS the Messiah would be cut off, killed. That is Jesus Christ was crucified DURING the 70th week, Period.

Second: the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

This statement refers to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by Rome in 70AD!

Third: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

The HE obviously refers to the Messiah of verse 26. The above most likely refers to the period of time from the Birth of Jesus Christ until the destruction of the temple, about 70 years. The word confirm translates the Hebrew word ‘gabar’ and is used 25 times in the Old Testament. It is translated prevail 14 times and confirm once. The passage could read “He shall cause a covenant to prevail”.

Fourth: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

Jesus Christ was crucified sometime AFTER the 69th week. His ministry was about 3.5 years. His death eliminated the need for the blood sacrifices of the Temple and the rending of the Temple curtain was the nail in the coffin of Judaism.

Fifth: and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The continuation of blood offerings in the Temple were an abomination to God. That is likely the cause of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The first 7 weeks have already been discussed so the above tells us that AFTER 69 WEEKS the Messiah would be cut off, killed.

That's exactly what I said. But I also disproved this ...

That is Jesus Christ was crucified DURING the 70th week, Period.

If you want to challenge my proof, deal with my post. Making blanket unsupported statements doesn't accomplish that.

Second: the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

This statement refers to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by Rome in 70AD!

Impossible, if you do indeed accept that the "weeks" in questions are weeks of years. For your continuous fulfillment theory to be correct, the destruction would have had to occur 36-1/2 years earlier than it actually did.

Third: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

The HE obviously refers to the Messiah of verse 26.

A covenant that is broken, as I pointed out in my previous post. Surely you are not suggesting that Christ breaks a promise? Oh, wait ... of course you do, because you believe the Father has reneged on His promise to Abram. Never mind.

The truth is, Christ doesn't break covenants. You know this, yet you persist in an unholy belief that He did just that. You have twisted not only Scripture, but impugned the character of God with this nonsense. You're going to excessive lengths, dangerous lengths, to prove your view correct. As I said yesterday, it is disagreement over nonessential doctrine. See to it that you do not negate the essential ones in trying to stand on your head to believe nonsense. I'm done here.

 

[OldRegular]

I understand your position on the church as that was my own position at one time. I no longer hold to that position. The church's foundation and builder are New Testament in origin not Old Testament in origin. The baptism in the Spirit is Pentecost in origin not pre-pentecost. The church that Jesus built administers the "keys of the kingdom" containing ordinances unknown prior to the first coming of Christ. In every aspect, its builder, its first officers, members are all missing prior to the ministry of Christ.

I agree in principle with much of what you say. However I am ambivalent about the indwelling Holy Spirit in the Old Testament Saints. There are cases where it seems obvious that certain men were gifted with the Holy Spirit. Whether this was permanent or temporary is unclear, at least to me. And whether this extends to all believers is also unclear.

There has only been one covenant of salvation and it is between the Three Divine Persons of the Godhead and no other being has covenant obligations to fulfill but those Three. This covenant has been been representative by various PUBLIC administrative with various emphasis between the holiness of God and the grace of God between Genesis and Revelation with different emphases. The clearest administration is found in the case of Abraham in the Old Testament prior to the first coming.

The only two "house of God" administrations are the Mosaic and the church administrations, the former being called the "old" and the latter called the "new" covenant (Heb. 9:1 "also.....and..."). Both are strictly administrative and declarative in function, neither being legislative or sacramental in function. The former anticipated and was fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, whereas the latter anticipates and is fulfilled in the Second coming of Christ.

Neither is coextensive with either the family or kingdom of God but both equally are entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom" to administer God's ordinances within the kingdom of God on earth (God's professing people - Mt. 13 and parable of the tares).

Given your above remarks: Who or what constitutes the Bride of Jesus Christ. Who or what constitutes the New Jerusalem.

 

[OldRegular]

Double post!

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree in principle with much of what you say. However I am ambivalent about the indwelling Holy Spirit in the Old Testament Saints. There are cases where it seems obvious that certain men were gifted with the Holy Spirit. Whether this was permanent or temporary is unclear, at least to me. And whether this extends to all believers is also unclear.

Think about this. Do you define spiritual death as spiritual "separation" due to sin (Isa. 59:2)? Do you believe God IS life and light? Thus spiritual "separation" from the Spirit of life IS spiritual death. Hence, what is the opposite of spiritual "separation" from the Spirit of life/light, if it is not spiritual "union"? How can spiritual union exist if it is not internal to man and with the human "spirit"?? How can it be off and on without being off and on spiritually dead and alive? Hence, if any man have not the Spirit indwelling them they are "none of his" (Rom. 8:8-9).

The prepositions "upon" in both the Old and New Testament refers to empowering for office, equipping for special service; gifting a person by the Spirit (Acts 8:14; etc.).

Given your above remarks: Who or what constitutes the Bride of Jesus Christ. Who or what constitutes the New Jerusalem.

Given your response who then are the "saved" nations living outside of the New Jerusalem AFTER the Great White judgement seat and creation of the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1-2) in Revelation 21:24? Why is the leaves on the tree of life for these "nations" (Rev. 22:3) and the fruit for overcomers (Rev. 2:7)? Who are the friends of the bride (Rev. 19:8-9)?