The sheep and the goats?

[Van]

Consider this argument for literal and historical interpretation which leaves opinion out.


A most important adverb for understanding. If understanding takes place one must believe this word in the text.

5119 tote [tot -eh]

from (the neuter of) 3588 and 3753; adv;



AV-then 149, that time 4, when 1, not tr 5; 159

1) then
2) at that time

SNIP

Mt 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mt 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink?
Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mt 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mt 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

The church and this age is not in view here. It is hidden at this time. It is not yet revealed. This is about the earthly kingdom and his second coming.

This is a progressive time line from the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 AD to the glorious inauguration of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in righteousness on the earth.

We must believe the words or we have opinions.

I am sure you were trying to make a point, but just what it was is a mystery to me.

G5119 appears 5 times in our passage, Matthew 25:31-46. It always is referring to action taken at that time, when the goats and the sheep will be separated at Christ's second coming. I did not say nor suggest some other time.

And all this innuendo about not believing the words is diversionary nonsense.

 

[Van]

The Reformed view denies the separation of the Church and Israel, so they will shoot down my view immediately.

I was just hoping you could get a better view of what I was saying earlier.

The video was not in detail but more less an overview, there's much more to add, but I think the main points were there.

This post does not even address what I said. I believe the view of Galatians 3 which denies the separation of believers into two groups, we are all Israel. My view is called Progressive Dispensationalism, and you can study it on line.

I explained that Joel 3:2 supports my view and precludes your view.

 

[Charlie24]

This post does not even address what I said. I believe the view of Galatians 3 which denies the separation of believers into two groups, we are all Israel. My view is called Progressive Dispensationalism, and you can study it on line.

I explained that Joel 3:2 supports my view and precludes your view.

I'm a traditional dispensationalist and we do disagree on several points.

 

[Van]

I'm a traditional dispensationalist and we do disagree on several points.

My view, which you apparently disagree with, is that traditional dispensationalism is racist hog wash. No one can read Galatians 3 and believe we are not all children of God and heirs to the same promise. Their is no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ!

 

[Charlie24]

My view, which you apparently disagree with, is that traditional dispensationalism is racist hog wash. No one can read Galatians 3 and believe we are not all children of God and heirs to the same promise. Their is no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ!

There were promises made to Israel that were not made to the Church.

You're somewhere in-between, where I don't know.

 

[JD731]

SNIP

I am sure you were trying to make a point, but just what it was is a mystery to me.

G5119 appears 5 times in our passage, Matthew 25:31-46. It always is referring to action taken at that time, when the goats and the sheep will be separated at Christ's second coming. I did not say nor suggest some other time.

And all this innuendo about not believing the words is diversionary nonsense.

Sorry if I confused you, Van, it certainly was not my intent and what I said about believing words is just the common way that information is passed from one to another.

Let me state my point again for clarity and maybe expand on it somewhat.

I made the point that chapters 24 and 25 were both the Olivet Discourse of Jesus Christ. He was speaking to 4 men, apostles, who after 3 more days from this time would be quitting the ministry because the man who they believed was the Son of God and the promised Messiah of Israel will have been crucified and buried after a brutal death at the hands of the Jewish rulers and Roman authorities. The idea of a resurrection was foreign to their minds. What they were interested in was a kingdom and they believed Jesus was the King. So did Jesus. Jesus had mentioned his resurrection for the first time just a short time earlier and check out their response at that time;

Mr 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

Since we have been quoting from Matthew I probably should keep the quotes in Matthew. Here is Jesus and his disciples heading toward Jerusalem. More than 3 years of his ministry was passed.

Mt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

What if we spiritualized verse 21 above and said Jesus meant the word "began" to have a different meaning than to commence or to start. Peter recoiled at that info because he did not understand that the kingdom he desires could not be realized unless Jesus died and rose again, not to begin the kingdom in it's power but to be the means of cleansing his citizenry from sins because unless one is born again he may not enter into that kingdom. One cannot be born again without the shedding of the blood of Christ by which all sins of believers in his words are washed away.

Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I am not trying to be a jerk, I am trying to make sense of the passage. If through my own arrogance I offended you, I apologize. I do not apologize for making sense out of the words and interpreting the Bible in a historical and meaningful context.

This discourse gives the entire process from the destruction of the present temple in AD 70 to the inauguration of his kingdom with him the King of Israel and the nations. I said the church is not in view in this discourse.

 

[Van]

There were promises made to Israel that were not made to the Church.

You're somewhere in-between, where I don't know.

Show me one promise made to Israel that was not made to the church of the Firstborn!

 

[Charlie24]

Show me one promise made to Israel that was not made to the church of the Firstborn!

The first one is the promise to save all of Israel, He never made that promise to the Church.

When Paul said that there can be no mistake he was speaking of his countrymen, the Jews.

 

[Van]

Sorry if I confused you, Van, it certainly was not my intent and what I said about believing words is just the common way that information is passed from one to another.

Let me state my point again for clarity and maybe expand on it somewhat.

I made the point that chapters 24 and 25 were both the Olivet Discourse of Jesus Christ. He was speaking to 4 men, apostles, who after 3 more days from this time would be quitting the ministry because the man who they believed was the Son of God and the promised Messiah of Israel will have been crucified and buried after a brutal death at the hands of the Jewish rulers and Roman authorities. The idea of a resurrection was foreign to their minds. What they were interested in was a kingdom and they believed Jesus was the King. So did Jesus. Jesus had mentioned his resurrection for the first time just a short time earlier and check out their response at that time;

Mr 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

Since we have been quoting from Matthew I probably should keep the quotes in Matthew. Here is Jesus and his disciples heading toward Jerusalem. More than 3 years of his ministry was passed.

Mt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

What if we spiritualized verse 21 above and said Jesus meant the word "began" to have a different meaning than to commence or to start. Peter recoiled at that info because he did not understand that the kingdom he desires could not be realized unless Jesus died and rose again, not to begin the kingdom in it's power but to be the means of cleansing his citizenry from sins because unless one is born again he may not enter into that kingdom. One cannot be born again without the shedding of the blood of Christ by which all sins of believers in his words are washed away.

Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I am not trying to be a jerk, I am trying to make sense of the passage. If through my own arrogance I offended you, I apologize. I do not apologize for making sense out of the words and interpreting the Bible in a historical and meaningful context.

This discourse gives the entire process from the destruction of the present temple in AD 70 to the inauguration of his kingdom with him the King of Israel and the nations. I said the church is not in view in this discourse.

I did not see anything in your post that addressed the sheep are separated as born anew individuals, siblings of Christ. It looks like you are not going to address our actual issue. My view does not change the meaning of words, or spiritualize them.

 

[JD731]

I did not see anything in your post that addressed the sheep are separated as born anew individuals, siblings of Christ. It looks like you are not going to address our actual issue. My view does not change the meaning of words, or spiritualize them.

Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, essentially the church of Jesus Christ, who never addresses him as King, but rather as Lord, wrote 13 letters to the gentiles describing the grace of God in making a way for our entrance into this great salvation, never referred to us as sheep. He used the word one time in Romans 8, which is a passage addressed to Jews in context.

Let's get serious. If Jesus says he is returning to the earth in glory as King then he must have a kingdom in mind. And if he is gathering all nations together to judge them on whether or not they will enter the kingdom or be sent to hell by one simple test of how they had previously treated his people then I think we can believe him.

Theses are sheep and goat nations according to his defining proclamation, not sheep and goat individuals. Jesus at this time is the Shepherd King after the type of David. This is the inauguration of his kingdom on earth after Re 19.

Where am I wrong?