Dispy's chief error not eschatological but is Ecclisiological

[OldRegular]

Sure, if I can assume you believe that God will only be worshipped at one particular instant (John 4:23), and that the call of salvation all happens at one time (John 5:25), that all of Jesus passion took place at one instant of time (John 12:27; 13:1), and I could go on and on.

Obviously, these examples show that your reading of this text completely ignores both the usage of the word "hour" and the whole text of Scripture on this issue. You are a prime example of what happens when someone gets something in their head and fails to submit their head to Scripture. "Hour" does not mean all at one particular instant. The Bible plainly declares that there are two resurrections, and that the first resurrection takes place in at least several stages. To deny this is to deny the Scriptures.

Your simplistic approach that ignores the Bible is not adequate to deal with this topic.

While you don't like dispensationalism, and that is fine, dispensationalism is unequestionably consistent with Scripture. While it is not without its difficulties, It answers the tough questions far better and more consistently than the alternatives.

Suffice it to say that you are deliberately denying the clear teaching of John 5:28, 29. However, I understand since it undermines your dispensational premise [I believe you correctly called it that somewhere]

Dispensationalism is not consistent with Scripture. Just as there is no Scripture that indicates where Jesus christ definitively offered an earthly messianic Kingdom to the Jews there is no Scripture that teaches that the Church will be removed prior to any so-called seven year tribulation.

May I say again that you are entitled to be wrong. May I also say that classic dispensationalism is dying out to be replaced by progressive dispensationalism which will eventually [If the Lord delays the general resurrection and judgment.] become one with historic or covenant premillennialism.

 

[OldRegular]

Of course, but what does that mean? I gave you several passages that show "the hour" is used in ways describing more than one instant of time. Surely you can't deny that can you?

Nothing you posted justifies your mangling of John 5:28, 29 in order to support the erroneous dispensational premise [to use your own words].

Have you even read your Bible?

I will ignore your insulting question; better men than you have tried. In fact I believe you tried the same nonsense when I was on this forum a couple of years ago. Did not work then, won't now. But based on your erroneous interpretation of Scripture I believe I have studied the Bible more than you.

I don't want to be offensive, but this kind of nonsense just needs to go away. Let's look at the Bible:

You are no more offensive than your dispensational error.

Revelation 20:4-5 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

If I read verse 5 in the plain and normal sense, to paraphrase Ryrie, then the first resurrection is the rest of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:21-23 or since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,

Here we plainly see that the first resurrection has at least two stages: Christ's and then those who are Christ's at his coming.

That is eisegesis at its worst!

So OR, your position is biblically untenable. It is explicitly refuted.

You have refuted nothing. You have demonstrated some of the errors of the dispensational premise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Suffice it to say that you are deliberately denying the clear teaching of John 5:28, 29.

How so? Your previous attempts to demonstrate this have fallen short.

However, I understand since it undermines your dispensational premise [I believe you correctly called it that somewhere]

Where did I call it that? My dispensational premise is that God meant what he said.

Dispensationalism is not consistent with Scripture.

Sure it is. I challenge you to show somewhere that it isn’t. So far, you haven’t.

Nothing you posted justifies your mangling of John 5:28, 29 in order to support the erroneous dispensational premise [to use your own words].

And where are those my words?

I will ignore your insulting question; better men than you have tried. In fact I believe you tried the same nonsense when I was on this forum a couple of years ago. Did not work then, won't now. But based on your erroneous interpretation of Scripture I believe I have studied the Bible more than you.

You may have. But it doesn’t seem like it.

If I read verse 5 in the plain and normal sense, to paraphrase Ryrie, then the first resurrection is the rest of the dead.

But you said the first resurrection was the resurrection of Jesus. Which is it?

That is eisegesis at its worst!

Then help us out. You explain to us the passage and the teaching that there is a resurrection of Christ as the first fruits (what you said was the first resurrection) and “then” those who are Christ’s “at his coming.” That sounds like Rev 20 which is “the first resurrection.” In Rev 20, that first resurrection is followed by a second resurrection at the Great White Throne. Part of studying the Bible is putting these things together. You don’t seem willing to do that.

You have refuted nothing.

So you say in John 5:28, 29, that “the hour” means it all happens at once, correct? There is no gap between them. If that is true, then does “the hour” in John 5:25 mean that salvation happens all at once? Does “the hour” in John 4:24 means that God is worshipped all at once? Isn’t it clear that your understanding (which may be right) is not mandated since “the hour” can mean something other than what you are saying it means?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Was Jesus Christ lying when he stated the kingdom will be taken from Israel.

No, of course not. Was he lying when he said it would be restored to them? Of course not.

What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church.

Obvious? The church is not a nation. It is made up of all nations (“no more Jew or Greek, barbarian or Scythian”). The nation to receive the kingdom is Israel. It was taken away from that generation to be given to another.

The ‘little flock’ is the Church, the ‘called out’ ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom.

Jesus was talking to Jews there.

For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a ‘nation’ we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter in which he uses the language of Exodus 18:5,6 to describe the Church:

Having just preached through this, I am confident that Peter was borrowing language because the church and Israel had some things in common. Peter was not asserting an identity between them.

There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked.

It is in the OT that God would cast off his people and then bring them back. The NT confirms this in passages like Matthew 21:43, Acts 3:19ff., Rev 1:5ff., etc.

Which ones?

I will believe any Scripture that is posted.

Quote just one.

Already gave several, such as when the NT says, “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” Jesus told the Pharisees, “The kingdom is among you.” They were living in the kingdom with Jesus on earth, and they rejected it. You want to ignore the OT teaching about the kingdom, and you can’t do that. Read the OT and figure out what the kingdom is.

You should read McClain’s, The Greatness of the Kingdom. If you have not, you are ill-equipped to have this discussion. You may not agree, but you would at least be familiar.

Anyhow the first resurrection was that of Jesus Christ as I noted. It certainly did not take place in stages.

You said previously “If I read verse 5 in the plain and normal sense, to paraphrase Ryrie, then the first resurrection is the rest of the dead.’ So which is it? Is the first resurrection the resurrection of Jesus or the resurrection of the rest of the dead?

There you go again. Don't you know God cannot lie.

Hebrews 6:18. That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

So when God said he would restore the nation of Israel to the land in peace, will he do that? You say he won’t. God said he would. If God is not a liar, then he will do it, and you are wrong.

At some point, you have to deal with the Bible itself, particularly the OT passages where God makes promises to Israel.

 

[OldRegular]

Continued discussion between Pastor Larry and OldRegular.

Question by OldRegular
Was Jesus Christ lying when he stated the kingdom will be taken from Israel.

Response by Pastor Larry
No, of course not. Was he lying when he said it would be restored to them? Of course not.

Where does it say the kingdom would be restored to the Jews after Jesus Christ said the kingdom would be taken from them?

 

[OldRegular]

Continued discussion between Pastor Larry and OldRegular.

Remark by OldRegular
Suffice it to say that you are deliberately denying the clear teaching of John 5:28, 29.

Response by Pastor Larry
How so? Your previous attempts to demonstrate this have fallen short.

Are you saying that Jesus Christ lied. If you won't believe Him why would you believe me?

Remark by OldRegular
However, I understand since it undermines your dispensational premise [I believe you correctly called it that somewhere]

Response by Pastor Larry
Where did I call it that? My dispensational premise is that God meant what he said.

Search!

 

[OldRegular]

Continued discussion between Pastor Larry and OldRegular.

Remark by OldRegular
The ‘little flock’ is the Church, the ‘called out’ ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom.

Response by Pastor Larry
Jesus was talking to Jews there.

Surprise! Believing Jews were the first Christians, the first New Testament Church!

Remark by OldRegular
For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a ‘nation’ we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter in which he uses the language of Exodus 18:5,6 to describe the Church

Response by Pastor Larry
Having just preached through this, I am confident that Peter was borrowing language because the church and Israel had some things in common. Peter was not asserting an identity between them.

Wasn't he? This is more proof that the Church and the believing remnant of Israel are the same as the Apostle Paul's parable of the Olive Tree in Romans 11 shows.

Remark by OldRegular
There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked.

Response by Pastor Larry
It is in the OT that God would cast off his people and then bring them back. The NT confirms this in passages like Matthew 21:43, Acts 3:19ff., Rev 1:5ff., etc.

Matthew 21:43 states that the Kingdom of God will be taken from the unbelievers. The only way to enter the Kingdom of God is through regeneration, the rebirth [John 3:3].

Acts 3:19 is talking about, well I will just quote it, in context.

Acts 3:17-23
17. And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21. Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Revelation 1:5 states nothing about the restoration of anything to the Jews. In fact in context it is a beautiful picture of the general resurrection.

Revelation 1:5-7
5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6. And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where does it say the kingdom would be restored to the Jews after Jesus Christ said the kingdom would be taken from them?

So you are saying God changed his promise? I disagree. I think God made the promise and intends to keep it. If you read the OT, you will see that the blessings of the covenant were always given to those who were faithful. Deut is clear about this. When Israel was unfaithful they lost the blessings.

Notice this (at the risk of bringing too much Scripture into the discussion):

Deuteronomy 30:1-6 "So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, 2 and you return to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3 then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4 "If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. 5 "The LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. 6 "Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

God said he would cast them off and then bring them back, not bring someone else back.

Matthew 21:43 states that the Kingdom of God will be taken from the unbelievers. The only way to enter the Kingdom of God is through regeneration, the rebirth [John 3:3].

Yes, exactly. Those people were not regenerated. Christ will give to those who are. This is prophesied in Zech 12:9ff, and Rev 1:5ff.

20. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21. Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Good. Now, tell us what the "restoration" is. In context, is that which the prophets prophesied of, the restoration of the kingdom. Your view of a spiritual kingdom is wrong because a spiritual kingdom never existed to be restored.

Revelation 1:5 states nothing about the restoration of anything to the Jews. In fact in context it is a beautiful picture of the general resurrection.

Revelation 1:5-7
5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6. And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Rev 1:7 is a quote of Zech 12:9 which is a promise of God to regenerate and restore the nation of Israel. They are the ones who pierced him, and they are the onees who will be restored.

You see, you know the verses; you simply haven't thought about them much apart from your presupposition about there being no kingdom. When you understand the promises and truthfulness of God, the verses make perfect sense. I don't have to explain them away.

 

[J.D.]

Larry and others: Can you deny that disp'ism has a low view of the church? Doesn't disp'ism make the church a parenthesis in history - a brief stopover before God gets back to saving the people he really loves - the genetic descendants of Abraham?

 

[Amy.G]

Larry and others: Can you deny that disp'ism has a low view of the church? Doesn't disp'ism make the church a parenthesis in history - a brief stopover before God gets back to saving the people he really loves - the genetic descendants of Abraham?

That's the way it seems to me too.

But maybe I'm wrong. Don't do this :tonofbricks: to me. :laugh:

 

[Allan]

Larry and others: Can you deny that disp'ism has a low view of the church? Doesn't disp'ism make the church a parenthesis in history - a brief stopover before God gets back to saving the people he really loves - the genetic descendants of Abraham?

No, it actually has a VERY HIGH view of the Church.
The focus on Israel isn't because Israel is exhaulted but that as God begins to deal with Israel our salvation draweth nigh (to go all KJV on ya ) becomes it is one of the signs that His coming is soon, very soon.

 

[J.D.]

No, it actually has a VERY HIGH view of the Church.
The focus on Israel isn't because Israel is exhaulted but that as God begins to deal with Israel our salvation draweth nigh (to go all KJV on ya ) becomes it is one of the signs that His coming is soon, very soon.

Well here I go nit-picking, but what signs are you looking for? Isn't his coming imminent? And another thing - getting away from the OP here - is it correct to say that "Jesus is coming soon"? Is that any different than saying "Jesus is coming on April 2nd 2009 at 11:31 p.m."???

 

[OldRegular]

Comment From OldRegular
Revelation 1:5 states nothing about the restoration of anything to the Jews. In fact in context it is a beautiful picture of the general resurrection.

Revelation 1:5-7
5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6. And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Response From Pastor Larry
Rev 1:7 is a quote of Zech 12:9 which is a promise of God to regenerate and restore the nation of Israel. They are the ones who pierced him, and they are the onees who will be restored.

You see, you know the verses; you simply haven't thought about them much apart from your presupposition about there being no kingdom. When you understand the promises and truthfulness of God, the verses make perfect sense. I don't have to explain them away.

The Truth:
Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

And you say that Revelation 1:7 is ia quote of Zechariah 12:9 which is a promise of God to regenerate and restore the nation of Israel.

I say you have shown a perfect example of dispensational mangling of Scripture!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry and others: Can you deny that disp'ism has a low view of the church?

I absolutely deny that. My view of the church is very high, in fact, so high that I have gotten a lot of grief from people here about it.

Doesn't disp'ism make the church a parenthesis in history - a brief stopover before God gets back to saving the people he really loves - the genetic descendants of Abraham?

No, not at all. There have been some rather careless explanations of the church by dispensationalists through years, as well as by covenantalists. But rather than suggesting it is a stopover before God gets back to the people he really loves, I would suggest it is like a parent having two children ... They may do different things which each child, but they love each child equally.

I would never presume to pit the love of plan of God for the church against his love and plan for Israel. I think that is misguided. The fact is that he had both planned from eternity past, and the Scriptures gives no indication that he has abandoned Israel forever, or that he has replaced Israel, or transferred Israel's promises to the church.

I think people often confuse the national promises with his individual work. Jews today are saved and made a part of the church. That doesn't make the church Israel, or Israel the church, or any such combination.

Here's the bottom line as I see it: God made promises to Israel that have not yet been fulfilled. Will he fulfill them or not?

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Truth:
Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

And you say that Revelation 1:7 is ia quote of Zechariah 12:9 which is a promise of God to regenerate and restore the nation of Israel.

I say you have shown a perfect example of dispensational mangling of Scripture!

No, what you showed was how bad my memory is. The reference is Zech 12:10.

Zechariah 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

There it is, plain as the nose on your face. Rev 1:7 is quoting Zech 12:10 as a fulfillment of it when Israel looks on him whom they pierced. That is their repentance and restoration.

But look even at Zech 12:9. That hasn't happened yet. Read the whole chapter and realize that is a promise of God that we are still waiting for.

 

[OldRegular]

No, what you showed was how bad my memory is. The reference is Zech 12:10.

Zechariah 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

There it is, plain as the nose on your face. Rev 1:7 is quoting Zech 12:10 as a fulfillment of it when Israel looks on him whom they pierced. That is their repentance and restoration.

But look even at Zech 12:9. That hasn't happened yet. Read the whole chapter and realize that is a promise of God that we are still waiting for.

Revelation 1:5-7
5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6. And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

The Scripture above states that every eye shall see Him. Now which return is this talking about? The so-called rapture or the return after the so-called seven year tribulation? If every eye shall see Him and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him when He returns with clouds does that mean everybody or just the Jews. Sounds like a beautiful picture of the general resurrection to me, both the saved and the lost [that is the ones who wail].

 

[Ed Edwards]

Larry and others: Can you deny that disp'ism has a low view of the church? Doesn't disp'ism make the church a parenthesis in history - a brief stopover before God gets back to saving the people he really loves - the genetic descendants of Abraham?

I see no way at all that one can jump from Ed's Disp'ism to the conclusions to which you have jumped. THE CHURCH saved by the sacrifice of Jesus WAS GOD'S PLAN 'A', National Israel was God's Plan B. What God promised to national/physical/genetic Israel has NOT been completed yet (God's plan for national Israel will be completed - except for the 'eternal' part - mostly by the Great Tribulation Judgment Period [AKA: Daniel's 70th week] coming soon to a planet near you.

Jesus is the Song, the largely gentile Church (AKA: Bride of Messiah Jesus) is the melody, National Israel is a couple of measures.

But hey, don't let me stop the slaying of straw-men and windmills

 

[Ed Edwards]

THE CHURCH - God's plan A

The Greek word 'katabole' is translated foundation
and with 'cosmos' is translated 'foundation of the world'.

In the New Testament there are 10 occurrences of
'foundation of the world'. There are two conditions:

pro (before)
apo (since or from)

Seven start with 'apo'
Three start with 'pro'

The differences in doctrinal are significant:
the three starting with 'pro' has to do with
God's love of Christ, God's selection of Christ,
and Christ's selection of we Christ-ones.


1 Pe 1:20 (KJV1611): before = pro
Who verily was foreordeined before the foundation
of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

Jesus' sacrifice for the Church (us)
was foreordained before the foundation of the world

From Strongs:


G2602
καταβολή
katabolē
kat-ab-ol-ay'
From G2598; a deposition, that is, founding; figuratively conception: - conceive, foundation.


Rev 17:8 (KJV1769): from = apo
The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the
bottomlesse pit, and goe into perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall
wonder, (whose names were not written in the booke of life from the foundation
of the world) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

[ BTW, the Jews (not the Christians) were "written in the book of
life from the foundation of the world".
So this passage is about Jewish/Israeli so the
Tribulation period is for the Jewish/Israeli
By contrast, the Christians were "written in the book of
life before the foundation of the world" ]


Foundation of the World in KJV1769:

Mt 13:35 (KJV1769): from = apo
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have
been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 25:34 (KJV1769): from = apo
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Luke 11:50 (KJV1769): from = apo
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the
world, may be required of this generation;

John 17:24 (KJV1769): before = pro
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me,
be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory,
which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me
before the foundation of the world.

God the father gave we elect saints to the Son
before (pro) the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:4 (KJV1769): before = pro
According as he hath chosen us in him before
the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy and without blame before him in love:

God chose those in the Son (we Christians) before
the foundation of the world

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV1769): from = apo
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said,
As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest:
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 9:26 (KJV1769): since = apo
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation
of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath
he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Revelation 13:8 (KJV1769): from = apo
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not
written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

--------------------------------------
Largely gentile Christian born-again elect saints
(the Church) was Plan A.

The Jewish/Israeli chosen elect saints were Plan B.

 

[Ed Edwards]

No, it actually has a VERY HIGH view of the Church.
The focus on Israel isn't because Israel is exhaulted but that as God begins to deal with Israel our salvation draweth nigh (to go all KJV on ya ) becomes it is one of the signs that His coming is soon, very soon.

Amen, Brother Allan -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Scripture above states that every eye shall see Him. Now which return is this talking about? The so-called rapture or the return after the so-called seven year tribulation? If every eye shall see Him and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him when He returns with clouds does that mean everybody or just the Jews.

I would take this as the second coming after the Tribulation. All will see him "even" those who pierced, which is pointing out that it includes the Jews.

Sounds like a beautiful picture of the general resurrection to me, both the saved and the lost [that is the ones who wail].

Doesn't sound like a picture at all to me.