Romans 10:19, 11:11 Provoke to jealousy?

[Iconoclast]

WD
part two

This question is twofold...if the church replaced Israel, why...and if unconditional election is true, why

The believing gentiles and the elect remnant of Israel form the New, True, or Christian Israel.

Some were already provoked to jealousy before 70 ad....some later on.




11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

God uses means most of the times.God uses people as a means and an instrumentality...In this case the unclean gentiles were cleansed and drawn to worship the true and living God. Those in Israel who were familiar with the last third of Isa. would have known what was happening...

in Isa.54 ...it speaks of gentiles coming in to a saving belief...this is quoted in Gal4

54 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.

2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.





....so when he gets to Isa 65:1 ...it is clear what is happening.

and if unconditional election is true, why

Unconditional election is true....but that does not mean that God does not use means to accomplish it.He does, prayer, preaching,persuasion ,fear of death, conscience,love,the written word, etc all are used by God.

 

[Aaron]

What is the purpose? This question is twofold...if the church replaced Israel, why...and if unconditional election is true, why.

Remember, jealousy is anger towards someone for what they have.

Just going to point out another fallacious premise:

That there is a difference between the church and the elect, the Israel of God.​

In the very passage cited, it is written:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
​

 

[webdog]

Just going to point out another fallacious premise:

That there is a difference between the church and the elect, the Israel of God.​

In the very passage cited, it is written:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
​

What premise are you talking about? My question was from the vantage point if your view is true. Go troll somewhere else.

 

[Grasshopper]

Revelation 11:8 does not say that that Israel or Jerusalem is the harlot, it is identifying Jerusalem as SPIRITUALLY called Sodom and Egypt because there are a remnant still in rebellion, and it was the place where Christ was crucified.

Notice that all the nations of the world commit FORNICATION with her Rev 18:3, and the churches commit ADULTERY with her, Rev 2:20-23. If this was God's "unfaithful wife" then she would be committing ADULTERY, not fornication.

NOT ONCE is the harlot ever accused of adultery. Because the harlot is NOT married to God and never was. Jer. 3:8

Israel has never been position on 7 hills. Rev 17:9. Israel has never been associated as Babylonian: Rome has for it is the extension of the beast described by Daniel in Daniel chapter 2, 7, 9 and 11. Israel were CAPTIVES of Babylon, not Babylon itself. Israel has never been associated with wearing purple and scarlet, but guess who has Rev 17:3-4 Wronghttp://www.valueoftruth.org/rome/scarlet.jpg

Israel has never been associated with having a golden cup, but guess who has http://www.valueoftruth.org/rome/papalmass.jpg

Israel is not known for being decked with precious stones and pearls, but guess who is..Wrong(Popes mitra , throne and robe alone have millions of dollars of precious stones and pearls in them)

Israel has not had the blood of ALL SLAIN UPON THE EARTH: Is Matthew 23:35 in your Bible?ROME HAS. ROME has killed more saints and prophets in 1500 years than Israel ever did. Israel killed ITS OWN PEOPLE, but NEVER THOSE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD like Rome and continues to do through the United Nations started by the CLUB OF ROME and ran by the US.

The fact the Jerusalem is still standing after the tribulation is over and is then replaced by New Jerusalem proves that Babylon that is fallen is not even remotely close to Israel because the smoke of the whores torment ASCENDS UP FOREVER. You always take this language literally? Please please say yes.Revelation 19:2-3. Awefully hard to claim that Israel is Babylon who's smoke ascends forever when Revelation 3:12 and Revelation 20-22 make it clear that Jerusalem thrives for eternity.Didnt Paul speak of two Jerusalems? Maybe in Galatians?

So much more I could address but so little time.

 

[kyredneck]

That quote from Revelation 18:4 is erroneous anyway. The whore is from ROME. He quoted Rev 18:4 and then explained it as if it was a reference to coming out of "Judaism". Revelation 18 is a continuation of ch 17 which clearly identifies who the whore is (vss 3-4, 9). And then further shows that this Babylonian whore is a continuation of the beast that began in Genesis 11 under Nimrod, to Sennecharib, to Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece and ending in Rome. Rev 13:2, Rev 19:10-18.

The Jews learned their paganism from EGYPT. Revelation has in mind here the origins of the first false religious system which is not Judaism but PAGAN EGYPT where it all began. "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" is a description of an empire that fell and was revived, and it was revived with the help of the United States, the leader of pushing the New/One World Order ("Novus Ordo Seclorum" as stated on the back of any US dollar bill). That the US played a part in the whore of Babylon is evident in Revelation 18:23.

Furthermore, there are of merchandise described in Revelation 18:12-13 that were exclusive to Rome and the US (especially slaves). Thyine wood was used exclusively in Roman and Greek sacrifices to pagan gods.

You won't get an answer to your questions though. Calvinism does not teach the "whole counsel of God" (evident by their avoidance of prophecy, and distortion of it anytime a Calvinist makes any attempt at explaining anything in Revelation). Calvinism can't explain anything outside of their boxed-in proof texting.

Revelation 11:8 does not say that that Israel or Jerusalem is the harlot, it is identifying Jerusalem as SPIRITUALLY called Sodom and Egypt because there are a remnant still in rebellion, and it was the place where Christ was crucified.

Notice that all the nations of the world commit FORNICATION with her Rev 18:3, and the churches commit ADULTERY with her, Rev 2:20-23. If this was God's "unfaithful wife" then she would be committing ADULTERY, not fornication.

NOT ONCE is the harlot ever accused of adultery. Because the harlot is NOT married to God and never was.

Israel has never been position on 7 hills. Rev 17:9. Israel has never been associated as Babylonian: Rome has for it is the extension of the beast described by Daniel in Daniel chapter 2, 7, 9 and 11. Israel were CAPTIVES of Babylon, not Babylon itself. Israel has never been associated with wearing purple and scarlet, but guess who has Rev 17:3-4 http://www.valueoftruth.org/rome/scarlet.jpg

Israel has never been associated with having a golden cup, but guess who has http://www.valueoftruth.org/rome/papalmass.jpg

Israel is not known for being decked with precious stones and pearls, but guess who is..(Popes mitra , throne and robe alone have millions of dollars of precious stones and pearls in them)

Israel has not had the blood of ALL SLAIN UPON THE EARTH: ROME HAS. ROME has killed more saints and prophets in 1500 years than Israel ever did. Israel killed ITS OWN PEOPLE, but NEVER THOSE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD like Rome and continues to do through the United Nations started by the CLUB OF ROME and ran by the US.

The fact the Jerusalem is still standing after the tribulation is over and is then replaced by New Jerusalem proves that Babylon that is fallen is not even remotely close to Israel because the smoke of the whores torment ASCENDS UP FOREVER. Revelation 19:2-3. Awefully hard to claim that Israel is Babylon who's smoke ascends forever when Revelation 3:12 and Revelation 20-22 make it clear that Jerusalem thrives for eternity.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev 1:3

The problem with the futurist/Dispensational view is that it is rife with speculation and invention which your posts above demonstrate. The true blessing in the book of Revelation for us today is that it is the capstone of the entire bible and the book must be approached through the rest of scripture. Revelation is continually nonstop pointing back to what has already been written. The underlying continuity of the scriptures is never broken. To correctly study Revelation is to study all the scripture. Example, Rev 12 is nothing short of a 'picture story' of Gen 3:15, the seed germ of all prophecy (as Pink referred to it).

The two women of Revelation are the same as the two women of Galatians 4:22-31; two cities, two covenants.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev 1:3

The problem with the futurist/Dispensational view is that it is rife with speculation and invention which your posts above demonstrate. The true blessing in the book of Revelation for us today is that it is the capstone of the entire bible and the book must be approached through the rest of scripture. Revelation is continually nonstop pointing back to what has already been written. The underlying continuity of the scriptures is never broken. To correctly study Revelation is to study all the scripture. Example, Rev 12 is nothing short of a 'picture story' of Gen 3:15, the seed germ of all prophecy (as Pink referred to it).

The two women of Revelation are the same as the two women of Galatians 4:22-31; two cities, two covenants.

If you are taking the Historicist view of Revelation, ("Revelation is continually nonstop pointing back to what has already been written"), then you must allegorize the entire book to make it fit historical events and disregard the 1000 years of the reign of Christ in Revelation 20:1-4. You'd have to show how every judgment revealed in the opening of the seals, bowls, vials, have all been fulfilled, show that the Euphrates river was dried up (Revelation 9:14-16, 16:12), that men were prevented from buying or selling as a result of not having the mark, name or number of the beast (Rev 13:11-18), among a plethora of prophecies that no preterist, historicist, or covenanter can explain.

All of these events were described as occuring within a 7 year period. Not only based upon Daniel's 70th week, but also on the timelines in Revelation [the 2 witnesses preach for 3 1/2 years in Revelation 11:3-6, are killed in Rev 11:7-8, and then the beast rules AFTER THE WITNESSES ARE KILLED for another 3 1/2 years in Revelation 13:5=7 years]

And Revelation 12 is not a recapitulation of Genesis 3:15. First of all, Genesis 3:15 described in part the FIRST coming of Christ and His crucifixion. Perhaps you got the wrong passage and meant to refer to Joseph's dream, which still is not descriptive of Revelation 12 as a PAST event. Remember, John was told to write about the things which he SAW, things that ARE, and things that SHALL BE (Rev 1:19). Thus all of Revelation are future events.

Revelation 12 describes a woman that brought forth a man child. Who brought forth Christ? ISRAEL. What vision did Joseph have that described 12 stars? ISRAEL. When the dragon fails to apprehend Israel because they fled into the wilderness to a place God prepared for them for the latter 3 1/2 years of the tribulaton (12:6,14), the dragon goes after the remnant of her SEED (V 17)...Israel.

When this conflict begins in the middle of the tribulation, Satan is permanently banned from the heavens to which he had previous access to accuse believers before God (Zech 3:1, Job 1-2), and he has great wrath because he knows he has but a SHORT TIME (Rev 12:10-12), and that short time is described as a 3 1/2 year period in Rev 13:5.

NONE of the events of Revelation have occurred during the time John wrote Revelation (AD 95) nor anytime throughout history, and "shortly come to pass" as used in Revelation ch 1, is also used in Revelation 22:6 AFTER the description of the 1000 years which shows that "shortly come to pass" is descriptive of imminency not of something that was to immediately occur at the time John wrote Revelation.

The 2 covenants of Galations 4 have nothing to do with Revelation or 2 cities. The "covenant" that God made with Hagar was that he would multiply her seed. Gen 16:10-20. She was not part of the covenant of promise that was by faith in Abraham through the son of promise-Isaac. Paul is making a distinction between promise and bondwoman which has nothing to do with the events that occur in Revelation. Paul's emphasis in Galatians is about salvation by grace through faith, and not of the law; Revelation is about the end of the world.

The futurist interpretation is the only view that properly explains the coming judgment on the world for their unbelief (Rev 3:10) and nation of Israel "finishing the transgression" of Daniel 9:24-27 in which the 490 years was not finished leaving a 7 year period unanswered for it. Non dispensationalists will never understand what the PURPOSE of the coming great tribulation is, or the focus returning to Israel (Rev 7:4-8) if they do not rightly divide the word of truth.

 

[beameup]

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

You left off a couple of verses in Romans 11 that complete the point that the Apostle to the Gentiles (and a remnant of Jews) was making:

24 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part
is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. [ie: the harpazo, the absence of the church upon the earth]

25 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
["Jacob" is not "Spiritual Israel" :laugh: , Jacob is genetic Israel]

It will be a real "shocker" when the Jews all gathered in Israel [only 1/2 are there now], realize that the Christians were right all along.

 

[Jope]

When this conflict begins in the middle of the tribulation, Satan is permanently banned from the heavens to which he had previous access to accuse believers before God (Zech 3:1, Job 1-2), and he has great wrath because he knows he has but a SHORT TIME (Rev 12:10-12), and that short time is described as a 3 1/2 year period in Rev 13:5.

Hey James. I am dispensational. Pre-trib, Premill.

Here is a thought of mine: This kicking out of heaven happens before the last half of Daniel's 7 years. This battle between Michael and the Devil happens because they fight over the Lord's Body (the Church). The Church (the Lord's Body) is in heaven (Eph. 2:6), so is Satan (Eph. 6:11-12). Michael and Satan had fought over Moses' body before (Jude 1:9). The theocratic kingdom of God governing over the land promised to Abraham could have been brought about under Moses' rule, but the means by which that kingdom would be brought about, the law (Deut. 7:12-13; 15:5-6; 28:1; Jer. 11:4-5), was weak (Rom. 8:3). Also, very many of the men didn't have faith (Heb. 3:18; 4:2). The Lord will bring about the theocratic kingdom promised, for the law of Moses cannot bring about the theocratic kingdom promised (Rom. 8:3). This time, the body of the theocratic administrator will not be buried, as Moses' body, who was then the theocratic administrator, was (Deut. 34:7). The Lord's body, the Church, who is the theocratic administrator of the kingdom promised to the Jews, will be raptured. Michael will win the battle (Rev. 12), and the Church will no longer have to battle Satan in the heavenlies (Eph. 6:11-12). The Jews will have to deal with him on the earth though.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Hey James. I am dispensational. Pre-trib, Premill.

Here is a thought of mine: This kicking out of heaven happens before the last half of Daniel's 7 years. This battle between Michael and the Devil happens because they fight over the Lord's Body (the Church). The Church (the Lord's Body) is in heaven (Eph. 2:6), so is Satan (Eph. 6:11-12). Michael and Satan had fought over Moses' body before (Jude 1:9). The theocratic kingdom of God governing over the land promised to Abraham could have been brought about under Moses' rule, but the means by which that kingdom would be brought about, the law (Deut. 7:12-13; 15:5-6; 28:1; Jer. 11:4-5), was weak (Rom. 8:3). Also, very many of the men didn't have faith (Heb. 3:18; 4:2). The Lord will bring about the theocratic kingdom promised, for the law of Moses cannot bring about the theocratic kingdom promised (Rom. 8:3). This time, the body of the theocratic administrator will not be buried, as Moses' body, who was then the theocratic administrator, was (Deut. 34:7). The Lord's body, the Church, who is the theocratic administrator of the kingdom promised to the Jews, will be raptured. Michael will win the battle (Rev. 12), and the Church will no longer have to battle Satan in the heavenlies (Eph. 6:11-12). The Jews will have to deal with him on the earth though.

This is a fairly accurate summation. Michael is Israel's "prince" (Dan 10:21) which is why he is the one battling Satan here. Satan believes that if he can destroy the remnant of Israel, he can prevent them from establishing the kingdom and prolong his incarceration (Rev 20:2).

The wrath that Satan unleashes is the last of 3 woes described in Revelation 8:13. The first one being in Rev 9:12, the second in Rev 11:14, the third being when Satan is kicked out after the 3 1/2 year ministry of the 2 witnesses in Revelation 11 (Rev 12:12).

 

[Aaron]

What premise are you talking about? My question was from the vantage point if your view is true.

No it isn't, because your definitions aren't biblical.

 

[DrJamesAch]

So much more I could address but so little time.

Jeremiah 3:8 says Israel PLAYED a harlot, it didn't say she WAS a harlot. Furthermore, again, Israel here committed ADULTERY. Show me ANYWHERE in Revelation where the word adultery is used to describe the harlot of Revelation 17. Happy hunting, let me know when you find it. I'll give you a hint, it's used ONCE in Revelation 2:20-23 to describe the Jewish churches hopping in bed with JEZEBEL. Jezebel was from PHOENICIA, a GENTILE.

So all of the pearls and purple and scarlet and the Vatican billions they have accumulated for 1500 years+, all that in Revelation 17:3-9 is just coincidence and doesn't really refer to Rome even though Rome is that last of the image of Daniel 2. Gotcha:thumbs:

Matthew 23:35 is about Israel killing THEIR OWN PROPHETS, not the WHOLE WORLD. Notice the difference in Revelation 18:24

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth"

Furthermore, the Jews did not kill the apostles ROME DID. Peter was crucified by Nero (Jews did not use crucifixion as a means of punishment, Rome did.). James of Zebeddee was killed by Herod Agrippa, John died under the reign of Domitian, etc...And then Rome killed over 50 million Christians or profession Christians all through the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Crusades: ALL THAT WERE SLAIN UPON THE EARTH. Rome is the only empire that ever carried this out globally, and did so for centuries, and continues to do so through the United States ran United Nations created by the Club of Rome located at 666 United Nations Plaza.

And do I take everything literally? Did you take Matt 23:35 literally when you tried to use it (out of context) to refute my argument? Did you take Jeremiah 3:8 literally when you tried to apply the harlot of Revelation 17 to Israel backsliding?

I take the Bible literally when the context demands that it taken literally. When the Bible says "Jesus wept" it means Jesus wept. When the blind man in JOhn 9 said he saw men as trees, then I know that since men are not trees, it was meant figuratively. When the Scripture gives vivid detail about setting something on fire, and it remaining on fire, that is not figurative because there is nothing in the context that demands it be interpreted any other way.

Thus I know when to rightly divide the word of truth when the context and passages demand it. You seem to want to cherry pick what is literal when you think it fits your argument, and figurative when it doesn't, even if the context proves that it is not figurative. Moreover, when the Bible says the land of Babylon will NEVER BE INHABITED AGAIN (Isaiah 13:20) if Jerusalem was Babylon, then there could never be a new Jerusalem (Rev 3:12).

And yes, there are 2 Jerusalems, an old one and a new one. Galations 4 was explained above in my response to KY. Jerusalem has never been referred to as "that great city Babylon".

" The word that the LORD spake against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet. "Jeremiah 50:1

"And the beginning of his [Nimrod's] kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." Gen 10:10

Revelation 17 there are 7 kings, 5 are fallen, one is and one is not yet come.

Those 7 kings are:
*Nimrod-Babylon
*Pharoah-Egypt
*Sennacharib-Assyria
*Nebuchadnezzar-Babylon (Notice the TWO Babylons "Babylon is fallen IS FALLEN")
*Cyrus-Persia
*Alexander the Great-Greece
*Caesar-ROME

When John wrote Revelation, Caesar was yet King of Rome, so five were fallen (Nimrod/Nebuchandnezzar representing one Kingdom=Babylon, Pharoah, Sennacharib, Cryus and Alexander), one IS (Caesar during John's time) and one is not yet come (the future Roman leader that "must continue for a short space=3 1/2 years).

Satan, as the god of this world, has ruled through a BEAST that began with Nimrod and continued through to ROME. This is what Daniel saw as told to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2, and is repeated in Revelation 13:2.

Israel had been held in captivity by all 4 images seen by Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome) and therefore to conclude that Israel is Babylon is wholly absurd.

 

[kyredneck]

If you are taking the Historicist view of Revelation, ("Revelation is continually nonstop pointing back to what has already been written"), then you must allegorize the entire book to make it fit historical events and disregard the 1000 years of the reign of Christ in Revelation 20:1-4.

The very first sentence of the book tells us plainly the words are not to be taken in a literal sense:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; Rev 1:1

And no, I don’t disregard the 1000 yr reign, but neither do I take it literally.

You'd have to show how every judgment revealed in the opening of the seals, bowls, vials, have all been fulfilled, show that the Euphrates river was dried up (Revelation 9:14-16, 16:12), that men were prevented from buying or selling as a result of not having the mark, name or number of the beast (Rev 13:11-18), among a plethora of prophecies that no preterist, historicist, or covenanter can explain.

Wrong. No one HAS to have all the answers to the hyperbole and apocalyptic language contained in the book, that’s one of the greatest blessings to be had from studying the book, it causes one to meditate and wonder on these things. I’ve ‘ wondered with a great wonder’ [17:6] on these things quite often.

Contrary to what Daniel was told four centuries before his writings came to pass:

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end. Dan 12)

We’re told:

And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand. Rev 22:10

In relegating Revelation to the far distant future, the Dispensationalist has ignored/disobeyed the explicit instruction of Christ, and have sealed up the words of the book, depriving the children of their bread.

…And Revelation 12 is not a recapitulation of Genesis 3:15.

Wrong. Rev 12 contains a brilliant ‘picture story’ synopsis of Gen 3:15.

First of all, Genesis 3:15 described in part the FIRST coming of Christ and His crucifixion.

First of all, Revelation was written late 60s during the generation of the FIRST coming of Christ and His crucifixion, and we’re plainly told:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass… for the time is at hand… I come quickly: hold Fast….. Rev 3:11 And behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.,,,,,,,,,, And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.,,,,,,,, Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus. Rev 1:1,3; 3:11; 22:7,10,12,20

Perhaps you got the wrong passage and meant to refer to Joseph's dream, which still is not descriptive of Revelation 12 as a PAST event. Remember, John was told to write about the things which he SAW, things that ARE, and things that SHALL BE (Rev 1:19). Thus all of Revelation are future events.

Wrong. We’re told five of the seven heads of the Dragon are past, the seventh is yet to come [17:10], the book was written during the time of the sixth head-Rome; thus we are pointed to PAST, present (when the book was written), and future (where we are now). She is.’arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars’, She is the celestial, heavenly, Zion, the Jerusalem from above, the mother of us all [Gal 4:26, Ps 87, Isa 54:1], both Gentiles and Jews that are ‘born from above’ [12:17], the REAL JEWS that have the law written in their hearts [Ro 2:14,15,29]. No doubt Joseph’s dream ‘from the past’ is indeed pointed to in the text, OT Israel ‘bore the heat of the day’, they constituted a visible, viable target for the enmity of the Serpent and his relentless persecution and attempts down through ‘the past’ centuries to prevent the ‘Man Child’ from ever entering into this time realm of which the OT is rich with the stories thereof.

This is bread for the children which the Dispensationalists, in foolishly relegating it all to the future, has deprived them of.

Revelation 12 describes a woman that brought forth a man child. Who brought forth Christ? ISRAEL

Israel did zilch. Christ is the only begotten of the Father. The lineage of Christ just happens to be through Israel who God brought forth for that purpose.

What vision did Joseph have that described 12 stars? ISRAEL.

OK.

When the dragon fails to apprehend Israel because they fled into the wilderness to a place God prepared for them for the latter 3 1/2 years of the tribulaton (12:6,14), the dragon goes after the remnant of her SEED (V 17)...Israel.

There were periods of of 'great tribulation' during the times of each of the heads of the great red dragon, i.e. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Holy Roman Empire, and each time God has provided the way for the ‘Israel of God’ to escape.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1489184#post1489184

The 2 covenants of Galations 4 have nothing to do with Revelation or 2 cities….

Wrong. The two covenants of Gal 4 are at the very heart and core of Revelation.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 1

.

The very first sentence of the book tells us plainly the words are not to be taken in a literal sense:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; Rev 1:1

And no, I don’t disregard the 1000 yr reign, but neither do I take it literally.

"Sent and signified IT" does not mean that Revelation was to be interpreted non-literally. God did not have John write this book for entertainment. God even specifically stated that no one is to add or detract from it. Rev 22:18-19. That's a pretty stern warning for something that is merely allegory.

Furthermore, the word used for "signify", semaino, means to declare or make known. This simply means that the angel sent and made known to John what the final revelation of the Bible would be. That statement has absolutely nothing to do with HOW the book of Revelation was to be interpreted.

Wrong. No one HAS to have all the answers to the hyperbole and apocalyptic language contained in the book, that’s one of the greatest blessings to be had from studying the book, it causes one to meditate and wonder on these things. I’ve ‘ wondered with a great wonder’ [17:6] on these things quite often.

So are saying that the blessing comes from a multitude of interpretations of the Bible? That God permits one group to interpret it figuratively and another to interpret it allegorically and both are blessed even though they come out with entirely different intepretations? That is foolish thought.

Just because there are some figurative language does not mean that the figurative is not intended to convey a literal meaning and interpretation. Many passages contain figurative language because they were describing events that John had no standard of comparison of in his day, events that were thousands of year ahead of his time.

When Revelation says the Euphrates will be dried up, it literally means the river will be dried up. When it says that Jesus will visibly return, it means Jesus will visibly return. When John says he is a fellow partaker of their tribulations, it means he was literally suffering with other Christians that had been persecuted. John was not suffering some "figurative" persecution. Domitian tried to literally boil John in oil, and he literally confined him to the literal Isle of Patmos.

Contrary to what Daniel was told four centuries before his writings came to pass:

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end. Dan 12)

We’re told:

And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand. Rev 22:10

In relegating Revelation to the far distant future, the Dispensationalist has ignored/disobeyed the explicit instruction of Christ, and have sealed up the words of the book, depriving the children of their bread.

First of all, Daniel's command was to what HE wrote, not to what John wrote.

Furthermore, Jesus himself quoted Daniel in the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24:15. Why would Jesus "disobey" what you call His own rule, and then expect His followers to understand something that was supposed to be sealed up?

Furthermore, you have even quoted "Blessed is he that readeth" and now you claim that believers are in violation of God's command by doing so? Several times in Revelation 2-3, John wrote, "he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches".

And apparently, you seem to have missed something John said when you quoted Revelation 22:10. John wrote, "seal NOT the words"..that hardly fits with your statement about Christians being disobedient by reading and interpreting it. In fact, there's even one place in Revelation where John is specifically directed not to mention something where he is told not to write what the 7 thunders uttered. Rev 10:4. So if Revelation was intended to be kept shut, why would God have given John a specific command in Revelation 10:4 that he did not give anywhere else in Revelation??

Your assessment that dispensationalists are being disobedient is something pulled straight out of thin air.

Wrong. Rev 12 contains a brilliant ‘picture story’ synopsis of Gen 3:15.

Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Now Revelation 12 compared to what I told you the story was based on and see which one is more similar.

"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." Rev 12:1-2

"And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words. And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me." Gen 37:9-10

"Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her." Hosea 2:14

"As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:" Deuteronomy 32:11..." And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." Revelation 12:14

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 2

First of all, Revelation was written late 60s during the generation of the FIRST coming of Christ and His crucifixion, and we’re plainly told:

Revelation was written while John was on the Isle of Patmos (Rev 1:9). John was not sent to the Isle of Patmos until the reign of Domitian whose reign did not even start until AD 80.

Furthermore, all of the early church leaders hold that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian:

*Iraneus (AD 120-202)who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Iraneus holds that John wrote Revelation during the end of the reign of Domitian who did not begin his reign until 81 AD and was killed in AD 96.

*Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Tertullian (AD 160-220), Victorinus (AD 304), Eusibius (AD 260-340), Jerome (AD 340-419).

The church of Smyrna mentioned by John in Revelation 2, was not in existence in AD 60 or AD 70. Smyrna's first bishop was Polycarp who was not even born until AD 69. Polycarp began his minister under John when he was 25 years old which means that Smyrna would not have been a thriving church until at least 94 AD.

Laodecea was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 60, and Nero wrote of it as still being a desolate place in AD 64. The latest evidence of Laoceceas rebuilding was in a petition they made to Domitian in AD 81. In Revelation 3:17-18, Laodecea is described as being prosperous, claiming to have need of nothing and rich. That was hardly true of Laodecea from AD 60-70.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from history and internally from the Bible that shows Revelation could not have been written before AD 70, nor even before AD 80.

Wrong. We’re told five of the seven heads of the Dragon are past, the seventh is yet to come [17:10], the book was written during the time of the sixth head-Rome; thus we are pointed to PAST, present (when the book was written), and future (where we are now). She is.’arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars’, She is the celestial, heavenly, Zion, the Jerusalem from above, the mother of us all [Gal 4:26, Ps 87, Isa 54:1], both Gentiles and Jews that are ‘born from above’ [12:17], the REAL JEWS that have the law written in their hearts [Ro 2:14,15,29]. No doubt Joseph’s dream ‘from the past’ is indeed pointed to in the text, OT Israel ‘bore the heat of the day’, they constituted a visible, viable target for the enmity of the Serpent and his relentless persecution and attempts down through ‘the past’ centuries to prevent the ‘Man Child’ from ever entering into this time realm of which the OT is rich with the stories thereof.

I just described the 7 heads and who they were. Furthermore, there are TWO beasts each described with differing functions, one having 7 heads and the other having 10. Revelation 13. One describes the beast the Satan has operated through since Babylon, the other is the political system in which is based a 10 nation confederacy from which the antichrist rules from, with the harlot of ROME riding it.

Your reliance on Galations has already been explained. It has nothing to do with the Jerusalem described in Revelation or the fact that Isaiah 13 clearly says that Babylon will no longer be inhabited which proves that the location of Israel is not Babylon.

And as I have before explained, Romans 2 is NOT saying that all Christians are "real Jews" Paul is writing SPECIFICALLY TO JEWS:

Notice the difference first Paul makes that Jew is not Gentile:

"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile"; v 9

Then, in vs 17 "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God"

This makes it absolutely clear that Paul is saying that if a flesh and blood JEW wanted to be a REAL Jew, he couldn't do so by gaining it from the law.

Revelation 7 makes is unambiguous and clear that during the tribulation it will be flesh and blood genetic JEWS that are the ministers on earth during the tribulation:

And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

If the church is Israel, TELL US WHICH TRIBE YOU BELONG TO!

And if you pay attention to Revelation 7:9, you will see the CHURCH IS IN HEAVEN

There were periods of of 'great tribulation' during the times of each of the heads of the great red dragon, i.e. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Holy Roman Empire, and each time God has provided the way for the ‘Israel of God’ to escape.

Having periods of tribulation which is a GENERAL reference to PERSECUTION which the Bible says the any Christian suffers is not the same as JUDGMENT which is what the tribulation is. Romans 5:9 and several other passages show clearly that Christians are not appointed to the wrath to come. Revelation 3:10 states clearly that the tribulation is to "try them that dwell upon the earth" and for Israel to "finish the transgression" (Dan 9:24).

Furthermore, the "GREAT tribulation" is an event that Jesus said was like NTHER EVENT THAT EVER WAS NOR WILL EVER BE. So you can't possibly compare persutions to THE tribulation. Plus, Revelation is specific to the time in which it lasts-7 years, 3 1/3 under the 2 witnesses (Rev 11:3-6) and 3 1/2 under the beast (Rev 13:5).

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1489184#post1489184

Notice that Jesus said ARMIES PLURAL. The only "army" that attacked Jerusalem in AD 70 was ROME. Yet in Zechariah 14:2, God said that ALL ARMIES OF THE EARTH would gather against Israel. Rev 16:16.

I'll deal with your link on a separate article because there are a dozen issues that are overlooked that prove that Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 were not fulfilled in AD 70, like the antichrist being destroyed by the brightness of Christs coming in 2 Thess 2. Preterist point to Nero as the antichrist, but Nero committed suicide, he was not destroyed by the brightness of Christ' coming.
In AD 70, the Jews were scattered through all the earth ("Diaspora"), that is hardly in line with what Jesus said where they were to flee TO THE MOUNTAINS, and this event occurs in Revelation 12. Fleeing to the mountains to a place prepared by God is NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN AD 70!

But I'll get to the rest of that later!

 

[AresMan]

What is the purpose? This question is twofold...if the church replaced Israel, why...and if unconditional election is true, why.

Remember, jealousy is anger towards someone for what they have.

I wouldn't say "the church replaced Israel," but rather that the church is New Covenant constitution of Israel.

Remember, Paul said:

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

He did not say, "For the promises to Israel have been postponed until later. Paul's answer to the question "Has the word of God failed?" Is, "No. God has not failed in His promise. We just need to understand for whom God's promises actually were."

There are two definitions for Israel:
1. Israel after the flesh (either in reference to geopolitical, Old Covenant Israel as a whole, or unbelieving Israelites).
2. the Israel of God (the remnant of faithful Israel into which Gentiles were grafter).

Who are the "Israel" who are the actual recipients of God's promises?

Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
Rom 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

The real Israel who were the recipients of the promises were not the whole of the nation. They were the prophesied remnant.

Now, the Israel of God is not just the remnant of Jews who believed in the Messiah.

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

So, how did Paul explain further about Israel and this remnant?

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.[b/]

Elijah interceded for Israel and God answered by preserving a remnant. There was also a remnant during Paul's day as well. I would also say that all believing Jews today in the church are that surviving, enduring remnant.

Now, what about the Gentiles? Are they a part of the Israel of God?

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

c.f.

Jer 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
Jer 11:17 For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.

c.f.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The believing Gentiles were grafted into Israel. There is no disputing the reference to Jeremiah 11. God has always had, and will always have, only ONE people.

Now, what about the purpose of provoking Israel (after the flesh) to jealousy? Well, it was prophesied in the Old Testament that God would do that if Israel failed to keep the Old Covenant, which in my view was inevitable.

Why did God do it this way? The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Let every mouth be stopped any everyone become guilty before God.

The Old Covenant was a geopolitical, corporate covenant who purpose was to show the holiness of God, the depravity of man, and the fulfillment in Christ. Its members consisted of regenerates and unregenerates.

However, under the New Covenant "all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them." Well, what do you know. That is exactly what we see going on in Romans 11!

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Don't read presuppositions into v.25. It does not say anything about geopolitical "Israel" returning after the fulness of the Gentiles be complete. It just says that Israel (after the flesh) will be partially blinded until this is the case. I believe this means that this will be the case until the coming of Christ. Israel under the New Covenant is the believing remnant of Jews and Gentiles grafted in.

In v.26, the word for "so" is ουτως, which means "in this manner." The way that "all Israel" is saved is that fleshly Israel is blinded while the election is preserved and all elect Gentiles are brought in. Jew and Gentile are equal forever.

You ask "Why did God do it this way?" He uses means to accomplish His end. Old Covenant Israel was a type of which the New Covenant church is the antitype. The Old Covenant was types and shadows of Christ. The New Covenant is the fulfillment. The New Covenant shows the grace of God with all the cloudiness of the types and shadows blown away so that the true Israel--the remnant--shine as the sun and Gentiles who were estranged from the promises are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Now, instead of a faulty geopolitical nation under ceremonial laws, we have gems of faithful Jews and Gentiles dispersed throughout the world.

Hope this helps.

 

[Fred's Wife]

The church never has and never will replace Israel. I found the following article by Dr. Mark Robinson, to be quite informative as to how replacement theology came to be. Dr. Mark Robinson is the director of Jewish Awareness Ministries in Angier, NC.

The title of the article is "The Church and Anti-Semitism" It's too long to post the entire article, but here is an excerpt of the final summation:

Final Considerations

Replacement theology influences each of us either directly or indirectly. Melanie Philips, a Jewish columnist with the London Daily Mail reported on attending a discussion group of Jews and Christians in 2002 concerning the hostility of churches toward Israel.

…the Churches hostility had nothing to do with Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinians. This was merely an excuse. The real reason for the growing antipathy, according to the Christians at that meeting, was the ancient hatred of Jews rooted deep in Christian theology and now on widespread display once again. A doctrine going back to the early Church fathers, suppressed after the Holocaust, had been revived under the influence of the Middle East conflict. This doctrine is called replacement theology. In essence, it says that the Jews have been replaced by the Christians in God’s favor, and so all God’s promises to the Jews, including the land of Israel, have been inherited by Christianity. 14

There is a growing tide of animosity against Israel and ultimately, as history has shown, Jewish people by Christians who hold to a replacement theology view of Scripture. This is inexcusable for anyone who calls himself a Christian.

 

[kyredneck]

"Sent and signified IT" does not mean that Revelation was to be interpreted non-literally. God did not have John write this book for entertainment. God even specifically stated that no one is to add or detract from it. Rev 22:18-19. That's a pretty stern warning for something that is merely allegory.

John’s use (actually it’s Christ”s use) of the word ‘signified’ in Rev 1:1 is in the same sense that he used it in his gospel [Jn 12:30,31; 18:32; 21:18,19] meaning to symbolize. Christ did not speak plainly about death in these texts, but signified it with other than ‘literal’ language. I agree with the Aramaic version of Rev 1:1:

‘The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan’

So are saying that the blessing comes from a multitude of interpretations of the Bible? That God permits one group to interpret it figuratively and another to interpret it allegorically and both are blessed even though they come out with entirely different intepretations? That is foolish thought.

What is the difference between figuratively and allegorically? Both are ‘other than literal’.

I agree with Spurgeon:

“Only fools and madmen are positive in their interpretations of the Apocalypse.”

Just because there are some figurative language does not mean that the figurative is not intended to convey a literal meaning and interpretation. Many passages contain figurative language because they were describing events that John had no standard of comparison of in his day,

John wrote what he SAW.

events that were thousands of year ahead of his time.

And I reiterate:

“In relegating Revelation to the far distant future, the Dispensationalist has ignored/disobeyed the explicit instruction of Christ, and have sealed up the words of the book, depriving the children of their bread.”

Again, from the very first sentences/intro of the book:

‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.’

When Revelation says the Euphrates will be dried up, it literally means the river will be dried up.

What’s your criteria for literalizing this and not others from the book? Is there a 'Dispy Bulletin' out that defines the criteria for when to literalize in Revelation?

First of all, Daniel's command was to what HE wrote, not to what John wrote. Furthermore, Jesus himself quoted Daniel in the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24:15. Why would Jesus "disobey" what you call His own rule, and then expect His followers to understand something that was supposed to be sealed up?

Christ quoted Daniel because the words of the prophecy were no longer sealed:

‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.’

And to John He said:

‘Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.’

And I reiterate:

“In relegating Revelation to the far distant future, the Dispensationalist has ignored/disobeyed the explicit instruction of Christ, and have sealed up the words of the book, depriving the children of their bread.”

Furthermore, you have even quoted "Blessed is he that readeth" and now you claim that believers are in violation of God's command by doing so? Several times in Revelation 2-3, John wrote, "he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches".

And apparently, you seem to have missed something John said when you quoted Revelation 22:10. John wrote, "seal NOT the words"..that hardly fits with your statement about Christians being disobedient by reading and interpreting it. In fact, there's even one place in Revelation where John is specifically directed not to mention something where he is told not to write what the 7 thunders uttered. Rev 10:4. So if Revelation was intended to be kept shut, why would God have given John a specific command in Revelation 10:4 that he did not give anywhere else in Revelation??

Your imagination/accusations are running wild. No reply to this garbage.

Your assessment that dispensationalists are being disobedient is something pulled straight out of thin air.

‘Exegetical gerrymandering’ at the very least.

Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

What entity bruised His heel? The serpent. How was the serpent manifested in this temporal realm?:

....Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mt 3:7

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. Jn 8:44

...the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but are a synagogue of Satan.... Rev 2:9

....the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie;... Rev3:9

That old whore riding the back of the dragon persecuting the woman of Rev 12 colluded with Rome (sixth head of the beast) to slay the Man Child:

…..ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay: whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.Acts 2:23,24

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

John’s use (actually it’s Christ”s use) of the word ‘signified’ in Rev 1:1 is in the same sense that he used it in his gospel [Jn 12:30,31; 18:32; 21:18,19] meaning to symbolize. Christ did not speak plainly about death in these texts, but signified it with other than ‘literal’ language. I agree with the Aramaic version of Rev 1:1:

This is a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of semaino. The usage in which you are referring to is the Gr παραβολή, (parabole) which is used to describe matters that are symbolic [or symbolon which I will address below](i.e. Hebrews 11:19 "received in a FIGURE [parabole]). That is not what is used here.

Semaino means to signify by making known or indicating. It would be silly to read Revelation 1 as "and he SENT and symobolized IT". The angel did not symobolized the SENDING of the message to John. The subject is the IT, and the emphasis is on the IT being SENT to John. To translate that is "symbolized" not only is not what semaino implies, but distorts the context. Semaino is in the verb form aortist active indicative which means it is not used as a noun to described something symbolic about the message. The verb describes the manner in which the message was delivered, not the structure of the message itself.

When this term is used in Acts 25:27, it is not "symbolizing" the list of crimes that should be INDICATED or MADE KNOWN against the accused. In Acts 11:28, the same term is used to MAKE KNOWN through the Spirit of a coming dearth throughout the world. There was no symbolism in either usage (nor even in the ones you used).

‘The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan’

I notice you didn't list the reference for this, and wisely omitted, because Yeshua is HEBREW and "Yohanna" is a misspelling of the Greek name for John.

And again, you are using the wrong Greek word for symbolize which comes from the Greek 'symbolon'συμβολίζουν (or parabole). You are adding something to the text that is not in any Greek manuscript or English translation.

I agree with Spurgeon:

“Only fools and madmen are positive in their interpretations of the Apocalypse.”

Spurgeon was a Calvinist, and Calvin (and Luther)wouldn't touch Revelation with a 10 foot pole, and was amillennial. Nevertheless, I do not appeal to Spurgeon as my final authority on prophecy. Revelation says "blessed is he that readeth". Rev 2-3 says numerous times, "He that hath an ear, LET HIM HEAR what the Spirit saith to the churches". In Rev 13:18, it says "Here is wisdom, LET HIM THAT HATH UNDERSTANDING count the number of the beast". And again in Rev 17:9 "Here is THE MIND WHICH HATH WISDOM". John expected readers to understand what was written, so Spurgeon is a fool for NOT thinking that a NT Christian should be positive in interpreting the Apocalypse.

John wrote what he SAW.

John also wrote what he HEARD. Rev 14:2, and what he was TOLD TO WRITE: Rev 14:13. That has no bearing at all on whether ALL of Revelation is symbolic or whether or not God expected the reader to understand (which I have just shown that He did).

And I reiterate:

“In relegating Revelation to the far distant future, the Dispensationalist has ignored/disobeyed the explicit instruction of Christ, and have sealed up the words of the book, depriving the children of their bread.”

Scripture and verse? Even though I already refuted this in the last comment about this, you have offered nothing that shows this to be a Biblical caveat.

Again, from the very first sentences/intro of the book:

‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.’

Again, it is obvious that you are using the preterist interpretation of "shortly come to pass". Paul told the church in Corinth about the end of the world that "the time IS SHORT". 1 Cor 7:29. Obviously, the world hasn't ended yet, so Paul did not mean that the world would end in his lifetime, but that it COULD. It was an expectation of imminency, not immediate fulfillment.

And as I pointed out, most Preterists still believe that there will be a second coming of Christ with a new heaven and new Jerusalem, and of even that event, John uses the same language in Revelation 22:6 that is used in Revelation 1:

"And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done"

And notice that this is written AFTER THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH. So do tell me where the new heavens and new earth are at (Rev 21:1-4), with Satan being bound (Rev 20:2), and Christ reigning on the throne, and the Gentiles being kicked out of Jerusalem (Rev 21:27) even though MUSLIMS AND CATHOLICS STILL OCCUPY JERUSALEM. If "shortly come to pass" meant fulfilled when John wrote Revelation, the explain how Revelation 22:6 failed to cause the fulfillment of all of the above?

What’s your criteria for literalizing this and not others from the book? Is there a 'Dispy Bulletin' out that defines the criteria for when to literalize in Revelation?

It's called common sense and the ability to read English, Greek, and Hebrew. Is there a "Non Dispy Bulletin" that tells you that Jesus literally rose from the dead? Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Muslims believe that, but it's in black and white in the Bible, so what's the criteria for proving that Jesus LITERALLY rose from the dead?

I gave a thorough explanation in my previous post that explained the difference between allegory and literal interpretation.

Christ quoted Daniel because the words of the prophecy were no longer sealed:

‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.’

And to John He said:

‘Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.’

And I reiterate:

You are completely contradicting yourself. The words of those prophecies are NOT sealed, and Jesus referred to them expecting his followers to understand them. He even COMMANDED THEM to watch for what Daniel described. And yet you say that Christians are being disobedient for watching and interpreting what Jesus TOLD THEM TO interpret.

And "this generation shall not pass away" is the GENERATION THAT SEES ALL OF THOSE THINGS, not the generation that Christ was speaking to at the time. Those things have not all occurred, so there is yet a generation that is still to come that will see those things, and the generation that lives during the time (time of the Gentiles) will have the same economy UNTIL these events take place.

And since you chose not to respond to my "garbage" then I need not respond to the link you posted that says absolutely nothing about the context of what was posted.

What entity bruised His heel? The serpent. How was the serpent manifested in this temporal realm?:

Where is the bruising of the heal in Revelation 12? That was the context that you tried to lump with Gen 3:15 and I showed you that you were quoting the wrong Genesis passage which Revelation clearly alludes to Genesis 37-Joseph's dream.

Mt 3:7, Jn 8:44,.. Rev 2:9, Rev3:9

That old whore riding the back of the dragon persecuting the woman of Rev 12 colluded with Rome (sixth head of the beast) to slay the Man Child:

…..ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay: whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.Acts 2:23,24

Now ask yourself this: when has the church ever been concerned with trying a Jew?? When has the church ever referred to a meeting place as a synagogue? When has the church ever been concerned about a Jewish temple? (Rev 11:1-2). In order to try Jews that are liars, there has to be a real flesh and blood genetic Jew doing the proving because that is the contrast and comparison. You can't rip Revelation 7:4-8 out of the Bible whether you like it's presence there or not. The church is REMOVED, and then the focus goes back to Israel during the coming tribulation and the unbelieving Jews will be killed leaving a remnant of believing Jews and any Gentiles that believes during the tribulation to enter into the millennium (which is how the millennium is populated).

 

[DrJamesAch]

Furthermore regarding Rome attacking the Man Child, John is giving a brief history in Revelation to PROVE that this is Israel, not the church, and not Mary. It is given in chronological order from the nation bringing forth Christ, to Satan's fight with Michael in heaven, to Satan and his angels being kicked out, to the martyrs who overcame (Rev 7:14) and Satan KNOWING HE HAD A SHORT TIME once he was cast to the earth, and chased after the remnant of Israel who did not escape in Rev 12:14. Notice that Satan chases after her SEED which means he is chasing literal flesh and blood genetic JEWS.

 

[Skandelon]

It still does not explain the purpose for provoking those not elect to jealousy.

The obvious purpose of provoking those who were being hardened was that they might also be saved, as that is EXACTLY what Paul states in Rom. 11:14. This however KILLS the Calvinistic interpretation and understanding of Romans 9 where they presume the hardened ones are the non-elect reprobates predestined to hell. You can't have predetermined reprobates being provoked to jealousy and being saved and still be a Calvinist.