How does this fit the Millenium?

[Grasshopper]

Is this the part where you actually look at Ez 32, Isaiah 24, Jer 4 and exegete the details SHOWING that we are not supposed to believe it?

Or do you just continue to "pretend" that by saying "pay no attention to the details" - it will one day make a "compelling case"?

Your approach is a mystery.

No, this is the part where you ignore context and pick out verses you wish to be future.

Agreed. Any time the details of the Bible get in your way you pronounce "not real" on it and move on.

Still - a curious method of avoiding exegesis.

How do you live with it?

It was real, not literal. You have a difficult time with this concept. So you MUST take all the Biblical language as literal or you are a hypocrite. Can I show you verses and force you to give me how they literally happened. Can I start with "circumcision of the heart". Can you show me how that literally happened to you? Was it painful? Of course it was painful because you are a literalist, and if it didn't happen literally then God is a liar, right?

"Showed" as in "not actually quoting the text - not actually look at any detail that does not please Grasshopper's bias". AN interesting kind of "show".

Really? Which verses did I not show? Did those events in Is. 13 literally happen? Why don't you answer this? Is Is. 13 a prophecy of the future?

Meanwhile the text of the Word of God remains WITH the details you so ignore in every one of your posts "EVEN" in the posts you claim to be "showing something" about Isaiah 24, Jer 4 and Ez 32.

Why in your Ez. 32 passage do you start with verse 4 and skip 1-3? Do you know why? I do.

Ezekiel 32:1 And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first day of the month, that the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, take up a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou wast likened unto a young lion of the nations: yet art thou as a monster in the seas; and thou didst break forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.


Why is Pharaoh being addressed? Why do you ignore context? Is this the way David Koresh taught his flock? Is this a seventh-day adventist way of interpreting, just ignore context and let it mean whatever you wish, as he did?

Ray is saying, 'The reason why some the Protestant Reformers believed that eschatology was in the past is because the barnacles of Roman Catholicism still remained in their hearts.

No, they knew History and understood those events were fulfilled. They understood the OT prophets used apocalytic/figurative language. You however do not.

Open your eyes to the facts. You have swallowed much of Roman Catholic theology even believing that we are now in the kingdom of God which will continue until that big one time Judgment Day. Correct me if I misunderstand your theory.

The Kingdom has not come only if Jesus is a liar, and Daniel’s prophecy is false. You are just like the Jews who wanted a physical King and Kingdom when all along it was to be spiritual.

Rm 14: 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit

Lk. 17: 20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation :
21 neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you .

Too bad you weren't around in the 1st century to correct Paul and Jesus on their obvious lack of knowledge of the Kingdom. Clearly it is a physical earth-shattering event as you believe and not this mumbo-jumbo "spiritualizing" as they seem to think.

Ray is saying, Dr. Matthew Henry has a lot of good exegesis but when he gets into end times events, he is lost both in the O.T. and the New.

Because he doesn't agree with you?

Hmm "some think" and "very probably" and "some MAKE it apply to" ... not a very compelling discussion of EACH Detail highlighted in that text above that can not POSSIBLY fit those scenarios Grasshopper!
[/QUOTE]

They do if you don't try to force the Prophets into literalism.

As noted - the approach you take is that if ANY part of the text CAN apply to anything local than "probably hopefully possibly" ALL the details can be "bent" to apply locally if we promise not to actually look at those details.

When the context is that time-frame then yes they apply to that situation. You just completely ignore the context.

Especially not true! Said Grasshopper - don't believe it for a minute!

Why does Grasshopper keep denying the very parts of scripture that are so contradictory to his views?

They don't contradict my view.

Well the excuse he uses is that when Bible authors mix global world history prophecy with local events (as Christ did in Matt 24) we are not to believe them. We should never "believe" as in take literally - any statement that uses a symbol anywhere in the text. - says Grasshopper

Everything is literal says Bob.

We should never allow ourselves to believe someone addressing local events - and also world-history Gospel events in the same prophecy.

The problem is, that is not the case you are making is it? You say those are all future. Are you now backing off your stance and saying they were speaking of that time period? If so then you changed positions rather quick. If not then your above statement applies to you as well.

Particularly if those clear and obvious statements are in direct contradiction with a pet bias.

Your bias under no circumstances can allow the language to be any thing other than literal. If it could be interpreted as figurative then your whole Revelation interpretation could also be figurative, correct? You cannot allow that to happen can you?
I like how you point out clear and obvious statements. But "near' "shortly" "soon" "at hand" "this generation" those aren't clear and obvious, right?

 

[Grasshopper]

Now since you rejected the other commentaries I posted, I will quote from one that has a futurist view of eschatology:

To prove it here is their intro. to Revelation:

AUTHENTICITY.--The author calls himself John quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle's work, the prophecy of the millennium of the saints, to be followed by the general resurrection and judgment .

Here they state the style in which the book was written:

As to the difference of style, as compared with the Gospel and Epistle, the difference of subject in part accounts for it, the visions of the seer, transported as he was above the region of sense, appropriately taking a form of expression abrupt, and unbound by the grammatical laws which governed his writings of a calmer and more deliberate character. Moreover, as being a Galilean Hebrew, John, in writing a Revelation akin to the Old Testament prophecies , naturally reverted to their Hebraistic style .

Now to Is. 24, keep in mind from a futuristic commentary:


Is. 24 the context of "who" is in verse 5. OT people.

1. the earth--rather, "the land" of Judah (so in Isaiah 24:3,5,6 Joel 1:2 &gt. The desolation under Nebuchadnezzar prefigured that under Titus.

2. as with the people, so with the priest--All alike shall share the same calamity: no favored class shall escape (compare Ezekiel 7:12,13 Hosea 4:9

4. world--the kingdom of Israel; as in Isaiah 13:11 ,Babylon.
haughty--literally, "the height" of the people: abstract for concrete, that is, the high people; even the nobles share the general distress.

5. earth--rather, "the land."
defiled under . . . inhabitants--namely, with innocent blood (Genesis 4:11 Numbers 35:33 Psalms 106:38
laws . . . ordinance . . . everlasting covenant--The moral laws, positive statutes, and national covenant designed to be for ever between God and them.

6. earth--the land.
burned--namely, with the consuming wrath of heaven: either internally, as in Job 30:30 [ROSENMULLER]; or externally, the prophet has before his eyes the people being consumed with the withering dryness of their doomed land (so Joel 1:10,12 [MAURER].

They even understand it to be speaking of past events and described in apocalytic language. Only Rob and Ray see it otherwise.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Grasshopper,

I must have blind-sided you when I elevated Luke 1:32-33. Give it your best shot to wriggle your way out of the Divine, literal statement as recorded by St. Luke. Jesus came from the lineage of Jacob and King David.

God is saying that Jesus will reign over the House of Jacob forever. [vs. 33] This in no way can be pointed to as God's Heaven above. For 1,000 years on the earth Christ will rule over His Israelite people including we Gentiles who, thank God, who are saved and will ultimately be saved. This will be His earthly theocracy.

The term Kingdom of God began probably with Abel and will end when the last person gets saved mega years down the line, including during the future Great Tribulation.

Just before Jesus' ascension into Heaven the faithful group asked Jesus their last question to Him. [Acts 1:6] 'Lord, will you at THIS TIME restore AGAIN the Kingdom to Israel?' They were disappointed that Jesus did not destroy the Romans and set up an earthly Kingdom with Christ as King. Notice Jesus did not say, 'Hey, don't look for Kingdom of Israel ever again!' Our Lord rather said, 'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.' Jesus did not deny the earthly Kingdom for Israel, but said in effect, "It is none of your business to know when this will happen. The sovereign will of the Godhead will bring it to pass in Our own time." Directly, after that He mandated to them and to us the Great Commission. [Acts 1:8]

The term, 'the House of Jacob' bespeaks of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of Joseph, the step father of Jesus, our Lord. Joseph was of the House of David. [Luke 1:27] This most strongly tells us that the Millennial reign of Christ will be where these men lived in Palestine/Israel, not in Heaven. If this Kingdom of Jacob were to be in Heaven, Jesus would have told them that, 'up front and personal.'

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Grasshopper]

I must have blind-sided you when I elevated Luke 1:32-33. Give it your best shot to wriggle your way out of the Divine, literal statement as recorded by St. Luke. Jesus came from the lineage of Jacob and King David.

Why should I deny it?

God is saying that Jesus will reign over the House of Jacob forever. [vs. 33] This in no way can be pointed to as God's Heaven above. For 1,000 years on the earth Christ will rule over His Israelite people including we Gentiles who, thank God, who are saved and will ultimately be saved. This will be His earthly theocracy.

The term Kingdom of God began probably with Abel and will end when the last person gets saved mega years down the line, including during the future Great Tribulation.

Well I guess it is you who deny your own scripture reference.

"Jesus will reign over the House of Jacob forever . [vs. 33]"
How long is forever? Yet you said: "The term Kingdom of God began probably with Abel and will end when the last person gets saved mega years down the line"

So you quote scripture that says it will last forever then tell me it has an end. Which is it?

They were disappointed that Jesus did not destroy the Romans and set up an earthly Kingdom with Christ as King.

Why didn't He? He had every opportunity. They were going to make Him King and He refused.

Notice Jesus did not say, 'Hey, don't look for Kingdom of Israel ever again!' Our Lord rather said, 'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.'

Of course you just ignore my scripture references. What else did He tell them about the Kingdom?

Lk. 17: 20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation :
21 neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you .

Please explain these verses since they are not speaking of the Kingdom of God in your view.

Jesus did not deny the earthly Kingdom for Israel, but said in effect,

He denied it in the Luke verses. When you changed Covenants you also changed Israel. The Israel of the New Covenant are those in Christ, we are the children of Abraham.

This most strongly tells us that the Millennial reign of Christ will be where these men lived in Palestine/Israel, not in Heaven. If this Kingdom of Jacob were to be in Heaven, Jesus would have told them that, 'up front and personal.'

Jesus reigns on earth now through His people.

 

[BobRyan]

Is this the part where you actually look at Ez 32, Isaiah 24, Jer 4 and exegete the details SHOWING that we are not supposed to believe it?

Or do you just continue to "pretend" that by saying "pay no attention to the details" - it will one day make a "compelling case"?

Your approach is a mystery.

...

You say "Showed" as in "not actually quoting the text - not actually look at any detail that does not please Grasshopper's bias".

AN interesting kind of "show".

Grasshopper
Really? Which verses did I not show? Did those events in Is. 13 literally happen? Why don't you answer this? Is Is. 13 a prophecy of the future?

Oh Wait! I get it now - reading Isaiah 13 is your way of "exegeting Isaiah 24".

Ok - well - that does not make sense - but please tell me more.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --

Meanwhile the text of the Word of God remains WITH the details you so ignore in every one of your posts "EVEN" in the posts you claim to be "showing something" about Isaiah 24, Jer 4 and Ez 32.

Grasshopper
Why in your Ez. 32 passage do you start with verse 4 and skip 1-3? Do you know why?

Yes - because I think you will avoid the details of vs 4 at all costs. You know full well they can not be "fit" into a local fullfillment in the days of Israel - so you avoid the verse like the plague - and I keep bringing it up - again and again to see you avoid it.


Ez 32:4-8
4 ""I will leave you on the land; I will cast you on the open field. And I will cause all the birds of the heavens to dwell on you, And I will satisfy the beasts of the whole earth with you.
5 ""I will lay your flesh on the mountains And fill the valleys with your refuse.


You don't have enough Assyrians or Jews to fill the whole earth - and "yet" you try to get there.

Grasshopper quotes Ez 32 - without the details that he seeks to avoid --


Ezekiel 32:1 And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first day of the month, that the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, take up a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou wast likened unto a young lion of the nations: yet art thou as a monster in the seas; and thou didst break forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.


Why is Pharaoh being addressed? Why do you ignore context?

It is not "Exegesis" to "ignore" the part of the texts that displeases you - as you keep doing.

Or are you confused on that point?

You claim that any time a local problem is addressed - then a global gospel event can not possibly be part of the prophecy - but in Isaiah 7 we see that your speculative rule - your wooden rule - falls flat.

So we are back to Ezek 32 and when we find sections that can not possibly be fulfilled locally - then (as we do in Isaiah 7) we apply them globally to a key Gospel event in the plan of salvation.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Isaiah 7 we see the prophecy of the Messiah - but it is in the context of a local problem and a local solution.

Do you then - deny the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7 fullfilled in Matthew 1??

I wonder.

The Child Immanuel
Isaiah 1 -

10 Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"
13 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

So fine - you notice that this is a local problem that Isaiah is addressing regrading the Assyrians and Israel.

But notice that Matthew shoots your "not global no matter HOW poorly it fits the local interpretation" ideas in the head?

Matthew says of Isaiah 7

Matt 1
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

But you claim this global - future - Gospel interpretation CAN NOT be allowed for Isaiah's prophecies when we see LOCAL problems being addressed.

Notice the text of Isaiah 7...

10 Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
...

15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

Oh yes I forgot - in your view - Matthew must be a follower of David Koresh because he thinks Isaiah 7 is a gospel prophecy about the Messiah - many centuries after Isaiah was speaking.

Or might you just be "wrong"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

"Jesus will reign over the House of Jacob forever . [vs. 33]"
How long is forever? Yet you said: "The term Kingdom of God began
probably with Abel and will end when the last person gets saved mega
years down the line"

So you quote scripture that says it will last forever then tell me it has an end.
Which is it?

Think Grasshopper, think. There will be a time when the last sinner will find Christ. And for all of those who receive Christ they will live forever starting at the time of their faith in Jesus. Through all the other eras and changes in His economy within society, we will be saved forever.

I said before, 'They were disappointed that Jesus did not destroy the Romans
and set up an earthly Kingdom with Christ as King.'

You said, 'Why didn't He?'

'Jesus did offer the Kingdom of God on earth, but they rejected it. I'll keep it simple. Read John 1:11.

Grasshopper, 'Do you understand the English language?
Read it again. Notice Jesus did not say, 'Hey, don't look for Kingdom of Israel
ever again!' Our Lord rather said, 'It is not for you to know the
times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own
power.'

Grasshopper said, 'Of course you just ignore my scripture references. What else did He tell
them about the Kingdom?

Lk. 17: 20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God
cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation :
21 neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is
within you.'

Ray is saying, 'Yes, the kingdom of God is in us and it is a spiritual change in our hearts through faith in Jesus, but this does not ignore the true fact that Jesus will have a theocratic Kingdom of the earth for 1,000 years.' [Revelation 20]

You said, 'Please explain these verses since they are not speaking of the Kingdom of
God in your view.'

The church era is only one aspect of God's general Kingdom of God since Abel. When His time is fulfulled no one else will ever be saved. I know I am in the kingdom of God, but am not as yet in the theocratic reign of Christ on the earth. Proof. Christ is not here with us yet.'

You said, 'Jesus did not deny the earthly Kingdom for Israel, but said in effect, He denied it in the Luke verses. When you changed Covenants you also changed Israel. The Israel of the New Covenant are those in Christ, we are the children of Abraham.'

I am saying, 'We have a different way to approach the Lord in the N.T. and that is through our faith trust in Him and His atonement. The O.T. the Jews had to have faith in Jehovah Lord but also had to keep not only the Law/Ten Commandments but all of the ordinances as to food regulations. Yes, we are all the sons and daughters of Abraham, but His kingdom of God was throughout all the O.T. and even to this day. A theocratic earthly government will be established by the Lord for 1,000 years when people will come to Jerusalem to worship the Lord of Heaven and earth. This is the testimony of the Prophet Zechariah in chapter fourteen.'

Ray has said, 'This most strongly tells us that the Millennial reign of Christ will be
where these men lived in Palestine/Israel, not in Heaven. If this
Kingdom of Jacob were to be in Heaven, Jesus would have told
them that, 'up front and personal.'

You said, 'Jesus reigns on earth now through His people.'

Ray is saying, 'If you think He reigns supreme among people today, then you are less brilliant that I thought you were. Only the few will be saved. [Matt. 7:14] Jesus said in the N.T. 'Fear not little flock it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.' Considering the multiple billions of lost souls, His kingdom is not nearly as great as you claim it is.' But, things will change after the Second Coming of Christ when He sits enthroned in Jerusalem. [Zechariah 14:9 & 16-17] Many multiple millions of souls will cleave to Christ and will know Him as we know Him now as the people of God.'

 

[Jude]

Is.24&34 have nothing to do with the millenium. Of course, the Millenium is the church age.

 

[Grasshopper]

Oh Wait! I get it now - reading Isaiah 13 is your way of "exegeting Isaiah 24".

Ok - well - that does not make sense - but please tell me more.

Its called comparing scripture with scripture. However I notice you want no part of interpreting Is. 13. Why is that? Could it be because it is obviously speaking of the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and it uses similiar language to the verses you claim to be yet future in Ez.? Could it be that if the" heavens shaking" and "stars not giving their light" are figures of speech and would also be such in the other prophecies?

Yes - because I think you will avoid the details of vs 4 at all costs. You know full well they can not be "fit" into a local fullfillment in the days of Israel - so you avoid the verse like the plague - and I keep bringing it up - again and again to see you avoid it.


You don't have enough Assyrians or Jews to fill the whole earth - and "yet" you try to get there

4 ""I will leave you on the land; I will cast you on the open field. And I will cause all the birds of the heavens to dwell on you, And I will satisfy the beasts of the whole earth with you.
5 ""I will lay your flesh on the mountains And fill the valleys with your refuse.

That is judgement language. You will find this type of language all over the OT referring to past events.

The Hebrew word for earth is: ur) Here are some of its definitions:

country, territory
district, region
tribal territory
piece of ground
land of Canaan, Israel
inhabitants of land
Sheol, land without return, (under) world
city (-state)

If you would just do a little research you would find that many times in the Old and New Testaments the word for earth doesn't always mean the entire world. Try interpreting Luke 2:1 using your "one definition" approach. This is why you refuse to deal with verses 1-3, because the "earth" being spoken of is Egypt.
Can you refer me to any commentary that sees these verses as not dealing with Pharoah? You have lost this debate, give it up.

It is not "Exegesis" to "ignore" the part of the texts that displeases you - as you keep doing.

Or are you confused on that point?

You mean like verse 1-3 that set the context?

You claim that any time a local problem is addressed - then a global gospel event can not possibly be part of the prophecy -

1. I never said that did I? Must you invent strawmen?

2.You claim it is not a local problem so your point is moot.

So we are back to Ezek 32 and when we find sections that can not possibly be fulfilled locally

Why is Pharoah mentioned in verse 2?
Why is Babylon mentioned in verse 11?
Why is Egypt mentioned in verse 12?
Why is Egypt made desolate in verse 15?
Why will they lament for Egypt in verse 16?
Why does Egypt continue to be mentioned through the rest of the chapter?

Is it your interpretation that only verses 4-8 are future and everything around it is past?

This is too easy.

In Isaiah 7 we see the prophecy of the Messiah - but it is in the context of a local problem and a local solution.

Do you then - deny the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7 fullfilled in Matthew 1??

Nope, you are under a false assumption created by yourself.

But notice that Matthew shoots your "not global no matter HOW poorly it fits the local interpretation" ideas in the head?

You like strawmen don't you?

But you claim this global - future - Gospel interpretation CAN NOT be allowed for Isaiah's prophecies when we see LOCAL problems being addressed.

It is you who says no matter what the context says it can't be local it must be future.

By the way even if I did accept that Ez 32 was speaking of future events,which I don't, I would say it points to the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Which of course it does not.

Oh yes I forgot - in your view - Matthew must be a follower of David Koresh because he thinks Isaiah 7 is a gospel prophecy about the Messiah - many centuries after Isaiah was speaking.

Or might you just be "wrong"?

Too bad you wasted all that time trying to prove me wrong based on a false assumption. Where did I say exactly that Prophecies can't speak to both local and future events? Could you find that for me?

 

[Grasshopper]

Think Grasshopper, think. There will be a time when the last sinner will find Christ.

I'm just trying to follow your logic. You give me a scripture saying the Kingdom lasts forever then you say it doesn't last forever. Who should I believe? You need to "think" before you quote scripture that defeats your own view.

'Jesus did offer the Kingdom of God on earth, but they rejected it. I'll keep it simple. Read John 1:11.

Please keep it simple for me. I don't have all those letters behind my name.

See John 6:15 to see how He could have been made King by the people.
See also I Sam. 8:6, 10:19, 12:17-19 to see what God thinks of His people wanting an earthly King.

See John 18:36 to see where His Kingdom was from.

Ray is saying, 'Yes, the kingdom of God is in us and it is a spiritual change in our hearts through faith in Jesus,

Thank you. Point made!

The church era is only one aspect of God's general Kingdom of God since Abel.

Really? Can you show me the many divisions of this Kingdom in scripture?

When His time is fulfulled no one else will ever be saved.

Might want to read Is. 9:7. "Of His INCREASE ther will be no end ...... forever and ever....

I know I am in the kingdom of God,

Aren't you glad God kept His promise of establishing His Kingdom? He didn't let Jewish rejection stop Him, He just gave it over to another nation. Lets see, didn't that start around the 1st century sometime?

Christ is not here with us yet.'

He is with me.

but His kingdom of God was throughout all the O.T. and even to this day

Prove that using scripture.

Ray is saying, 'If you think He reigns supreme among people today, then you are less brilliant that I thought you were.

He reigns among His people.

Considering the multiple billions of lost souls, His kingdom is not nearly as great as you claim it is.'

Nor you, after all you just claimed the Kingdom was from Abel to now.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Doctor Luke tells us that 'He {Christ} will be great . . . . and God will give ' unto Him the throne of His father David.' King David had a throne; Jesus will have a throne. Place: in Jerusalem. [Zechariah 14:17-18]

Christ will 'reign over the House of Jacob forever . . . ' [Luke 1:32-33] The word house is one of the first Greek words you learn when taking Greek I language study. The word (oikos) means family or lineage of people and can mean a home. So when God says that Christ will reign over the House of Jacob, it means that the Lord will govern over the Israelite people. We, of course,will be the Gentile believers who will be molded into His family the people of God. We are grafted into the good Olive tree, that being the nation of Israel. [Romans 11:24] Through all of the ages there is a huge House of Jacob coming from the lineage of Abraham.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes - because I think you will avoid the details of vs 4 at all costs.

You know full well they can not be "fit" into a local fullfillment in the days of Israel - so you avoid the verse like the plague - and I keep bringing it up - again and again to see you avoid it.


You don't have enough Assyrians or Jews to fill the whole earth - and "yet" you try to get there
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 ""I will leave you on the land; I will cast you on the open field. And I will cause all the birds of the heavens to dwell on you, And I will satisfy the beasts of the whole earth with you.

Grasshopper -
That is judgement language.

Obviously.

And true. Technically correct. Trustworthy in its 'detail'.

Grasshopper
You will find this type of language all over the OT referring to past events.

Not even ONCE do you find that "ALL the birds" were filled with the flesh of ONE nation or ONE town. Not even ONCE do you find that "ALL the beasts of the earth" were feeding on the corpses of ONE village, ONE town, ONE nation.

But "that is the details".

And details are for "avoiding" as we have seen.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Grasshopper]

4 ""I will leave you on the land; I will cast you on the open field. And I will cause all the birds of the heavens to dwell on you , And I will satisfy the beasts of the whole earth with you .

1. Again......it's not to be taken literally. It's a figure of speech describing judgement. And yes this "type" of language is all over the OT.

2. Who is the "you" referring to?

And details are for "avoiding" as we have seen.

Yes, I notice you did not address any of my questions. Why is that? Start with verses 1-3 then move to Is. 13. Can you show many any futurist commentaty that has Ez. 32 still future? Why is Egypt mentioned throughout the chapter if it is world-wide judgement? Yes many details go unanswered.

 

[Eric B]

4 ""I will leave you on the land; I will cast you on the open field. And I will cause all the birds of the heavens to dwell on you, And I will satisfy the beasts of the whole earth with you.
5 ""I will lay your flesh on the mountains And fill the valleys with your refuse.

That is judgement language. You will find this type of language all over the OT referring to past events.

The Hebrew word for earth is: ur) Here are some of its definitions:

country, territory
district, region
tribal territory
piece of ground
land of Canaan, Israel
inhabitants of land
Sheol, land without return, (under) world
city (-state)

If you would just do a little research you would find that many times in the Old and New Testaments the word for earth doesn't always mean the entire world.

One possible danger I am seeing here; it seems that ANY mention of "the earth" can be taken then as meaning only a region. I know you won't see it this way, but one can take all of this and honestly conclude that perhaps Yahweh Elohim is just a tribal deity of Israel and perhaps the surrounding nations. It seems that the only "earth" He is associated with is that immediate area, the only people He is concerned with was those people in that place at that time. You say that all others will be judged; we are to bring the Gospel to them, etc., but from what I have been seeing, if almost all of the Gospel is only about those people in those places at that time, then it really is irrelevant to everyone else, and that to say that now it extends to all else, with spreading the Gospel and individual judgment after death being for all in the globe, is speculatory and not really supported.

When you changed Covenants you also changed Israel. The Israel of the New Covenant are those in Christ, we are the children of Abraham.

This would further support a future antitype. I can see where Israel could be called Babylon, but then it seems throughout the ages, much of the church has followed right behind it. Thus, the common dispensational and SDA interpretation of the harlot. I know you say that the true Kingdom will never apostasize, and these were not true Christians, but still, since the visible church did represent the Kingdom, and we cannot directly see who is truly saved and not, the apostasy of the visible Church could be prohetically seen as an antitypical Babylon, leading up to a final repeat of the destruction oif Israel. Only since now, this is a perversion of the spiritual kingdom, rather than the earthly kingdom of Israel; this truly would be the final cycle in prophetic history.

 

[Grasshopper]

One possible danger I am seeing here; it seems that ANY mention of "the earth" can be taken then as meaning only a region.

Yes, and it is an equal danger to assume that earth always means the entire globe. That is why you must use "context". Read Ez 32 in its entirety and I think you will also see the context speaks of Egypt. Luke 2:1 read in context speaks of the Roman Empire. I stand by my statement that many if not most of the time it is used as regional definition.

It seems that the only "earth" He is associated with is that immediate area, the only people He is concerned with was those people in that place at that time.

I believe in reading the OT that is a true conclusion. Where do you read of the Ming Dynasty or the tribes of Austraila or the American Indians in the OT? You only read of those nations who were involved with Israel. In the NT there are many uses of the "earth" where the context is more global, such as taking the gospel to the ends of the earth.

if almost all of the Gospel is only about those people in those places at that time, then it really is irrelevant to everyone else, and that to say that now it extends to all else, with spreading the Gospel and individual judgment after death being for all in the globe, is speculatory and not really supported.

As I stated, this seems to be the case in the Old Covenant, but the New Covenant expands from physical Israel to the spiritual Israel who come from every nation under the sun.

I can see where Israel could be called Babylon, but then it seems throughout the ages, much of the church has followed right behind it.

I consider the church to be believers only. The church is a spiritual entity.

Babylon killed the prophets and apostles according to Revelation. Jesus and the NT writers accuse those Jews living then of killing the prophets and apostles.They were also called an adulterous generation. Jesus in Matt 23 makes this very clear and says their generation will pay for their sins and the sins of their fathers. Babylon can only be future if you believe prophets and apostles still exist today or will exist. I never believed that even when I was a Dispy.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, and it is an equal danger to assume that earth always means the entire globe. That is why you must use "context". Read Ez 32 in its entirety and I think you will also see the context speaks of Egypt. Luke 2:1 read in context speaks of the Roman Empire. I stand by my statement that many if not most of the time it is used as regional definition.

In the NT there are many uses of the "earth" where the context is more global, such as taking the gospel to the ends of the earth.

As I stated, this seems to be the case in the Old Covenant, but the New Covenant expands from physical Israel to the spiritual Israel who come from every nation under the sun.

But then how do you really know that it now expands to "every nation under the sun"? In other places, even "to the ends of the earth" you have said means the ends of the Roman Empire. It seems to be an assumption that "it was only about Israel before Christ; only for the general area between His death and AD70, and now it is for the whole globe", but someone with some new doctrine that it is still only for that one place and time could say extend it and say the same things to you.
I'm not trying to argue that "world"/"earth" can never mean the area or a particular people, but just showing that if it means the whole globe now, then many earlier uses ultimately mean that as well, if not at least in an antitypical sense.

I consider the church to be believers only. The church is a spiritual entity.

Still, believers can make mistakes, and wind up getting mixed up in or even starting/leading false things (one reason the Church age cannot be the final kingdom. Much of the corruptions of the developing post-apostolic Church were from sincere teachers bringing in philosophy and mysticl interpretations of many truths). After all, the Rev. passage on Babylon tells "My people" to "come out of her".

Babylon can only be future if you believe prophets and apostles still exist today or will exist.

There were prophets mentioned in the NT. Then there's the arguments about whether this office/gift ceased with the introduction of the written NT. But still, it did ocntinue into the NT.

 

[Grasshopper]

But then how do you really know that it now expands to "every nation under the sun"? In other places, even "to the ends of the earth" you have said means the ends of the Roman Empire.

Luke 2:1 context refers to the Roman Empire. Do you disagree? Each must be judged according to the context. Case by case.

It seems to be an assumption that "it was only about Israel before Christ; only for the general area between His death and AD70, and now it is for the whole globe", but someone with some new doctrine that it is still only for that one place and time could say extend it and say the same things to you.

True. Is it your position that earth always means global? If not how do you decide? I'm guessing our positions are not that far apart.

We are living examples of how Christ died for the "world", our salvation sets the context of John 3:16. If Christianity was limited to the middle east then "world" would have a regional definition.

I'm not trying to argue that "world"/"earth" can never mean the area or a particular people, but just showing that if it means the whole globe now, then many earlier uses ultimately mean that as well,

Again each must viewed in its own context. Does the Ez. 32 "earth" refer to global? If not why not?

I do not believe God ever destroys this physical world therefore none of the "earths" of judgement ever mean global.

Still, believers can make mistakes, and wind up getting mixed up in or even starting/leading false things

Yes, but from God's view the church is positionally perfect.

After all, the Rev. passage on Babylon tells "My people" to "come out of her".

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:

This parallels the warning Luke gives concerning AD70.

20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.
21 Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein.

Josephus tell us that this is what happened. When Titus pulled his armies back, the christians left for Pella. They heeded the words of Jesus.
Another case for Babylon being Jerusalem.

You believe Babylon to be the apostate church correct? If so then you don’t take verse 10 literally when she is called a city.

10 standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

I'm accused, by some, of not taking the Word of God seriously because I don't take Revelation literally. Yet not many futurist believe Babylon to be a literal city.

 

[Eric B]

Luke 2:1 context refers to the Roman Empire. Do you disagree? Each must be judged according to the context. Case by case.

True. Is it your position that earth always means global? If not how do you decide? I'm guessing our positions are not that far apart.

We are living examples of how Christ died for the "world", our salvation sets the context of John 3:16. If Christianity was limited to the middle east then "world" would have a regional definition.

Again each must viewed in its own context. Does the Ez. 32 "earth" refer to global? If not why not?

OK, I'm not at this point arguing from the angle of trying to prove they are global. What I'm showing you, is that someone can just as well extend this logic and say that the "context" of John 3:16 is local. Perhaps Christianity really was only for the Middle East, and post-apostolic leaders (who, as was shown in the other thread, did not recognize an AD70 return of Christ) overstepped the boundaries Christ had intended. Your proof of context here is simply "Christianity has spread beyond that area", but that is no more a proof than my idea that if it's the whole world that is fallen, then the context of many of those judgment, kingdom, and second coming scriptures must be ultimately be globalin an antitypical sense.

I do not believe God ever destroys this physical world therefore none of the "earths" of judgement ever mean global.

Notice, you start with that belief about the physical world, and that is what sets the context for you.

You believe Babylon to be the apostate church correct? If so then you don’t take verse 10 literally when she is called a city.

10 standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

I'm accused, by some, of not taking the Word of God seriously because I don't take Revelation literally. Yet not many futurist believe Babylon to be a literal city.

Well many of us have traditionally believed the primary institution will be the RCC, and the Vatican is a city! Also, just as you hold the true Church to be symbolically a city, then so can the false church be so portrayed.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Someone said, 'I do not believe God ever destroys this physical world therefore none of the "earths" of judgement ever mean global.'

There would be no need for a new earth if the first one was not destroyed by fire ' . . . and the elements melted away with fervent heat,' [II Peter 3:10-13] or is not II Peter canonical any longer?

On the contrary, the Lord destroys this fallen earth and people but has also in His providence a new world. We are not taught too much about it, so we will have to wait and see.