Heaven and Earth Passed Away [Archive] - Apostolic Friends Forum

Nicodemus1968

03-10-2020, 09:35 AM

Error. Not believing the Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection for eternal life is a Salvation issue. You can lose your salvation if you believe that error.

Noah believed the word of God and by faith built an Ark. When he was done the judgment of God was with great power over all humans. It didn't happen in secret, and his judgment wasn't allegorical.

Abraham believed and came to Cannan. He lived in that place surrounded by people that didn't know what was coming. Abraham saw a little bit of the promise fulfillment: a miracle right in his house, Sarah bearing child. Hundreds of years later, God fulfilled his word with great wonders and signs over the land of Egypt! See that faith of Abraham! When everything around him in Cannan was as usual! See the faithfulness of God!! and the great signs and wonders he did to make it happen!

The first coming of our Lord came in humbleness, but still with great signs and wonder, and a resurrection seen by over 500 people. That caused the spread of the Gospel around the entire Globe. We are now having that faith of Abraham. Unbelievers around us mock us. From within we have this new doctrine of preterism damaging the faith of many.
If the first coming, being humble, still was wonderful and global, do you really believe his Second Coming already happened as a allegorical/secret event!!??? It will be glorious!! It is the fulfillment of his promise to all the saints of all ages!!!

People are going to hell if they don’t believe in the second coming? You need to calm down with all the “your wrong, your going to hell talk”. I believe Jesus already came in Judgement, I don’t believe in some futuristic event as told by dispensationalists.

Also, I am NOT a PRETERIST, I believe in the spirit. I don’t believe tongues has ceased, I believe the church is the bride of Christ and Israel is a nation like any other.

How many “comings” is the lord going to do?

Esaias

03-10-2020, 09:54 AM

People are going to hell if they don’t believe in the second coming? You need to calm down with all the “your wrong, your going to hell talk”. I believe Jesus already came in Judgement, I don’t believe in some futuristic event as told by dispensationalists.

Also, I am NOT a PRETERIST, I believe in the spirit. I don’t believe tongues has ceased, I believe the church is the bride of Christ and Israel is a nation like any other.

How many “comings” is the lord going to do?

Therefore the term "coming of the Lord" is a reference to a TYPE of event and NOT to a specific occurrence of an event.

Some Biblical proof of the assertion:

The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness. The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt: And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames. Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land. Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
(Isaiah 13:1-19)

Here, God pronounces the downfall of Babylon at the hands of the Medes. The event is called "the day of the Lord", filled with His "wrath and indignation". The coming of the Medes with their armies is said to be the coming of the Lord Himself: "They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land." Cosmic disturbances are spoken of: the sun, moon, and stars being darkened and put out. The heavens would be shaken, the earth moved out of its place (as in a global earthquake).

This is language used in Scripture concerning the destruction of the Babylonian empire at the hand of the Medes, not the "second coming" or the end of the world. Also, it should be noted that this day of the Lord was said to be "at hand". Isaiah gave this prophecy approximately 250 years before Babylon fell to the Medes, yet it was "at hand" when the prophecy was spoken.

The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it. And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom. And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards. And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.
(Isaiah 19:1-4)

Here is a prophecy against Egypt which was fulfilled when that country was torn apart by civil war, resulting in twelve kingdoms (known historically as the "Dodekarchy"). This took place in 695 BC. The Egyptians rose up against their Ethiopian overlords, overthrew them, and dissolved the kingdom into civil war between 12 smaller kingdoms that arose. Eventually, the war was resolved by the rise to power of Psammeticus in 670 BC, the ruler of Sais (one of the 12 kingdoms), who conquered the rest and forged them back into a single monarchy. His son, Pharoah Necho, soon established himself as the "cruel lord" with his plan to build a canal in the Suez region: "Necho (616-597), the son and successor of Psammetichus, renewed the project of Ramses-Miamun, to construct a Suez canal, and tore away 120,000 of the natives of the land from their homes, sending them to wear out their lives in forced labour of the most wearisome kind. A revolt on the part of the native troops, who had been sent against the rising Cyrene, and driven back into the desert, led to the overthrow of Hophra, the grandson of Necho (570), and put an end to the hateful government of the family of Psammetichus." - Keil and Delitzsch Commentary.

Yet, in this prophecy concerning Egypt which came to pass in the early 7th century BC, it is described as a coming of the Lord upon the clouds.

The word of the LORD that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem. Hear, all ye people; hearken, O earth, and all that therein is: and let the Lord GOD be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple. For, behold, the LORD cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains shall be molten under him, and the valleys shall be cleft, as wax before the fire, and as the waters that are poured down a steep place. For the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house of Israel. What is the transgression of Jacob? is it not Samaria? and what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem? Therefore I will make Samaria as an heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard: and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof.
(Micah 1:1-6)

Here, doom is prophesied against both Samaria and Jerusalem. Samaria was destroyed by Assyria in 722 BC (I believe, I might be off by a year or so), and Jerusalem later in the 600s by Babylon. Yet, the prophesied destruction of the two cities is described as the Lord "coming out of His place... coming down to earth... treading upon the mountains... which will be melted..."

In other words, the concept of the Lord "coming" is clearly used in the Old Testament as a descriptive term for God visiting , usually in judgment against nations and cities. The point being, there is clearly more than one "coming of the Lord".

Esaias

03-10-2020, 09:55 AM

Now for some New Testament examples:

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
(Revelation 2:1-5)

Here, a threatened "coming of the Lord" is clearly a reference to a visitation of judgment against a church caught up in errors and backsliding. It is not that the second coming would take place, but that the Lord would "come" and remove the church from it's position as one of His churches. Again, the "coming of the Lord" is a term or concept referencing a visitation in judgment.

And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
(Revelation 2:12-16)

Again, we see the same thing: a wayward church that refused to repent would suffer a "coming of the Lord" in judgment. Notice, that in these two New Testament examples, the predicted comings of the Lord are CONDITIONAL. They are conditioned upon the spiritual condition of the respective churches, whether they would repent or not.

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
(Revelation 3:1-3)

Again, a conditional, threatened "coming of the Lord", this time with "thief in the night" language.

So far, we have seen no less than three "comings of the Lord" in the Old Testament, and another three just in the book of Revelation alone. In each of these cases, the coming of the Lord was a prophetic, descriptive term for a visitation of Divine judgment upon nations or churches or the unrepentant ones within certain churches.

But the coming of the Lord is not limited to instances of Divine judgment or punishment, as in this Old Testament prophecy:

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:1-6)

Here, the arrival of Christ is prophesied as a coming of the Lord, indeed as a coming that involved judgment. But not in the execution of punishment! He was to come near in judgment and be a WITNESS against sin and sinners. We know that when Christ came, He came and bore witness of the truth against the ungodliness of the world, yet He did not come to execute vengeance upon them, but to save them from their sins. So here we see a coming of the Lord that, while it includes the idea of judgment, it is focused on MERCY. It is the arrival of the King. Once He arrives, and bears witness against sin, then (having been established as King and "the messenger of the covenant") He is able to execute judgment against His enemies.

Esaias

03-10-2020, 10:01 AM

One more New Testament prophecy concerning the coming of the Lord:

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
(John 14:1-23)

Make sure you read the whole passage to get the fuller understanding. Jesus is saying He is going away, but will come again. He clarifies this by declaring He would not leave them "comfortless", but would "come" to them. He just got done talking about the Comforter (the Holy Ghost). So then He would "come unto them" via the Holy Ghost. In fact, he declares that those who keep His words will be loved by Him and the Father, and both of them would "come" and dwell with His followers.

Now, this is clearly speaking about the Lord "coming". It is a "coming of the Lord", but not the "second advent". It is also not the "comings" we have seen earlier, either. This coming is not a coming to execute judgment. It is a coming to bring "comfort" and prevent the disciples from being orphans or "fatherless" (the meaning of the term "comfortless" according to the Greek). This obviously was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, but it continues to occur whenever a believer loves Jesus and keeps His words, receives the Holy Ghost, and abides in Christ. the Lord is said to "come" to such a one, indeed the Father Himself is said to come to such a one. Meaning of course that such a person receives a "coming of the Lord" that brings the fullness of God Himself into their life, for "he who has the Son has the Father also".

So, the idea of the "coming of the Lord" has several meanings according to the Bible. It can be a temporal judgment executed against a nation or city, it can be a judgment executed against a church or the wayward members of a church, or it can be a visitation in mercy of the Spirit of Christ to those who follow Him and believe in Him. None of these comings of the Lord involve what is commonly known as the "second coming". And none of these comings we have looked at involve the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, either!

Was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 a "coming of the Lord"? Sure it was. Will the return of Jesus to resurrect the saints and destroy the man of sin be a "coming of the Lord"? Certainly. But, as we have seen, the term "coming of the Lord" is not a term that always and only refers to one event. Rather, it refers to a type of event. Several types of events, in fact.

Esaias

03-10-2020, 10:04 AM

The Bible clearly references multiple comings of the Lord, clear back in the Old Testament. Verse 30 (of Matthew ch 24) simply says they shall see the son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. This makes me think of Daniel 7:13:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
(Daniel 7:13)

Here, we see the Son of Man "coming", we see the clouds of heaven, and yet He isn't coming to the earth, he is coming to the Ancient of Days. considering the language similarities between Dan 7:13 and Matthew 24:30, I'd say it's a good chance they are referring to the same thing. In which case Matthew 24:30 is not a "coming BACK" but a coming before the Ancient of Days.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:14)

So it looks like He was to come before the Ancient of Days to receive a kingdom. So perhaps Matthew 24:30 isn't talking about a coming "back", in apposition to His ascension, but rather it seems like it is talking about His coming into His kingdom.

Esaias

03-10-2020, 10:05 AM

(cont.)
But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
(Matthew 26:63-64)

The word "hereafter" is apo arti, and literally means "from now":

Jesus said to him, You said it. I tell you more. From this time you shall see the Son of Man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven. Psa. 110:1; Dan. 7:13
(Literal Version, Matthew 26:64)

What's fascinating is the Literal Version actually references Daniel 7:13 here!

Anyway, Jesus told the priests gathered against Him that from that point on they would see Jesus at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
(Matthew 26:64 ESV)

So, from the time of His suffering and crucifixion they would see Him seated on the right hand of power and coming in/on (or with) the clouds of heaven. This does not seem to be talking about either a "second advent" or a "coming in judgment against Jerusalem" some 40 years later. This is talking about Messiah coming into His kingdom, just like Daniel 7:13 speaks about.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
(Matthew 16:28 KJV)

John Gill makes some interesting remarks on this verse:

till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom; which is not to be understood of his personal coming in his kingdom in the last day, when he will judge quick and dead; for it cannot be thought, that any then present should live to that time, but all tasted of death long before, as they have done; for the story of John's being alive, and to live till then, is fabulous, and grounded on a mistake which John himself has rectified at the close of his Gospel: nor of the glorious transfiguration of Christ, the account of which immediately follows; when he was seen by Peter, James, and John, persons now present; for that, at most, was but an emblem and a pledge of his future glory: rather, of the appearance of his kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven; when the Spirit was poured down in an extraordinary manner, and the Gospel was preached all over the world; was confirmed by signs and wonders, and made effectual to the conversion and salvation of many souls; which many then present lived to see, and were concerned in: though it seems chiefly to have regard to his coming, to show his regal power and authority in the destruction of the Jews; when those his enemies that would not he should reign over them, were ordered to be brought and slain before him; and this the Apostle John, for one, lived to be a witness of.

Gill of course does tie in the destruction of Jerusalem to it, but it is interesting that he also saw this as largely having to do with Christ coming into His kingdom. The entire period from His death and resurrection, through His ascension, through the outpouring of the Spirit, through the propagation of the gospel, through the conversion of the gentiles, all the way to the destruction of Jerusalem, all of it appears to be the evidences of Jesus Christ "coming" into His Kingdom, having been brought before the Ancient of Days and receiving the dominion and being seated at the right hand of power.

This may shed light on the "sign of the Son of man" appearing. The sign given to that generation was His death, burial, and resurrection. Every thing that happened after His resurrection was a vindication of His Messiahship. The destruction of Jerusalem for the sin of rejecting and killing the Messiah would be final proof or evidence of that "sign of Jonah", sealing the deal so to say. After the tribulation of those days everyone would see "the sign" - that is to say, everyone would then have ample proof that the resurrection of Christ was no fable cooked up by fanatical disciples but was in fact the Truth, as the words of the Prophet of all prophets came to pass.

So then, it seems that the coming in Matthew 24 (and the other passages we just looked at) seem to have reference not to a "coming back" or a "return" but to a coming into His kingdom and power and dominion as Messiah in fulfillment of the Son of Man prophecy in Daniel.

Esaias

03-10-2020, 10:06 AM

(cont.)

The quick version is this: Jesus ascends to the throne, receives the kingdom. The destruction of Jerusalem completes the process of transferring the kingdom from Judean priesthood to Christ. This signifies the "sign of the Son of Man", meaning that Jesus has been verified as the "son of man" of Daniel 7:13. Afterwards, the elect are gathered from the "four winds of heaven" (meaning from wherever they had been previously scattered). This is accomplished throughout the gospel period (and is on going even now, as people are still being gathered together into the new covenant ekklesia of Jesus).

Paul had to correct some who were teaching that the day of Christ was the same as the coming of the Lord before the ancient of Days. We know this because the error was they were saying the "day of Christ is at hand", yet Paul said it was not, and yet again Jesus taught His coming in the clouds/coming in His kingdom would begin during His trial (thus THAT "coming" most certainly was "at hand"). This shows there is a difference between Christ coming in the clouds of heaven to receive His kingdom, and Christ "returning" to destroy the man of sin. As previously noted, the term "coming of the Lord" and similar terms are used in the OT to refer to VARIOUS types of events, not just one singular happening. Therefore the term "coming of the Lord" is a reference to a TYPE of event and NOT to a specific occurrence of an event.

Please re-read that last sentence again, it is key to understanding what I am saying.

The gathering of the elect from the four corners of heaven has reference to the elect being called to Christ and gathered together into His ekklesia once the Judean remnant had been gathered in (which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem - the gospel was then "freed" from being simply a sect of Judaism and could now go to all the elect). that gethering continues even today, and will culminate in the resurrection of the dead and transformation of the living saints when Christ RETURNS. That return is certainly "a coming" of the Lord, but as previously noted, "the coming of the Lord" is a term referring to a TYPE of event, not a particular event or occurrence.

Michael The Disciple

03-10-2020, 10:16 AM

Michael The Disciple

03-10-2020, 10:19 AM

Nicodemus1968

03-10-2020, 10:26 AM

When they say “the second coming” there referring to the future coming of Christ as he will rapture the church out of here. Yet, will not be the second coming but rather the third coming or even the fourth in regards to some thinking.

Coming of Christ
1-God manifested in the flesh
2-The comforter came on Pentecost
3-God came in Judgement against Israel in 70 AD
4- God coming against for the church.

Even David Bernard said the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost was a coming. Like I said how many are there going to be?
Rather what will we enjoy with a future coming that we cannot enjoy now?

coksiw

03-10-2020, 10:26 AM

Esaias

03-10-2020, 11:07 AM

Nicodemus1968

03-10-2020, 11:14 AM

I must be on ignore.

I apparently missed something?

Esaias

03-10-2020, 11:16 AM

I apparently missed something?

I think you missed 60% of the posts on page 1? 10 posts, 6 are mine, all in response to your question "How many comings of the Lord?"

As far as word count goes, it probably includes about 80% of the entire discussion thread.

So yeah, I think you may have missed something. :)

coksiw

03-10-2020, 11:17 AM

Esaias

03-10-2020, 11:20 AM

Esaias,
Your posts are very good. I do not agree 100% with your view of Matt 24, since you are omitting other parts of the chapter referring to a literal event, but I do not intent to debate about it here.
I basically want to say that your part about the term "coming" is a great contribution for everyone regardless of views :thumbsup. Thank you sir.

You are welcome. Which part about Matt 24 are you referring to? I don't recall saying the prophecy isn't about a literal event? I also wasn't trying to exegete the whole chapter, so of course not every verse will be addressed.

Just wondering. :thumbsup

Nicodemus1968

03-10-2020, 11:20 AM

I wasn't targeting you specifically :heeheehee

Yes, if one believes that there is no resurrection from the dead, meaning, our grave will be empty, then Jesus didn't resurrect. And if He didn't then that person is still in his sins, and he is lost, because he does not have faith in the promise of God. If he does not have faith in his promise, how can he be participant of it?

[1Co 15:12-19 NKJV] 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching [is] empty and your faith [is] also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if [the] dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith [is] futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

[2Ti 2:15-18 NKJV] 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane [and] idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened , who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

The word quicken means to be made alive.
We have been resurrected through the Holy Ghost. Paul is right if Jesus was not resurrected then our words or preaching is empty.

Nicodemus1968

03-10-2020, 11:21 AM

I think you missed 60% of the posts on page 1? 10 posts, 6 are mine, all in response to your question "How many comings of the Lord?"

As far as word count goes, it probably includes about 80% of the entire discussion thread.

So yeah, I think you may have missed something. :)

I’m sorry about that. I’ll go back and read, the thread is all of a sudden on page 2. :thumbsup

Esaias

03-10-2020, 11:26 AM

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened , who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

The word quicken means to be made alive.
We have been resurrected through the Holy Ghost. Paul is right if Jesus was not resurrected then our words or preaching is empty.

Paul, after being quickened through the Holy Ghost, said he was still looking forward to attaining the resurrection:

Philippians 3:8-13 KJV
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, [9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: [10] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; [11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. [12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. [13] Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do , forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,... etc

If Paul believed as you do, Paul never would have said what he said. Thus it seems your faith, doctrine, belief, and hope, are not the same as Paul's faith, doctrine, belief, and hope, at least on this topic.

Esaias

03-10-2020, 11:28 AM

I’m sorry about that. I’ll go back and read, the thread is all of a sudden on page 2. :thumbsup

Actually we're on page 3 now... :heeheehee

Michael The Disciple

03-10-2020, 11:30 AM

Coming of Christ
1-God manifested in the flesh
2-The comforter came on Pentecost
3-God came in Judgement against Israel in 70 AD
4- God coming against for the church.

It comes down to rightly dividing the word of truth. Staggering to me that anyone would use the 1st 3 points to do away with the 4th.

They act as if the EARNEST of the Spirit we have is the ENTIRE PAYMENT!

Yes the down payment is wonderful. Yet its nonetheless only the downpayment. The full measure of blessing will be REALIZED at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Then will come the glorious revealing of the new heavens and new earth.

coksiw

03-10-2020, 12:18 PM

Michael The Disciple

03-10-2020, 12:30 PM

Someone said to me that they felt that the Lord said He was coming "soon" because He wanted every generation to be watching for Him. Think about that. What that means is that when He told the first century believers that He was coming back soon, He really didn't mean it, He was giving them false information to keep them looking for Him. Can you live with that?

That seems to be the answer. The words of Jesus would be for ALL his people. Every generation of Christians have been blessed with this HOPE. Thats why it is called the BLESSED HOPE.

Titus 2:11-13

11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

He was NOT giving them false info. The Holy Spirit explained this by the Apostle Peter.

2 Peter 3:3-9

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So the Prets are willing to "spiritualize" practically anything in the Bible except when it comes to this.

Peter is answering the accusation that Jesus said he was coming soon and had not yet done so that was happening in the 1st century.

Holy Spirit REVELATION told them yes he was coming soon but EXPLICITLY time was different between God and us.

In that way ALL Christians no matter how many generations would exist could have the blessing and hope that Jesus could come in their time.

Michael The Disciple

03-10-2020, 12:35 PM

[Col 2:13 NKJV] 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

[Rom 8:11 NKJV] 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

The greek work has the same root in those verses. "Making you alive" has two aspects: a past spiritual aspect when you were born again, and a future physical aspect when you are resurrected. The same way as salvation.

Amen:highfive

Im amazed you run into people or groups who cant see this. Paul said they "overthrow the faith of some". Believe only one half of the scriptures rather than all. And the smaller part rather than the greater at that.

Even as a entire payment is greater than a DOWN PAYMENT ie...earnest.

Michael The Disciple

03-10-2020, 12:37 PM

Paul, after being quickened through the Holy Ghost, said he was still looking forward to attaining the resurrection:

Philippians 3:8-13 KJV
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, [9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: [10] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; [11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. [12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. [13] Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do , forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,... etc

If Paul believed as you do, Paul never would have said what he said. Thus it seems your faith, doctrine, belief, and hope, are not the same as Paul's faith, doctrine, belief, and hope, at least on this topic.

:highfive

Michael The Disciple

03-10-2020, 12:59 PM

If that was the case what else did He tell them that wasn't true? Do we have a God who intentionally deceives men? Isn't it much easier to simply believe what Yeshua said and believe that He came back in the first century?

His words were true when rightly divided. It would NOT be more simple to believe Yeshua came in 70ad. That brings bigger questions and doubts.

Such as if the coming of Jesus for his people was in 70 ad WHO ARE WE? Who were the "Christians" from 70 ad until today?

What RELEVANCE does the Bible have for us? After all according to their logic Matt 24 was not given to ANYONE except those specific people.

Scriptures like 1 Thess 4:13-18 were ONLY GIVEN to those in the first century!

So if this be true obviously NOTHING in the New Testament would be written for ANYONE after 70ad. Romans was written to the Romans. Not to us. Ephesians was written to the saints at Ephesus. Not to us. Thessalonians was written to the Thessalonians. So on and so forth.

The only way the Bible might have relevance to us is to say we are in the 1000 year reign right now as part of the nations that are said to be healed.

And if that were true wasnt that supposed to be a great time where Christ would rule the nations? The devil was residing in the bottomless pit deceiving the nations no more?

How about this?

The overcoming Christians were told in Rev. 2:26 THEY would rule the nations with a rod of iron.

25But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. 26And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

So the question then becomes are Peter, Paul, John, and all the Christians who were overcomers up till the coming of Jesus in 70ad ruling the nations today?

If so can they name any?

So yes I can live with a promised future coming (blessed hope) as the understanding of Christs doctrine concerning the resurrection and rapture.

That hope has held many to Christ in generations past as it is still doing today.

diakonos

03-10-2020, 03:37 PM

What do you mean you’re not a preterit? Not all are cessationists.

Tithesmeister

03-10-2020, 05:07 PM

diakonos

03-10-2020, 05:12 PM

diakonos is a preterist.

Impartial preterit. Get it right.

Tithesmeister

03-10-2020, 05:15 PM

Impartial preterit. Get it right.

I’m so sorry.

[you] is an impartial preterit.

Fixed it.

shag

03-10-2020, 08:37 PM

Esaias, what is your explanation of “Heaven and Earth passing away”, as spoken of in the scriptures?

shag

03-10-2020, 08:51 PM

MTD, what is your understanding w explanation of how you view our planet earth being destroyed, heaven being destroyed by fire, along with the heavenly bodies, as mentioned in scripture like 2 Peter 3:10? and what will be the purpose of the new earth, and will resurrected saints following the WT judgment spend eternity in the new earth, or in the new heaven, IYO?

Do you view the destruction of heaven as the sky, the planets, or heaven as in , the place:”when we all, get to heaven...”?

(“Heaven and earth shall pass away...”)

Esaias

03-10-2020, 09:48 PM

Esaias, what is your explanation of “Heaven and Earth passing away”, as spoken of in the scriptures?

Matthew 5:18 KJV
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Until all has been fulfilled, the law stands complete. The phrase till heaven and earth pass is here used to express the absolute certainty of the jots and tittles of the law remaining until all things have been fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35 KJV
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Jesus' words shall be fulfilled as certainly as the fact that the creation exists, His words are more sure and on solid ground than heaven and earth itself.

Luke 16:17 KJV
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

I believe this statement in Luke helps explain the meaning and usage of the phrase elsewhere, as expressing the impossibility of the tittles of the law to fail (or of Jesus' words to fail), rather than expressing a certainty that heaven and earth shall in fact cease to exist. If heaven itself ceases, where will be the angels? God? The resurrected saints? So I believe it is essentially an idiom, providing a contrast to whatever it is juxtaposed with.

Only Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the phrase (with 2 exceptions I'll get to in a moment), and always in connection with either the jots and tittles of the law or in reference to Jesus' own words. The point in each passage in which the phrase appears is not an eschatological statement on a future universal collapse/destruction, but on the authority and provenance of both Moses' instructions and Messiah's instructions, asserting both are the words of God Himself and more weighty and important and lasting than even the Creation itself (see Psalm 119:89).

The two exceptions mentioned above are as follows:

Revelation 21:1 KJV
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

This is a vision representing to John the future eternal triumph of the saints and a wholly new condition prevailing among men. The phrase is a clear echo of Isaiah 65:17 and Isaiah 66:22. Whether this references an actual new or renovated condition of physical reality, or is poetic and prophetic language describing a new social order so different from the previous order that it is as if a whole new physical creation has occurred will of course have to wait for the event to be proven one way or the other. Personally, I believe both are likely, that is, a new order (new creation) that will culminate in a renovated/renewed physical reality of some kind. But my understanding of all that is tempered in part by the second exception mentioned above:

2 Peter 3:10-13 KJV
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. [11] Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, [12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? [13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I quoted the immediate passage for context. But this passage follows a discussion of and comparison and contrast with the antedeluvian world (kosmos or system/order) being destroyed by the flood in Noah's day. That world was destroyed by water, the present world will be destroyed by fire. That first destruction did not consist in an actual annihilation of the earth itself, but a devastation and renewal/replacement. What was annihilated was unrighteous human society. Therefore I conclude the parallel should apply to the destruction of the present world. It will be destroyed by fire, but not so as to utterly dissolve and annihilate reality itself, but rather to purge and renovate reality. The present world SYSTEM is what will be annihilated, replaced by a new order of righteousness.

Having said all that, I think it is absolutely undeniable that Peter's words do implicate a real, actual conflagration of some kind. Especially in regards to the heavens, which is echoed here:

Isaiah 34:4 KJV
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

And here:

Psalm 102:25-26 KJV
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. [26] They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

And repeated here:

Hebrews 1:10-12 KJV
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [11] They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; [12] And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

And referenced here:

Revelation 6:12-14 KJV
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; [13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. [14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

That last, being an Apocalyptic vision, need not be understood as saying that at the time of the 6th seal the heavens will literally disappear, however.

The other references though indicate to me that at some point there will be change in the physical cosmos itself. And yes, I absolutely do not believe the modern atheistic cosmological model(s) of the universe is(are) correct.

Esaias

03-10-2020, 10:04 PM

Isaiah 34:4 KJV
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

And here:

Psalm 102:25-26 KJV
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. [26] They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

And repeated here:

Hebrews 1:10-12 KJV
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [11] They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; [12] And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

And referenced here:

Revelation 6:12-14 KJV
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; [13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. [14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

That last, being an Apocalyptic vision, need not be understood as saying that at the time of the 6th seal the heavens will literally disappear, however.

The other references though indicate to me that at some point there will be change in the physical cosmos itself. And yes, I absolutely do not believe the modern atheistic cosmological model(s) of the universe is(are) correct.

It is true and demonstrable that prophetic declarations of judgment often include language describing cosmic disturbances and devastations while being non-literal and poetic. The purpose of such language is to impress the audience with the revolutionary world-upending nature of the divine judgments.

BUT...

the verse in Psalm 102 is not a prophetic declaration of judgment. It is a declaration of the eternity and majesty of the Creator contrasted with the temporality and mundaneness of the Creation. Which is why I believe it should be taken as other than merely poetic language but as expressing a definite concept of the entropy of physical reality. I honestly cannot take it any other way (as much as I'd like to). The context mitigates against a poetic interpretation.

Question: IF the physical reality is going to one day be altered/destroyed/remodeled etc, how would God have described it? Would it have been described any differently than what we see: "earth waxing old, heavens decaying and being put away like an old obsolete garment", etc?

votivesoul

03-11-2020, 12:49 AM

Esaias

03-11-2020, 01:39 AM

There are 200 verses in the KJV which contain all three words "heaven" "and" "earth". I just read through all 200 of them. I cannot find one (1) that refers to the temple as "heaven and earth".

Esaias

03-11-2020, 02:20 AM

https://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/2peter/2_peter_03_01-13_heaven-and-earth-passed-away.htm

Did not put this in the eschatology debate category....but am curious if others view the content “taught” in this link as primarily:
Truth or Error?

The article relies on Jewish fables and the doctrine of the Pharisees to establish that "heaven and earth" is a figure of speech for the temple:

"This same thing is true in Jewish literature, they saw the Temple as a portal connecting heaven and earth. They called it the "navel of the earth" and the "gateway to heaven" (Jub 8:19; 1 Enoch 26:1). Just like the Mesopotamian Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the Temple connected God's realm to where humans lived....

According to Josephus, two parts of the tabernacle were "approachable and open to all" but one was not. He explains that in so doing Moses "signifies the earth and the sea, since these two are accessible to all; but the third portion he reserved for God alone because heaven is inaccessible to men" (Ant. 3:181, cf. 3:123). The veil between the accessible and inaccessible parts of the Temple was designed to represent the entire material world during Yeshua's day. Josephus and Philo agree that the veil was composed of four materials representing the four elements—earth, water, air, and fire (War 5:212-213; Ant. 3:138-144; Quaestiones in Exodum 2:85, cf. Mos 2:88). Heaven was beyond this material world. It was behind the curtain.

Outside the Temple's microcosm of "heaven and earth," the courts looked like the sea. Numbers Rabbah 13:19 records, "The court surrounds the Temple just as the sea surrounds the world." In Talmudic tradition, Rabbis described how the inner walls of the Temple looked like waves of the sea (b. Sukk. 51b, b.B.Bat. 4a). "

(end of quotation)

Further, the article subtly denies the inspiration of Scripture and promotes atheism:

"From heaven and earth inside the Temple, you looked out at the sea surrounding the world. Why? Ancients believed the earth had one giant land mass surrounded by sea. The Temple reflected that cosmology. The accessible section of the Temple and the surrounding courts embodied both the land mass and sea believed to comprise the earth. The Most Holy Place was heaven where God's presence resided. So the Temple complex was viewed as heaven and earth. " (end quotation)

Since God designed the Temple, and since the Temple reflects how the cosmos looked, and since the earth at that time was NOT "one giant land mass surrounded by sea", it necessarily follows the Temple was designed by cartographically ignorant primitives and NOT by an omnipotent Creator God. Surely God would know the structure of the earth? Again, read what the article says: Ancients believed the earth had one giant land mass surrounded by sea. The Temple reflected that cosmology.

Since the article relies on Jewish fables (which we are to avoid Titus 1:14), the doctrine of the Pharisees (of which we are to beware Matthew 16:11-12), and a "higher critical" view of history and Scripture (which we are to avoid 1 Timothy 6:20), and since there are no examples IN SCRIPTURE where anyone used "heaven and earth" as an idiom for the Temple, it follows that the article is unbiblical, non-apostolic, and false in regards to its claims about "heaven and earth" meaning the temple.

votivesoul

03-11-2020, 02:33 AM

There are 200 verses in the KJV which contain all three words "heaven" "and" "earth". I just read through all 200 of them. I cannot find one (1) that refers to the temple as "heaven and earth".

In Isaiah 66:1, we read that heaven is God's throne, and earth is His footstool, and so, whatever house Israel intended to make for Him again was of little value to Him, in comparison to the "seed and name" that will forever remain, according to Isaiah 66:22. This is a reference to the temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, the church.

In Isaiah 37:16, we read that God dwells between the cherubim. This is a reference to the cherubims that were placed on top of the ark of the covenant, that is, the mercy-seat, which is God's throne. In Hebrews 9:5, we again see the reference.

It was here that Jesus brought His own blood when He entered the heavens, and there, He sprinkled it, and then, sat upon it as His throne after His ascension (See Hebrews 9:12).

In Isaiah 40:22, earth and heaven are described as a tent. The Hebrew here is the same word for the tabernacle. This, of course, was the precursor to the temple. This tent was a few times in the Holy Scriptures called the Tabernacle of Witness (See Number 17:7-8, 18:2, 2 Chronicles 24:6, and Acts 7:44.)

In Deuteronomy, Moses, standing before the Tabernacle, says that he calls heaven and earth to bear witness against Israel (See 4:26), then later, speaking of the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, he again uses the same language, but instead of invoking heaven and earth, he speaks of the tablets themselves being the witness and indicates that they are to be placed inside the Ark of the Covenant inside of the Holiest of All inside the Tabernacle of Witness (See Deuteronomy 31:26).

Indeed, later, after the tabernacle comes the temple, which is decorated within with cherubs and palm trees and all manner of indications that are designed to provoke one's remembrance of the Garden of Eden, which contained the Tree of Life (think the Logos, which later was made flesh, that is, Jesus of Nazareth according to John 1:14) but was guarded by two cherubs (See 1 Kings 6, Ezekiel 41, and Genesis 3:24).

The Garden Paradise was the original dwelling place of God, Adam, and Eve. The temple Solomon built, then later, that Ezekiel saw in a vision, was made to look like Eden to remind us of that time when God dwelled with us. And inside the very holiest place of that time was the mercy-seat-covered ark with the Ten Commandments, which was God's throne, to which Christ ascended, where we now as believers sit according to Ephesians 1:20 and 2:6.

Next, consider Psalm 110:1-2, where God tells the Messiah in prophecy that the LORD is going to make Messiah's enemies His footstool, that is, "earth". In the Messianic Age of the Lord Jesus, the manner in which God makes His Son's enemies His footstool/earth is, He brings them to repentance and salvation (See, for example, Romans 5:10, 1 Corinthians 15:25, and Colossians 1:21-22).

There is more, but, tying this all together, it seems pretty clear that beginning with Eden, then to the Tabernacle, then to the Temple, then to the Temple of Prophecy (from Ezekiel), which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the church, that they all contain the same metaphorical concepts: that wherever God dwells is automatically heaven, and whenever He dwells upon the earth as He did in Eden, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the Temple of Prophecy, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the church, automatically means heaven and earth come together and become one.

Therefore, when we read that "heaven and earth" shall pass, we can understand that at that time, when Jesus said those words, He was speaking in metaphor about the temple in Jerusalem as a prophecy for its soon, but still future to Him, destruction.

The new heavens and the new earth then, that God creates, that is mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation, is the church, which preaches the Everlasting Gospel. Our Gospel is Eternal (Revelation 14:6). It will never die, never change, never lose its power to save. Just like Jesus, because He is the centerpiece and locus of the Gospel. These new heavens and this new earth have in its midst the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:2), that is, Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos of God that was at the beginning with God and was God (John 1:1).

This Logos, this Jesus came from heaven to earth to return to heaven to come back to earth as the Holy Spirit, to usher us into heaven, into the very Holiest of All, where, with Him, we now sit and reign with Him as King-Priests after the Order of Melchizedek, reconciling the world unto our Lord and Savior through the ministry of reconciliation; that is, we are co-workers with God enlarging the footstool of His Son, that is, we are expanding the places on earth where the God of Heaven comes down and resides again on earth, but this time, in the hearts and minds of those who believe and obey the Gospel.

This is what Jesus meant when He said: "heaven and earth shall pass, but My words shall never pass". He meant the temple of Solomon was going under, but the new Temple, that of the Holy Spirit, beginning at Pentecost, which was born, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible (that is, non-dying non-decaying) seed, but of the Word of God (See 1 Peter 1:23), which is to say, the Gospel, is founded on the words and name of Christ (See Acts 4:12) that shall never pass away, or, are eternal, thus making the Temple of the Holy Spirit the new heavens and new earth that will exist forever, just as Isaiah 66:22 states.

Esaias

03-11-2020, 03:24 AM

In Isaiah 66:1, we read that heaven is God's throne, and earth is His footstool, and so, whatever house Israel intended to make for Him again was of little value to Him, in comparison to the "seed and name" that will forever remain, according to Isaiah 66:22. This is a reference to the temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, the church.

Heaven and earth are clearly distinguished from the house or temple that David wanted to build for God. Isaiah 66:22 is a declaration Israel's descendants would continue as a nation into eternity.

In Isaiah 37:16, we read that God dwells between the cherubim. This is a reference to the cherubims that were placed on top of the ark of the covenant, that is, the mercy-seat, which is God's throne. In Hebrews 9:5, we again see the reference.

The Temple is a pattern or model of heavenly things (Heb 8:5, 9:23) but this does not mean "heaven and earth is a Biblical idiom for the Temple".

In Isaiah 40:22, earth and heaven are described as a tent. The Hebrew here is the same word for the tabernacle. This, of course, was the precursor to the temple. This tent was a few times in the Holy Scriptures called the Tabernacle of Witness (See Number 17:7-8, 18:2, 2 Chronicles 24:6, and Acts 7:44.)

See above.

In Deuteronomy, Moses, standing before the Tabernacle, says that he calls heaven and earth to bear witness against Israel (See 4:26), then later, speaking of the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, he again uses the same language, but instead of invoking heaven and earth, he speaks of the tablets themselves being the witness and indicates that they are to be placed inside the Ark of the Covenant inside of the Holiest of All inside the Tabernacle of Witness (See Deuteronomy 31:26).

He was not calling for the Tabernacle to bear witness, but heaven and earth. The Tabernacle of Witness is so called because the law is called "the Testimony" (Witness) not because the Tabernacle is the heaven and earth that Moses called upon to bear witness. It was called the Tabernacle of Witness in Num 17:7, before Moses called heaven and earth to witness the pronouncing of the threatened curse in Deut 4:26 which you referenced.

Indeed, later, after the tabernacle comes the temple, which is decorated within with cherubs and palm trees and all manner of indications that are designed to provoke one's remembrance of the Garden of Eden, which contained the Tree of Life (think the Logos, which later was made flesh, that is, Jesus of Nazareth according to John 1:14) but was guarded by two cherubs (See 1 Kings 6, Ezekiel 41, and Genesis 3:24).

The Temple containing decorative motifs of the Garden of Eden does not mean "heaven and earth is an idiom for the Temple". You would need to show where in the Bible the Temple is called "heaven and earth".

The Garden Paradise was the original dwelling place of God, Adam, and Eve. The temple Solomon built, then later, that Ezekiel saw in a vision, was made to look like Eden to remind us of that time when God dwelled with us. And inside the very holiest place of that time was the mercy-seat-covered ark with the Ten Commandments, which was God's throne, to which Christ ascended, where we now as believers sit according to Ephesians 1:20 and 2:6.

See above. The Temple is a pattern of heavenly things, not the heaven itself. Therefore "heaven and earth" is not a euphemism for the Temple.

Next, consider Psalm 110:1-2, where God tells the Messiah in prophecy that the LORD is going to make Messiah's enemies His footstool, that is, "earth". In the Messianic Age of the Lord Jesus, the manner in which God makes His Son's enemies His footstool/earth is, He brings them to repentance and salvation (See, for example, Romans 5:10, 1 Corinthians 15:25, and Colossians 1:21-22).

The Temple is called God's footstool long before Isaiah said "heaven is (His) throne and earth is (His) footstool" (Isaiah 66:1). Which means that in Isaiah 66:1-2 God is saying His real throne is not a gold covered box in a wood house, and His footstool is not a wooden house or a brass altar. Rather, He fills all the Creation and transcends houses made by men's hands, His true dwelling place is the humble and contrite heart. Same message Jesus gave the Samaritan woman (John 4:21-24). This does not mean "heaven and earth means the temple". If anything it proves the opposite: the temple is a man made house on earth and cannot be the heaven and earth which are His throne and footstool.

There is more, but, tying this all together, it seems pretty clear that beginning with Eden, then to the Tabernacle, then to the Temple, then to the Temple of Prophecy (from Ezekiel), which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the church, that they all contain the same metaphorical concepts: that wherever God dwells is automatically heaven, and whenever He dwells upon the earth as He did in Eden, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the Temple of Prophecy, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the church, automatically means heaven and earth come together and become one.

Therefore, when we read that "heaven and earth" shall pass, we can understand that at that time, when Jesus said those words, He was speaking in metaphor about the temple in Jerusalem as a prophecy for its soon, but still future to Him, destruction.

The new heavens and the new earth then, that God creates, that is mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation, is the church, which preaches the Everlasting Gospel. Our Gospel is Eternal (Revelation 14:6). It will never die, never change, never lose its power to save. Just like Jesus, because He is the centerpiece and locus of the Gospel. These new heavens and this new earth have in its midst the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:2), that is, Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos of God that was at the beginning with God and was God (John 1:1).

This Logos, this Jesus came from heaven to earth to return to heaven to come back to earth as the Holy Spirit, to usher us into heaven, into the very Holiest of All, where, with Him, we now sit and reign with Him as King-Priests after the Order of Melchizedek, reconciling the world unto our Lord and Savior through the ministry of reconciliation; that is, we are co-workers with God enlarging the footstool of His Son, that is, we are expanding the places on earth where the God of Heaven comes down and resides again on earth, but this time, in the hearts and minds of those who believe and obey the Gospel.

This is what Jesus meant when He said: "heaven and earth shall pass, but My words shall never pass". He meant the temple of Solomon was going under, but the new Temple, that of the Holy Spirit, beginning at Pentecost, which was born, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible (that is, non-dying non-decaying) seed, but of the Word of God (See 1 Peter 1:23), which is to say, the Gospel, is founded on the words and name of Christ (See Acts 4:12) that shall never pass away, or, are eternal, thus making the Temple of the Holy Spirit the new heavens and new earth that will exist forever, just as Isaiah 66:22 states.

If the heavens and earth are the New Jerusalem, then how does the New Jerusalem come down from heaven to the earth?

If heaven and earth is the temple, did Jesus come from the temple? The one in Jerusalem? Or heaven itself?

Did the temple in Jerusalem receive Jesus until the times of restitution of all things?

In the beginning God created the Jerusalem Temple (Gen 1:1)?

There is more (MUCH more) but this doctrine conflates the temple in Jerusalem, the church, heaven, and the earth, so that "heaven and earth" actually become meaningless. Any place heaven or earth appear could be talking about the temple in Jerusalem with no CONSISTENT realiable method of knowing what is being talked about.

Again, since no verse actually calls the Jerusalem Temple "heaven and earth" the claim is DOA.

shag

03-11-2020, 07:28 AM

Matthew 5:18 KJV
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Until all has been fulfilled, the law stands complete. The phrase till heaven and earth pass is here used to express the absolute certainty of the jots and tittles of the law remaining until all things have been fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35 KJV
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Jesus' words shall be fulfilled as certainly as the fact that the creation exists, His words are more sure and on solid ground than heaven and earth itself.

Luke 16:17 KJV
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

I believe this statement in Luke helps explain the meaning and usage of the phrase elsewhere, as expressing the impossibility of the tittles of the law to fail (or of Jesus' words to fail), rather than expressing a certainty that heaven and earth shall in fact cease to exist. If heaven itself ceases, where will be the angels? God? The resurrected saints? So I believe it is essentially an idiom, providing a contrast to whatever it is juxtaposed with.

Only Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the phrase (with 2 exceptions I'll get to in a moment), and always in connection with either the jots and tittles of the law or in reference to Jesus' own words. The point in each passage in which the phrase appears is not an eschatological statement on a future universal collapse/destruction, but on the authority and provenance of both Moses' instructions and Messiah's instructions, asserting both are the words of God Himself and more weighty and important and lasting than even the Creation itself (see Psalm 119:89).

The two exceptions mentioned above are as follows:

Revelation 21:1 KJV
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

This is a vision representing to John the future eternal triumph of the saints and a wholly new condition prevailing among men. The phrase is a clear echo of Isaiah 65:17 and Isaiah 66:22. Whether this references an actual new or renovated condition of physical reality, or is poetic and prophetic language describing a new social order so different from the previous order that it is as if a whole new physical creation has occurred will of course have to wait for the event to be proven one way or the other. Personally, I believe both are likely, that is, a new order (new creation) that will culminate in a renovated/renewed physical reality of some kind. But my understanding of all that is tempered in part by the second exception mentioned above:

2 Peter 3:10-13 KJV
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. [11] Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, [12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? [13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I quoted the immediate passage for context. But this passage follows a discussion of and comparison and contrast with the antedeluvian world (kosmos or system/order) being destroyed by the flood in Noah's day. That world was destroyed by water, the present world will be destroyed by fire. That first destruction did not consist in an actual annihilation of the earth itself, but a devastation and renewal/replacement. What was annihilated was unrighteous human society. Therefore I conclude the parallel should apply to the destruction of the present world. It will be destroyed by fire, but not so as to utterly dissolve and annihilate reality itself, but rather to purge and renovate reality. The present world SYSTEM is what will be annihilated, replaced by a new order of righteousness.

Having said all that, I think it is absolutely undeniable that Peter's words do implicate a real, actual conflagration of some kind. Especially in regards to the heavens, which is echoed here:

Isaiah 34:4 KJV
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

And here:

Psalm 102:25-26 KJV
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. [26] They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

And repeated here:

Hebrews 1:10-12 KJV
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [11] They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; [12] And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

And referenced here:

Revelation 6:12-14 KJV
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; [13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. [14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

That last, being an Apocalyptic vision, need not be understood as saying that at the time of the 6th seal the heavens will literally disappear, however.

The other references though indicate to me that at some point there will be change in the physical cosmos itself. And yes, I absolutely do not believe the modern atheistic cosmological model(s) of the universe is(are) correct.

In the particular highlighted verse , “host of heaven”, you then view that as referring to either the sky, or outer space? Is that correct?

(Because as u mentioned, why would God destroy the resurrected saints and angels in heaven)

Esaias

03-11-2020, 12:04 PM

In the particular highlighted verse , “host of heaven”, you then view that as referring to either the sky, or outer space? Is that correct?

(Because as u mentioned, why would God destroy the resurrected saints and angels in heaven)

"All the host of heaven" in this context would be the stars etc which are located in the firmament. There is no "outer space" as people imagine it.

votivesoul

03-11-2020, 02:27 PM

The article relies on Jewish fables and the doctrine of the Pharisees to establish that "heaven and earth" is a figure of speech for the temple:

"This same thing is true in Jewish literature, they saw the Temple as a portal connecting heaven and earth. They called it the "navel of the earth" and the "gateway to heaven" (Jub 8:19; 1 Enoch 26:1). Just like the Mesopotamian Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the Temple connected God's realm to where humans lived....

According to Josephus, two parts of the tabernacle were "approachable and open to all" but one was not. He explains that in so doing Moses "signifies the earth and the sea, since these two are accessible to all; but the third portion he reserved for God alone because heaven is inaccessible to men" (Ant. 3:181, cf. 3:123). The veil between the accessible and inaccessible parts of the Temple was designed to represent the entire material world during Yeshua's day. Josephus and Philo agree that the veil was composed of four materials representing the four elements—earth, water, air, and fire (War 5:212-213; Ant. 3:138-144; Quaestiones in Exodum 2:85, cf. Mos 2:88). Heaven was beyond this material world. It was behind the curtain.

Outside the Temple's microcosm of "heaven and earth," the courts looked like the sea. Numbers Rabbah 13:19 records, "The court surrounds the Temple just as the sea surrounds the world." In Talmudic tradition, Rabbis described how the inner walls of the Temple looked like waves of the sea (b. Sukk. 51b, b.B.Bat. 4a). "

(end of quotation)

Further, the article subtly denies the inspiration of Scripture and promotes atheism:

"From heaven and earth inside the Temple, you looked out at the sea surrounding the world. Why? Ancients believed the earth had one giant land mass surrounded by sea. The Temple reflected that cosmology. The accessible section of the Temple and the surrounding courts embodied both the land mass and sea believed to comprise the earth. The Most Holy Place was heaven where God's presence resided. So the Temple complex was viewed as heaven and earth. " (end quotation)

Since God designed the Temple, and since the Temple reflects how the cosmos looked, and since the earth at that time was NOT "one giant land mass surrounded by sea", it necessarily follows the Temple was designed by cartographically ignorant primitives and NOT by an omnipotent Creator God. Surely God would know the structure of the earth? Again, read what the article says: Ancients believed the earth had one giant land mass surrounded by sea. The Temple reflected that cosmology.

Since the article relies on Jewish fables (which we are to avoid Titus 1:14), the doctrine of the Pharisees (of which we are to beware Matthew 16:11-12), and a "higher critical" view of history and Scripture (which we are to avoid 1 Timothy 6:20), and since there are no examples IN SCRIPTURE where anyone used "heaven and earth" as an idiom for the Temple, it follows that the article is unbiblical, non-apostolic, and false in regards to its claims about "heaven and earth" meaning the temple.

While I'm not a fan of looking at the Talmud or other esoteric Jewish sources like 1 Enoch, I don't think the conclusion made here is necessary.

Here's why:

In Genesis 1:9, God declared that the waters were to be gathered into one place. After this gathering the dry land appeared. This indicates that all the water was in one location, and the land in another, as opposed to the land and the water being intermingled.

This was the condition of the earth when Eden was inhabited by Adam and Eve, that is, when paradise was inhabited by both God and man.

This antediluvian geography very much indicates one land mass surrounded by the sea. At the time of the flood, God not only sent rains, He also allowed for the springs of the deep to break up (Genesis 7:11). This is what really flooded the earth. When these springs broke up, the land mass was inundated and the face of global geography changed.

Who knows what changes took place one the flood waters receded?

But it's certainly not enough to conclude that the temple must have been built by "cartographically ignorant primitives" if they designed the inner courts to look like a single land mass surrounded by the sea. Rather, it's easier to understand, and I think, much more parsimonious to realize, this design for the temple was intended to show and reflect what the pre-flood, Edenic cosmos of God looked like.

votivesoul

03-11-2020, 03:01 PM

Heaven and earth are clearly distinguished from the house or temple that David wanted to build for God. Isaiah 66:22 is a declaration Israel's descendants would continue as a nation into eternity.

You are right that there is a distinguishing made between the Lord's throne and His footstool, and the house that was built for Him. The question is "why?" It's because this portion of Isaiah has in view the eternal temple, that is, the Church. It's the new heavens and new earth Isaiah prophesies of, and in light of that, some building or structure made somewhere in Israel pales in comparison. And Isaiah 66:22 shows this when referencing the new heavens and new earth.

The Temple is a pattern or model of heavenly things (Heb 8:5, 9:23) but this does not mean "heaven and earth is a Biblical idiom for the Temple".

The temple was understood to be the meeting point between God and man, where God dwelt upon earth while still abiding in heaven (same with the Tabernacle beforehand, and with us, the Church). As such, the temple was the place, cosmologically speaking where heaven and earth meet. It's how we sit with Christ Jesus in heavenly places while at the same time, abide here on planet earth, but are called the temple of God. The church, and members in particular, is/are the place where heaven and earth meet. As such, "heaven and earth" is colloquial shorthand for such a meeting place, whether tabernacle, temple, or church.

He was not calling for the Tabernacle to bear witness, but heaven and earth. The Tabernacle of Witness is so called because the law is called "the Testimony" (Witness) not because the Tabernacle is the heaven and earth that Moses called upon to bear witness. It was called the Tabernacle of Witness in Num 17:7, before Moses called heaven and earth to witness the pronouncing of the threatened curse in Deut 4:26 which you referenced.

The Tabernacle was the place on earth where God dwelt with His people, or, said another way, where heaven came to earth. So again, heaven and earth being called as a witness against Israel is shorthand for the Tabernacle of Witness. Moses wasn't calling for some far off distant, unreachable topologically undefinable celestial realm plus this planet as witness against Israel. He was calling on God's throne and His footstool from within the Tabernacle, as witness against them.

And what exactly was witnessed in the Tabernacle, more than anything?

It's was the presence and glory of God inhabiting the Most Holy Place. The Tabernacle (then later the temple then even later the church) was evident, daily proof that God abode not only in the heavens but also on earth. Just like He did in Eden with Adam and Eve before the Fall.

The Temple containing decorative motifs of the Garden of Eden does not mean "heaven and earth is an idiom for the Temple". You would need to show where in the Bible the Temple is called "heaven and earth".

The decorative motifs of the Garden of Eden are how the Bible shows it. Why else decorate the temple to look like Eden if not to invoke the idea of the antediluvian paradise where God walked with Adam in the "cool of the day"? Inside of the temple, the Most Holy Place, the High Priest got to experience once a year the fellowship Adam used to have with God daily. When Jesus died, and that veil inside of the temple was rent, it showed that God had finally returned that daily fellowship back to the human race, through Christ and the Gospel, through the gift of the Holy Spirit once Pentecost arrived.

See above. The Temple is a pattern of heavenly things, not the heaven itself. Therefore "heaven and earth" is not a euphemism for the Temple.

Not every reference to heaven or earth is a reference to the temple, etc. Sometimes heaven refers to the actual heavens, and sometimes earth refers to the planet upon which we dwell. But there are occasions when, especially when heaven and earth are mentioned together, that something unique is meant, namely, the meeting place upon earth where God comes to dwell, bringing heaven with Him.

The Temple is called God's footstool long before Isaiah said "heaven is (His) throne and earth is (His) footstool" (Isaiah 66:1). Which means that in Isaiah 66:1-2 God is saying His real throne is not a gold covered box in a wood house, and His footstool is not a wooden house or a brass altar. Rather, He fills all the Creation and transcends houses made by men's hands, His true dwelling place is the humble and contrite heart. Same message Jesus gave the Samaritan woman (John 4:21-24). This does not mean "heaven and earth means the temple". If anything it proves the opposite: the temple is a man made house on earth and cannot be the heaven and earth which are His throne and footstool.

You are right that the temple was called the footstool of God long before Isaiah spoke/wrote. So, what does that indicate?

David called the temple God's footstool in 1 Chronicles 28:2.

In Psalm 99:5, the Psalmist exhorts people to worship the LORD at His footstool, i.e. the temple.

In Psalm 132:7, the Psalmist uses a synonomous parallelism to show that the tabernacles of Jehovah are His footstool.

Much later, even after Isaiah, Jeremiah writes that God remembered not His footstool in the day of His anger, meaning the temple, in Lamentations 2:1.

What's the conclusion? The overwhelming references to the footstool in the OT all point to the temple. So why then suddenly would God break up the meaning of His temple to then mean the entire planet? These verses show abundantly that footstool = temple = "earth" in prophetic speech.

If the heavens and earth are the New Jerusalem, then how does the New Jerusalem come down from heaven to the earth?

The New Jerusalem Paul calls the Mother of Us All (Galatians 4:6). This New Jerusalem is the Lamb's Bride (Revelation 21:9). As such, the church is called the Heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the Living God (See Hebrews 12:22).

The church is just as much a part of heaven as she is on earth, because God dwells in the heavens (See Psalm 115:3) and the church dwells with God by sitting with God's Son in heavenly places.

As such, when the church is perfected, without spot or wrinkle or blemish or any such thing, as a wife adorned for her Husband, she is presented as coming down from heaven, that is, the place she has been sitting in with her Savior. She is then sent to earth to bring about Revelation 22, that is, the Tree of and River of Life is given to whosoever will. It's God's eternal offer of salvation through the Church beginning on Pentecost circa 30-33 AD.

If heaven and earth is the temple, did Jesus come from the temple? The one in Jerusalem? Or heaven itself?

Did the temple in Jerusalem receive Jesus until the times of restitution of all things?

In the beginning God created the Jerusalem Temple (Gen 1:1)?

There is more (MUCH more) but this doctrine conflates the temple in Jerusalem, the church, heaven, and the earth, so that "heaven and earth" actually become meaningless. Any place heaven or earth appear could be talking about the temple in Jerusalem with no CONSISTENT realiable method of knowing what is being talked about.

Again, since no verse actually calls the Jerusalem Temple "heaven and earth" the claim is DOA.

We have to keep the categories clear. There are times when the word heaven in the Bible means heaven only, and is not an idiomatic reference to the tabernacle/temple/church. So, if there is a seemingly conflated use, it's because we haven't gone down the list of every use and meaning the word to differentiate when the Scriptures use these words and in what context.

If I gave off the idea that every use of heaven and/or earth means tabernacle/temple/church, then I apologize, as I do not believe that's the case. Rather, in certain specific cases and contexts, does "heavens and earth" refer to the tabernacle/temple/church. It's just a matter of realizing when and how/in what way.

Otherwise, saying Jesus came from heaven, for example, does not mean He came from the physical temple in Jerusalem. But it does mean He came from the heavens upon which the physical temple in Jerusalem was patterned after.

Do you see the difference?

Esaias

03-11-2020, 04:35 PM

While I'm not a fan of looking at the Talmud or other esoteric Jewish sources like 1 Enoch, I don't think the conclusion made here is necessary.

Here's why:

In Genesis 1:9, God declared that the waters were to be gathered into one place. After this gathering the dry land appeared. This indicates that all the water was in one location, and the land in another, as opposed to the land and the water being intermingled.

This was the condition of the earth when Eden was inhabited by Adam and Eve, that is, when paradise was inhabited by both God and man.

This antediluvian geography very much indicates one land mass surrounded by the sea. At the time of the flood, God not only sent rains, He also allowed for the springs of the deep to break up (Genesis 7:11). This is what really flooded the earth. When these springs broke up, the land mass was inundated and the face of global geography changed.

Who knows what changes took place one the flood waters receded?

But it's certainly not enough to conclude that the temple must have been built by "cartographically ignorant primitives" if they designed the inner courts to look like a single land mass surrounded by the sea. Rather, it's easier to understand, and I think, much more parsimonious to realize, this design for the temple was intended to show and reflect what the pre-flood, Edenic cosmos of God looked like.

Perhaps. However, I still haven't found where the Bible calls the temple "heaven and earth". It is one thing to speak of the temple as being patterned after heavenly realities. It is quite another to say the phrase "heaven and earth" is some kind of code or euphemism or idiom for the temple. When someone speaks about "heaven and earth" nobody would assume they are speaking about anything other than heaven and earth, especially when there is no history in Scripture of calling the temple "heaven and earth". It sounds more like a case of very sloppy reasoning (extremely fuzzy logic) on par with claiming the Genesis creation story is really talking about the creation of a covenant with Israel, with the Day 4 sun being the Davidic dynasty, etc etc.

I see too often people will take X in Scripture, see that X has some vague connection to Y, and Y has some nebulous similarity to Z, and then declare X means Z. Very bad reasoning, in my opinion.

Esaias

03-11-2020, 04:42 PM

Votivesoul said: "We have to keep the categories clear. There are times when the word heaven in the Bible means heaven only, and is not an idiomatic reference to the tabernacle/temple/church. So, if there is a seemingly conflated use, it's because we haven't gone down the list of every use and meaning the word to differentiate when the Scriptures use these words and in what context.

If I gave off the idea that every use of heaven and/or earth means tabernacle/temple/church, then I apologize, as I do not believe that's the case. Rather, in certain specific cases and contexts, does "heavens and earth" refer to the tabernacle/temple/church. It's just a matter of realizing when and how/in what way.

Otherwise, saying Jesus came from heaven, for example, does not mean He came from the physical temple in Jerusalem. But it does mean He came from the heavens upon which the physical temple in Jerusalem was patterned after.

Do you see the difference? "

Yes, and that was my question. Which passages can be shown to refer to the temple? I searched every verse where the three words "heaven", "and", and "earth" appear (200 verses total). Not one gives any indication the phrase refers to the temple/tabernacle. We can't import a preconceived interpretation into the text that coincidentally supports our particular eschatological beliefs. Heaven and earth can't mean the temple BECAUSE we have a certain view on AD70. That's backwards. Now, if heaven and earth can be shown to be referring to the temple, THEN we are equipped to tackle whether Jesus' words using that phrase may (or may not) be referring to the temple.

Godsdrummer

03-12-2020, 05:36 AM

Godsdrummer

03-12-2020, 05:38 AM

You are right that there is a distinguishing made between the Lord's throne and His footstool, and the house that was built for Him. The question is "why?" It's because this portion of Isaiah has in view the eternal temple, that is, the Church. It's the new heavens and new earth Isaiah prophesies of, and in light of that, some building or structure made somewhere in Israel pales in comparison. And Isaiah 66:22 shows this when referencing the new heavens and new earth.

The temple was understood to be the meeting point between God and man, where God dwelt upon earth while still abiding in heaven (same with the Tabernacle beforehand, and with us, the Church). As such, the temple was the place, cosmologically speaking where heaven and earth meet. It's how we sit with Christ Jesus in heavenly places while at the same time, abide here on planet earth, but are called the temple of God. The church, and members in particular, is/are the place where heaven and earth meet. As such, "heaven and earth" is colloquial shorthand for such a meeting place, whether tabernacle, temple, or church.

The Tabernacle was the place on earth where God dwelt with His people, or, said another way, where heaven came to earth. So again, heaven and earth being called as a witness against Israel is shorthand for the Tabernacle of Witness. Moses wasn't calling for some far off distant, unreachable topologically undefinable celestial realm plus this planet as witness against Israel. He was calling on God's throne and His footstool from within the Tabernacle, as witness against them.

And what exactly was witnessed in the Tabernacle, more than anything?

It's was the presence and glory of God inhabiting the Most Holy Place. The Tabernacle (then later the temple then even later the church) was evident, daily proof that God abode not only in the heavens but also on earth. Just like He did in Eden with Adam and Eve before the Fall.

The decorative motifs of the Garden of Eden are how the Bible shows it. Why else decorate the temple to look like Eden if not to invoke the idea of the antediluvian paradise where God walked with Adam in the "cool of the day"? Inside of the temple, the Most Holy Place, the High Priest got to experience once a year the fellowship Adam used to have with God daily. When Jesus died, and that veil inside of the temple was rent, it showed that God had finally returned that daily fellowship back to the human race, through Christ and the Gospel, through the gift of the Holy Spirit once Pentecost arrived.

Not every reference to heaven or earth is a reference to the temple, etc. Sometimes heaven refers to the actual heavens, and sometimes earth refers to the planet upon which we dwell. But there are occasions when, especially when heaven and earth are mentioned together, that something unique is meant, namely, the meeting place upon earth where God comes to dwell, bringing heaven with Him.

You are right that the temple was called the footstool of God long before Isaiah spoke/wrote. So, what does that indicate?

David called the temple God's footstool in 1 Chronicles 28:2.

In Psalm 99:5, the Psalmist exhorts people to worship the LORD at His footstool, i.e. the temple.

In Psalm 132:7, the Psalmist uses a synonomous parallelism to show that the tabernacles of Jehovah are His footstool.

Much later, even after Isaiah, Jeremiah writes that God remembered not His footstool in the day of His anger, meaning the temple, in Lamentations 2:1.

What's the conclusion? The overwhelming references to the footstool in the OT all point to the temple. So why then suddenly would God break up the meaning of His temple to then mean the entire planet? These verses show abundantly that footstool = temple = "earth" in prophetic speech.

The New Jerusalem Paul calls the Mother of Us All (Galatians 4:6). This New Jerusalem is the Lamb's Bride (Revelation 21:9). As such, the church is called the Heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the Living God (See Hebrews 12:22).

The church is just as much a part of heaven as she is on earth, because God dwells in the heavens (See Psalm 115:3) and the church dwells with God by sitting with God's Son in heavenly places.

As such, when the church is perfected, without spot or wrinkle or blemish or any such thing, as a wife adorned for her Husband, she is presented as coming down from heaven, that is, the place she has been sitting in with her Savior. She is then sent to earth to bring about Revelation 22, that is, the Tree of and River of Life is given to whosoever will. It's God's eternal offer of salvation through the Church beginning on Pentecost circa 30-33 AD.

We have to keep the categories clear. There are times when the word heaven in the Bible means heaven only, and is not an idiomatic reference to the tabernacle/temple/church. So, if there is a seemingly conflated use, it's because we haven't gone down the list of every use and meaning the word to differentiate when the Scriptures use these words and in what context.

If I gave off the idea that every use of heaven and/or earth means tabernacle/temple/church, then I apologize, as I do not believe that's the case. Rather, in certain specific cases and contexts, does "heavens and earth" refer to the tabernacle/temple/church. It's just a matter of realizing when and how/in what way.

Otherwise, saying Jesus came from heaven, for example, does not mean He came from the physical temple in Jerusalem. But it does mean He came from the heavens upon which the physical temple in Jerusalem was patterned after.

Do you see the difference?

Could not have said it better myself.

Godsdrummer

03-12-2020, 05:48 AM

"All the host of heaven" in this context would be the stars etc which are located in the firmament. There is no "outer space" as people imagine it.

So because the word "heaven" is used, you assume that the prophet is talking about the stars. When all the scriptures before and after have not reference to anything resembling stars.

Nicodemus1968

03-12-2020, 07:13 AM

So because the word "heaven" is used, you assume that the prophet is talking about the stars. When all the scriptures before and after have not reference to anything resembling stars.

The Temple as it has already been said was were God met with the priest. That was there heaven, there earth was Jerusalem. It was symbolic!

John 2:18-21
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? [19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. [20] Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? [21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

They knew what he was talking about...

Matthew 27:63
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that this deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

They made the temple a den of thieves, God was no longer in that temple but rather we became the temple through the Holy Ghost.

We’re not going back to animal sacrifices, we’re not going back to the mosaic law, that would be blasphemy. God was not mad at the earth, we wrote the divorcement papers to Israel they are no longer his chosen people. He used a foreign arm to destroy there temple, there people, and there city. He warned that there age would end without the current generation passing.

Esaias

03-12-2020, 10:42 AM

So you are saying that we are still under the law,
Mat_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
One jot or tittle means just that, we still need to be offering sacrifices etc.

Just the very way Jesus used the words in a prophetic use, should make us see that he was not meaning the literal heaven and earth. So it is up to you I guess to determine just what Jesus meant when he used the term "heaven and earth".

Did you bother to provide actual evidence that "heaven and earth" means anything other than heaven and earth? No, you did not. Try again.

Esaias

03-12-2020, 10:43 AM

The Temple as it has already been said was were God met with the priest. That was there heaven, there earth was Jerusalem. It was symbolic!

John 2:18-21
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? [19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. [20] Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? [21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

They knew what he was talking about...

Matthew 27:63
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that this deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

They made the temple a den of thieves, God was no longer in that temple but rather we became the temple through the Holy Ghost.

We’re not going back to animal sacrifices, we’re not going back to the mosaic law, that would be blasphemy. God was not mad at the earth, we wrote the divorcement papers to Israel they are no longer his chosen people. He used a foreign arm to destroy there temple, there people, and there city. He warned that there age would end without the current generation passing.

Did you bother providing any actual evidence "heaven and earth" means anything other than heaven and earth? Nope, you did not. Try again.

Nicodemus1968

03-12-2020, 02:23 PM

Did you bother providing any actual evidence "heaven and earth" means anything other than heaven and earth? Nope, you did not. Try again.

What did the temple mean to the Jews?

What did Jerusalem mean to the Jews?

I mean look at it today, all the dispensationalists I know “its all eyes on Israel”. Go to the wailing wall, come see the Holy City...

Esaias

03-12-2020, 02:28 PM

What did the temple mean to the Jews?

What did Jerusalem mean to the Jews?

I mean look at it today, all the dispensationalists I know “its all eyes on Israel”. Go to the wailing wall, come see the Holy City...

None of which has any relevancy to the topic at hand.

votivesoul

03-12-2020, 08:49 PM

1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This sets the tone and theme for the chapter. It is clearly about the temple and its destruction, how it will be razed to the ground.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

Here, Jesus is talking to and answering the questions posed to Him, by His disciples. His response is for that time and generation, to those people.

10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

These are some of the signs of when the temple is about to be destroyed. The last sign mirrors quite well the signs Simon Peter spoke of in Acts 2.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

Again, proof that Jesus is speaking to those disciples at that time. Jesus isn't talking to us, or even any other generation of disciples.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Clear proof Jesus is talking to those disciples at that time about Jerusaelm being surrounded by the Romans beginning in 66 AD.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

According to Eusebius, Jerusalem Christians did just this and fled the city.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

What is to be fulfilled? These words spoken of by Jesus here in this chapter, or Biblical prophecy such as Daniel 9 and elsewhere? I think Jesus is referring to OT prophecy being fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The tragic difficulties for those in Jerusalem at the time, eventually leading up to the slaughter in the city in 70 AD, culminating in the Diaspora of the Jews.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

All symbolic, apocalyptic language, straight out of the OT, for example, Isaiah 13, especially verse 13, which is a prophecy of the destruction of Babylon, not the literal heavens or the earth.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

The fulfillment of Daniel 7-9, when the Son of Man has the final victory.

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Meaning, there will no longer be any competing system of religion. All that was prophesied in the OT will be fulfilled and the entering in of the Kingdom of God will be complete, the everlasting kingdom of Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:27, and 2 Peter 1:11.

32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

The second use by the Lord of "all be fulfilled" used entirely in context to refer to the days of vengeance, which were completed in 70 AD.

33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

The key verse in question. What has Jesus been talking about the whole time? The end of the world? Celestial and planetary collapse? Or the fall of Jerusalem and the demolishing of the temple?

The context is clear. It's not the heavens as we think of them, or the earth as we think of it. How do we know? In Deuteronomy 32:40, God lift's His hands to heaven and swears an oath "I live forever". How can God make such an oath unless that by which He swore also exists forever? In Psalm 119:89, God's Word is forever settled in heaven. If the Word is forever settled, and it's in heaven, then heaven is eternal. Paul also shows this in 2 Corinthians 5:1 that our resurrected form is "eternal in the heavens", proving heaven, as we tend to think of it, is eternal. So any prophecy that speaks of heaven coming to an end must be symbolic of something else, or these verses, and others like them, are meaningless.

The clincher is Psalm 148:4-6.

Additionally, the Bible speaks of the earth, as we think of it, abiding forever, as in Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:4. So, again, the earth, as meaning the planet, being destroyed, isn't Biblically tenable. Rather, a prophetic, apocalyptic symbolism is intended when the Scriptures speak of the earth being destroyed or, in this case, of "passing away".

34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

The whole earth is a Hebraism for all of Israel. In Isaiah 24, God frequently refers to the destruction of the earth when in reality it's a prophecy about the nation of Israel. It speaks of priests (v. 2), the laws and ordinances of the everlasting covenant (v. 3), the city, meaning Jerusalem (v. 10 & 12). Most telling, however, is that every use of the word "earth" in the text is the Hebrew ha'eretz, also meaning "the land", just as it is translated in verse 3.

36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

If they were to be caught unaware, they would miss all these signs.

37 And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.
38 And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him.

The chapter ends with two references to the temple, just to let us know/remind us, of the context so we don't miss what Jesus was talking about. Some disciples were marvelling at the temple complex Herod the Great had built and Jesus was letting them know it was all going to come down in the near future. His use of "heaven and earth" were clearly symbolic because Scripture shows both heaven and earth will endure forever. Jesus didn't break Scripture or turn Biblical cosmology on its ear. Rather, He spoke just as the OT spoke, in prophetic, apocalyptic symbols. In this case, heaven and earth was, and is, a symbol of the temple.

Esaias

03-12-2020, 10:43 PM

This sets the tone and theme for the chapter. It is clearly about the temple and its destruction, how it will be razed to the ground.

Matthew 5 came before the Olivet prophecy. Keep that in mind.

All symbolic, apocalyptic language, straight out of the OT, for example, Isaiah 13, especially verse 13, which is a prophecy of the destruction of Babylon, not the literal heavens or the earth.

Isaiah 13:13 KJV
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

This isn't saying the heavens and the earth shall pass away, nor was Isaiah talking about the temple in this verse. Matthew 5 isn't apocalyptic or prophetic language, like here.

The fulfillment of Daniel 7-9, when the Son of Man has the final victory.

Daniel 7's coming of the Son of Man is a different parousia than AD70. See my thread on "The Son of Man".

Meaning, there will no longer be any competing system of religion.

If by competing system you mean a religious system in competition with the Gospel then the prophecy failed. Judaism, gnostic cults, catholicism, protestantism, Islam, paganism, atheism, new ageism etc have been in competition with the Gospel for 2000 years and going. If by competing system you mean two covenants, Jesus said the law and the prophets were until John, not AD70.

All that was prophesied in the OT will be fulfilled and the entering in of the Kingdom of God will be complete, the everlasting kingdom of Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:27, and 2 Peter 1:11.

Has Rev 20:1-15 already been fulfilled? What do you mean by "complete"? Have we all come to the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man?

The key verse in question. What has Jesus been talking about the whole time? The end of the world? Celestial and planetary collapse? Or the fall of Jerusalem and the demolishing of the temple?

The context is clear. It's not the heavens as we think of them, or the earth as we think of it.

This doesn't show that heaven and earth means the temple, as was asserted, especially as regards Matt 5. This is, once again, a statement regarding the absolute certainty of Jesus' words. Heaven and earth, the two most stable and everlasting things in the universe next to God Himself, would cease to exist before Jesus' words failed and dropped out of sight like a failed prophecy.

Jesus explicitly stated with NO symbology that the Temple would be destroyed (v 2). There would no need to repeat all that in a symbolic enigmatic phrase that heaven and earth shall pass away but My words shall not. Rather, Jesus is stating the ASSURANCE of His prophecies concerning the Temple, Jerusalem, persecutions, etc. Heaven and earth passing away IS an idiom, but not about the Temple. By reducing the phrase to a metaphor about the Temple, the force of what He is saying is lost. Especially in Matthew 5.

How do we know? In Deuteronomy 32:40, God lift's His hands to heaven and swears an oath "I live forever". How can God make such an oath unless that by which He swore also exists forever? In Psalm 119:89, God's Word is forever settled in heaven. If the Word is forever settled, and it's in heaven, then heaven is eternal. Paul also shows this in 2 Corinthians 5:1 that our resurrected form is "eternal in the heavens", proving heaven, as we tend to think of it, is eternal. So any prophecy that speaks of heaven coming to an end must be symbolic of something else, or these verses, and others like them, are meaningless.

Already addressed previously. The Bible contains a prophecy in the Psalms (repeated in Hebrews 1) that indicates a change regarding the heavens and earth at some point. That wasn't about the Temple (which didn't exist when the prophecy was given) but was in the EXACT SAME CONTEXT as Jesus' use of the phrase in question: a statement of the certainty of Christ, His glory, His promises, etc.

The clincher is Psalm 148:4-6.

Which provides the contrast with God's words that shall never pass away.

Additionally, the Bible speaks of the earth, as we think of it, abiding forever, as in Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:4. So, again, the earth, as meaning the planet, being destroyed, isn't Biblically tenable. Rather, a prophetic, apocalyptic symbolism is intended when the Scriptures speak of the earth being destroyed or, in this case, of "passing away".

Apocalyptic symbolism is found in apocalyptic prophecy, not benedictions of God's greatness and eternity and majesty. Even IF passages speaking of the earth passing away are always to be understood apocalyptically, it has by no means been established that the phrase therefore must refer to the temple or the city of Jerusalem.

By the way, why must passages regarding the passing away of heaven and earth be interpreted symbolically? Why not interpret symbolically the passages that speak of the eternality of the heavens and earth? What hermeneutic demands that one be literal, but its contrary be symbolic? Honest question here.

The whole earth is a Hebraism for all of Israel. In Isaiah 24, God frequently refers to the destruction of the earth when in reality it's a prophecy about the nation of Israel. It speaks of priests (v. 2), the laws and ordinances of the everlasting covenant (v. 3), the city, meaning Jerusalem (v. 10 & 12). Most telling, however, is that every use of the word "earth" in the text is the Hebrew ha'eretz, also meaning "the land", just as it is translated in verse 3.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the land of Israel? (Ha'aretz)
Man was to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the land of Israel?
The church in Philadelphia was going to protected from the temptation that would come upon the whole Judean land? Was Philadelphia in Judea?
The meek will inherit Judea?
We are the salt of Judea? Not Greece, Rome, or Texas?
We are to pray for God's will to be done in Judea (but not Wisconsin or Brazil or Florida)?
All authority in heaven and Judea was given to Jesus?
God is the maker of heaven and Judea?
The God of the whole Judea? Not Texas?

In this case, heaven and earth was, and is, a symbol of the temple.

Nope, in this case, heaven and earth mean heaven and earth, and His statements about heaven and earth passing away but His words remaining mean His words are more solid and dependable and eternal than the universe itself. :thumbsup

shag

03-13-2020, 06:21 AM

Godsdrummer

03-14-2020, 06:14 AM

Isaiah, do you see Rev. 6:12-14 as past or future for us, and as symbolic, or ?

What do you think about vs. 37’s meaning in:
Jer. 31:31-37
Isnt it basically saying that he will never cast off the seed of Israel, because heaven and earth cannot be measured?

Yet how does that relate to them loosing the Kingdom(Matt. 21:43)?

I’m pondering these verses this morning as to how they relate to the ones below and to the topic, (as I have time while reading everyone’s posts...)

Heb. 10:16( which comes from Jer. 31:33)

Along with
Heb. 8:13
Isaiah 51:5-6

I appreciate everyone’s input :thumbsup

The Lord does not cut off the seed of Isreal, But cuts off those that do not believe in him.
As Paul states in Galatians

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture shut up all under sin, so that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under Law, having been shut up to the faith about to be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So that the Law has become a trainer of us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But faith coming, we are no longer under a trainer.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

The seed of Abraham are those that are of faith, not of linage. The Jew and the land if Isreal will never hold any meaning again to God. Not as a race or nation any more than America.

Nicodemus1968

03-14-2020, 06:58 AM

The Lord does not cut off the seed of Isreal, But cuts off those that do not believe in him.
As Paul states in Galatians

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture shut up all under sin, so that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under Law, having been shut up to the faith about to be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So that the Law has become a trainer of us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But faith coming, we are no longer under a trainer.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

The seed of Abraham are those that are of faith, not of linage. The Jew and the land if Isreal will never hold any meaning again to God. Not as a race or nation any more than America.

:thumbsup

Esaias

03-14-2020, 09:23 PM

Isaiah, do you see Rev. 6:12-14 as past or future for us, and as symbolic, or ?

Wow, BIG topic (exegesis of the first six seals of the Apocalypse!)... :) I understand the first four seals to be describing successive states or conditions of the Roman Empire beginning right after John's day. The fifth seal references one or more waves or phases of antichristian persecution and martyrdom(s). Then the sixth seal indicates a sudden calamitous revolution in affairs of the oikomenos. Historically that would place the sixth seal around the time of the supposed "conversion of Emperor Constantine" when the Empire officially went from pagan to Christian. There is also during this phase a sealing of the 12 tribed remnant (ch 7), which indicates to me that while the whole known world system had officially capitulated to Christ, yet there was a distinction being made between the true remnant of the Lord's people and the masses who would in later chapters be revealed as the unrepentant worshippers of the beast system. So the 6th seal would, from our current perspective, be past, and symbolised the overthrow of Imperial paganism.

But (and this is a big but) that assumes the seals, trumpets, thunders, and bowls are chronologically successive and not recapitulative. If they are recapitulations (meaning the trumpets, thunders, and bowls are the same events as the seals, just with additional details or from other perspectives) then the time span of the seals would be greatly enlarged, and the 6th seal would then correspond more to the events of Rev 17-21, or at least inaugurate those events. But I am not convinced the seals, trumpets, thunders, and bowls are recapitulations or that they run concurrently with the seals. It seems to me they all are generally successive, although there are what might he called "interludes" in the succession which provide some background data for what follows.

Clear as mud, eh? :)

What do you think about vs. 37’s meaning in:
Jer. 31:31-37
Isnt it basically saying that he will never cast off the seed of Israel, because heaven and earth cannot be measured?

Yet how does that relate to them loosing the Kingdom(Matt. 21:43)?

Jeremiah 31:31-37 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord , that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord , I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. [35] Thus saith the Lord , which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: [36] If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord , then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. [37] Thus saith the Lord ; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord .

Yes, He is promising the seed of Israel shall eternally exist as a distinct, definite, national group or entity. Now for the other verse:

Matthew 21:43 KJV
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

This was a parable Jesus gave, in which a man hired caretakers to manage his vineyard. But they refused to render him the payments due and killed his messengers and even his son, thinking to seuze the vineyard for themselves. The man was going to come with a posse and kill the rebels thieving usurpers, and hire other caretakers who would be more responsive to him.

Matthew 21:45 KJV
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Jesus was talking about the Judean rulers. The vineyard is Israel (Isaiah 5:7). The bad caretakers are the chief priests and Pharisees. The vineyard isn't wiped out and replaced, the rulers are replaced. The kingdom of God is Israel (Psalm 114:2). It (Israel) would be taken away from the Judean hierarchy and given to "another nation" that would produce the fruits of righteousness. The Greeks were understood to be "another nation" by the Judeans, so the rulership of Israel would pass from the Judean hierarchy to a Greek Christian hierarchy. Which is exactly what happened historically. The fact those Greeks or "gentiles" also happened to be Israelites doesn't change the fact they were another nation from the Jerusalem cabal, because Israel was to be a multitude of nations anyway (Gen 17:5, Gen 35:10-11, Gen 48:19, Hosea 1:10-11).

Also, the priesthood was controlled by the Herodians, and Herod's family and friends. Herod and company were descendants of Esau (Edomites). Many of the chief Pharisees I believe were also Edomites. So under either scenario the kingdom being taken from them and given to others certainly would not imply God abandoned Israel and picked some other group to be His messengers in this world.

The problem is most people think "Jews = Israelites, Israel = the Jews, gentiles = everybody else" and that just ain't so. Because of that error, many misunderstandings and misinterpretations arise, from catholic replacement theology to the bizarre aberrations of dispensationalism and so called "Christian Zionism".

I’m pondering these verses this morning as to how they relate to the ones below and to the topic, (as I have time while reading everyone’s posts...)

Heb. 10:16( which comes from Jer. 31:33)

Hebrews 10:16 KJV
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

The new covenant made with both the houses of Israel and Judah include the internalisation of God's laws into His people's hearts by the Holy Ghost (see also verse 15) thus eliminating the need for the Levitical sacrificial system.

Along with
Heb. 8:13

Hebrews 8:13 KJV
In that he saith, A new covenant , he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The new covenant has made the old (Sinaitic) covenant old and obsolete. See above.

Isaiah 51:5-6

Isaiah 51:5-6 KJV
My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust. [6] Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Another statement just like Jesus' words in both the sermon on the mount and the Olivet prophecy: God's faithfulness and His promises, His salvation and righteousness, are more certain, steadfast, and eternal than the existing universe. That a change of some sort in the actual structure of the Creation itself is spoken of here may be true. Or it may be hyperbole. Either way, the point of this and similar statements isn't really about literal cosmic disturbances nor is it about metaphoric disturbances in the political or religious world. Rather the point is the eternality of God and His Word of Grace.

I appreciate everyone’s input :thumbsup

I appreciate the questions. Keeps us on our toes and makes us study more. :highfive

Esaias

03-14-2020, 09:50 PM

The Lord does not cut off the seed of Isreal, But cuts off those that do not believe in him.

Which actually contradicts what you then say:

The seed of Abraham are those that are of faith, not of linage. The Jew and the land if Isreal will never hold any meaning again to God. Not as a race or nation any more than America.

But I've already seen you contradict yourself, reason, and the Scriptures over and over so this is certainly nothing new. :thumbsup

For the readers, the idea that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "will never hold any meaning again to God" is supported by no Scripture, and contradicted by all Scripture. Of course, Loren here is still operating under the "Jews = Israelites" error so some of these kinds of erroneous statements are to be expected.

votivesoul

03-15-2020, 12:20 AM

Esaias,

You referenced Matthew 5.

I assume you mean this:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Did Jesus fulfill the requirements of the Law and the Prophets, as seemingly stipulated above?

When He uttered "It is finished" in John 19:30, what did He mean? Was He not referring to the will of His Father Who sent Him, to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (See, e.g. John 5:30, John 6:39, and etc.)?

If the answer to those questions is "yes", then heaven and earth passed, and the Law and Prophets remained perfectly intact, suffering no damage or loss from the Messiah and His ministry, in even the smallest way, just as He said, until He fulfilled their righteous requirements during that ministry leading up to and including His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.

diakonos

03-15-2020, 12:23 AM

Esaias,

You referenced Matthew 5.

I assume you mean this:

Did Jesus fulfill the requirements of the Law and the Prophets, as seemingly stipulated above?

When He uttered "It is finished" in John 19:30, what did He mean? Was He not referring to the will of His Father Who sent Him, to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (See, e.g. John 5:30, John 6:39, and etc.)?

If the answer to those questions is "yes", then heaven and earth passed, and the Law and Prophets remained perfectly intact, suffering no damage or loss from the Messiah and His ministry, in even the smallest way, just as He said, until He fulfilled their righteous requirements during that ministry leading up to and including His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.
:yourock

votivesoul

03-15-2020, 12:58 AM

Matthew 5 came before the Olivet prophecy. Keep that in mind.

Isaiah 13:13 KJV
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

This isn't saying the heavens and the earth shall pass away, nor was Isaiah talking about the temple in this verse. Matthew 5 isn't apocalyptic or prophetic language, like here.

I think Matthew 5:18 and Christ's use of heaven and earth there are metonyms for the temple, per my previous posts and the post just before this one, in particular.

Daniel 7's coming of the Son of Man is a different parousia than AD70. See my thread on "The Son of Man".

Daniel 7, I think, is not the Son of Man coming to earth, as futurist think of it to mean, but the Son of Man ascending from the earth to the Right Hand of Majesty. He achieves final victory at the end of chapter 9.

If by competing system you mean a religious system in competition with the Gospel then the prophecy failed. Judaism, gnostic cults, catholicism, protestantism, Islam, paganism, atheism, new ageism etc have been in competition with the Gospel for 2000 years and going. If by competing system you mean two covenants, Jesus said the law and the prophets were until John, not AD70.

What I mean by competing systems is whether or not God was in it or not. Was God still enthroned in the temple receiving animal sacrifices, honoring the Levitical system of the OT, even after Jesus ascended and gave the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, or not? As long as the temple stood, there was some indication that maybe God was still involved in that system. Once the temple was smashed, there were no lingering doubts.

As far as the Law and the Prophets go, they weren't fulfilled until after Jesus died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended, and all that was prophesied against Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple according to the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled. Saying that the Law and the Prophets were until John doesn't mean they ended with him. It means they continued successfully and successively all the way to John, from God's point of view, even if Israel and Judah failed in their requirements to whatever degree.

Has Rev 20:1-15 already been fulfilled? What do you mean by "complete"? Have we all come to the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man?

I am not certain how much of Revelation 20 has been fulfilled. I think some, but not all, currently. So, what I mean by complete is all that God promised to do in the OT and then did through Jesus and the Apostles to inaugurate the church age, was complete. For awhile, the First Church, I think, had come to a perfect man and maintained the unity of the faith. I think it behooves every saint at every local expression of the church to strive to come to the unity of the faith and see everything Paul wrote of in Ephesians 4 come to pass in their lives, and if they come together and do just that, you have a local expression of the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

I think every generation of believers has that responsibility. So far, we have a lot of pastors and teachers, and many an evangelist, but only some prophets, and not many, if almost no apostles, so churches cannot properly come into the unity of the faith unto a perfect man. But if and when the Lord gifts us more prophets and true apostles, then that perfecting process will finally take shape and the Body of Christ will manifest the Lord properly and so, 1 John 4:17b will become reality.

This doesn't show that heaven and earth means the temple, as was asserted, especially as regards Matt 5. This is, once again, a statement regarding the absolute certainty of Jesus' words. Heaven and earth, the two most stable and everlasting things in the universe next to God Himself, would cease to exist before Jesus' words failed and dropped out of sight like a failed prophecy.

Jesus explicitly stated with NO symbology that the Temple would be destroyed (v 2). There would no need to repeat all that in a symbolic enigmatic phrase that heaven and earth shall pass away but My words shall not. Rather, Jesus is stating the ASSURANCE of His prophecies concerning the Temple, Jerusalem, persecutions, etc. Heaven and earth passing away IS an idiom, but not about the Temple. By reducing the phrase to a metaphor about the Temple, the force of what He is saying is lost. Especially in Matthew 5.

Matthew 5, I think shows the exact same thing, that the Law and the Prophets were indeed fulfilled by the Lord, and so, "heaven" and "earth" passed away.

If and so, there's more to this than just an assurance of Christ's words coming to pass as surely as heaven and earth are to exist forever.

Already addressed previously. The Bible contains a prophecy in the Psalms (repeated in Hebrews 1) that indicates a change regarding the heavens and earth at some point. That wasn't about the Temple (which didn't exist when the prophecy was given) but was in the EXACT SAME CONTEXT as Jesus' use of the phrase in question: a statement of the certainty of Christ, His glory, His promises, etc.

I assume you mean Psalm 102:25-26. If so, there is no reason to think that this Psalm didn't exist until after the temple was erected. Verse 26 reads that the heavens and the foundation of the earth shall be changed like a garment as if God was going to step out of one suit of clothes and into another. Sounds like a change in temples, to me, from the house which was made with hands, of wood and stone, to the temple made without hands, of flesh and blood. Note, for example, Luke 24:49, and the use of "endued". It means to be enveloped, as by a garment.

See:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-49.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/1746.htm

Which provides the contrast with God's words that shall never pass away.

But and since God's Word is forever settled in heaven, meaning it has total permanence for all time, then so, too, do the heavens. So, there isn't a contrast here, since both are everlasting.

Apocalyptic symbolism is found in apocalyptic prophecy, not benedictions of God's greatness and eternity and majesty. Even IF passages speaking of the earth passing away are always to be understood apocalyptically, it has by no means been established that the phrase therefore must refer to the temple or the city of Jerusalem.

It has been established that the earth is the LORD's footstool and at least five times the temple is called His footstool in the OT.

By the way, why must passages regarding the passing away of heaven and earth be interpreted symbolically? Why not interpret symbolically the passages that speak of the eternality of the heavens and earth? What hermeneutic demands that one be literal, but its contrary be symbolic? Honest question here.

Because the heavens and earth are described as being eternal in the same way God is described as being eternal. Since we do not think of God's eternality as being symbolic, we don't think of heaven and earth being eternal as being symbolic, either.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the land of Israel? (Ha'aretz)
Man was to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the land of Israel?
The church in Philadelphia was going to protected from the temptation that would come upon the whole Judean land? Was Philadelphia in Judea?
The meek will inherit Judea?
We are the salt of Judea? Not Greece, Rome, or Texas?
We are to pray for God's will to be done in Judea (but not Wisconsin or Brazil or Florida)?
All authority in heaven and Judea was given to Jesus?
God is the maker of heaven and Judea?
The God of the whole Judea? Not Texas?

Again, it comes down to discerning when and how to understand the words and in what context do they hold their particular meanings and references.

Nope, in this case, heaven and earth mean heaven and earth, and His statements about heaven and earth passing away but His words remaining mean His words are more solid and dependable and eternal than the universe itself. :thumbsup

Shown otherwise, I believe. :thumbsup

Esaias

03-15-2020, 02:54 AM

Esaias

03-15-2020, 03:10 AM

Esaias,

You referenced Matthew 5.

I assume you mean this:

Did Jesus fulfill the requirements of the Law and the Prophets, as seemingly stipulated above?

Not in the sense you may be thinking. Jesus fulfilling the law (as opposed to destroying or abolishing or downgrading it) has to do with Him living it as it was intended and teaching by precept and example the correct understanding and application of it. "Till all be fulfilled" is not a reference to Jesus obeying the requirements of the law.

If it were, in the sense you seem to be intimating, then heaven and earth passed away at the Cross/resurrection. Is that your position?

When He uttered "It is finished" in John 19:30, what did He mean? Was He not referring to the will of His Father Who sent Him, to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (See, e.g. John 5:30, John 6:39, and etc.)?

It meant His suffering on the Cross was finished. It does not mean the requirements of the law were fully met because He had not in fact DIED when He uttered those words, He had not brought the blood of the atonement into the Most Holy Place yet.

If the answer to those questions is "yes", then heaven and earth passed, and the Law and Prophets remained perfectly intact, suffering no damage or loss from the Messiah and His ministry, in even the smallest way, just as He said, until He fulfilled their righteous requirements during that ministry leading up to and including His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.[/QUOTE]

Including death, burial, resurrection, and ascension? Yet He said "It is finished" BEFORE His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Please explain.

Esaias

03-15-2020, 03:17 AM

Matthew 5:17-20 KJV
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Here the reference to fulfilling etc in v 17 is in reference to His ministry as a Teacher of God's Torah-Way. Heaven and earth passing are in reference to the same thing: He is not to be thought of as teaching contrary to Torah. And, this serves as a bridge to the fulfill reference in v 18.

BUT NOTICE:

The word fulfill in verse 17 means to fill up or make full. The word fulfill in verse 18 is a completely different word, and means "come to exist". A theology built on a misdefinition of a term leading to fuzzy logic is not a sound theology.

Esaias

03-15-2020, 03:24 AM

JFB:

Till heaven and earth pass—Though even the Old Testament announces the ultimate "perdition of the heavens and the earth," in contrast with the immutability of Jehovah (Ps 102:24-27), the prevalent representation of the heavens and the earth in Scripture, when employed as a popular figure, is that of their stability (Ps 119:89-91; Ec 1:4; Jer 33:25, 26). It is the enduring stability, then, of the great truths and principles, moral and spiritual, of the Old Testament revelation which our Lord thus expresses.

one jot—the smallest of the Hebrew letters.

one tittle—one of those little strokes by which alone some of the Hebrew letters are distinguished from others like them.

shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled—The meaning is that "not so much as the smallest loss of authority or vitality shall ever come over the law." The expression, "till all be fulfilled," is much the same in meaning as "it shall be had in undiminished and enduring honor, from its greatest to its least requirements." Again, this general way of viewing our Lord's words here seems far preferable to that doctrinal understanding of them which would require us to determine the different kinds of "fulfilment" which the moral and the ceremonial parts of it were to have.

Esaias

03-15-2020, 03:30 AM

Meyer's:

ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ, κ.τ.λ.] until heaven and earth shall have passed away. These words of Jesus do not indicate a terminus, after which the law shall no longer exist (Paulus, Meander, Lechler, Schleiermacher, Planck, Weizsäcker, and others), but He says: onwards to the destruction of the world the law will not lose its validity in the slightest point, by which popular expression (Luke 16:17; Job 14:12) the duration of the law after the final catastrophe of the world is neither taught nor excluded. That the law, however, fulfilled as to its ideal nature, will endure in the new world, is clear from 1 Corinthians 13:3 (ἀγάπη); 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:3 (δικαιοσύνη). The unending authority of the law is also taught by Bar 4:1; Tob 1:6; Philo, vit. Mos. 2. p. 656; Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 38, and the Rabbins. See Bereschith R. x. 1, “omni rei suus finis, coelo et terrae suus finis, una excepta re, cui non suus finis, haec est lex.” Schemoth R. vi., “nulla litera aboletur a lege in aeternum.” Midrash Cohel. f. 71, 4, (lex) “perpetuo manebit in secula seculorum.” The passage in 1 Corinthians 15:28 is not opposed to our explanation; for if God is all in all, the fulfilled law of God yet stands in its absolute authority.

ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται] not: until all the prophecies are fulfilled, that would then be down to the Parousia (Wetstein, J. E. Meyer, comp. Ewald); nor even till all is carried out theocratically which I have to perform (Paulus), or what lies shut up in the divine decree (Köstlin), or even until the event shall occur by means of which the observance of the law becomes impossible, and it falls away of itself (Schleiermacher); but, in keeping with the context, until all which the law requires shall he accomplished (Matthew 6:10), nothing any longer left unobserved. This sentence is not co-ordinate to the first ἕως, but subordinate (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 36): “So long as the world stands shall no iota[401] of the law pass away till all its prescriptions shall be realized.” All the requirements of the law shall be fulfilled; but before this fulfilment of all shall have begun,[402] not a single iota of the law shall fall till the end of the world. Fritzsche: till all (only in thought) is accomplished. He assumes, accordingly, agreeably to the analogous use of conditional sentences (Heindorf and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 67 E; Kühner, II. 2, p. 988 f.), a double protasis: (1) ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ, κ.τ.λ., and (2) ἝΩς … ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ. But the parallel passages, Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, are already opposed to this; and after the concrete and lively ἝΩς ἊΝ ΠΑΡΈΛΘῌ Ὁ ΟὐΡΑΝῸς Κ. Ἡ Γῆ, this general and indefinite ἝΩς ἊΝ ΠΆΝΤΑ ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ would be only a vague and lumbering addition. As correlative to ἝΝ and ΜΊΑ, ΠΆΝΤΑ can only mean all portions of the law, without, however, any definite point of time requiring to be thought of, in which all the commands of the law will be carried out, according to which, then, the duration of the present condition of the world would be conformed. This thought is rendered impossible by the nearness of the Parousia, according to Matthew 24:29; Matthew 24:34, as well as by the growth of the tares until the Parousia, according to Matthew 13:30. The thought is rather, the law will not lose its binding obligation, which reaches on to the final realization of all its prescriptions, so long as heaven and earth remain.

Observe, moreover, that the expression in our passage is different from Matthew 24:35, where the permanency of the λόγοι of Christ after the end of the world is directly and definitely affirmed, but that in this continued duration of the ΛΌΓΟΙ of Christ the duration of the law also is implied, i.e. according to its complete meaning (in answer to Lechler, p. 797); comp. on Luke 16:17. “The δικαιοσύνη of the new heavens and of the new earth will be no other than what is here taught,” Delitzsch. So completely one with the idea of the law does Jesus in His spiritual greatness know His moral task to be, not severed from the latter, but placed in its midst.

[401] Ἰῶτα, the smallest letter, and κεραία, horn, a little stroke of writing (Plut. Mor. p. 1100 A, 1011 D), especially also in single letters (Origen, ad Psalms 33), by which, for example, the following letters are distinguished, כ and ב, ר and ד, ה and ח. See Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. Both expressions denote the smallest portions of the law; see ver. 19.

[402] In this is contained the perpetually abiding obligation of the law; for that condition of things, in which no part of the law remains unfulfilled, in which, consequently, all is accomplished, will never occur until the end of the world. Of the πάντα, moreover, nothing is to be excluded which the law Contains, not even the ritualistic portions, which are to be morally fulfilled in their ideal meaning, as e.g. the Levitical prescription regarding purification by moral purification, the sacrificial laws by moral self-sacrifice (comp. Romans 12:1), and so on, so that in the connection of the whole, in accordance with the idea of πλήρωσις, not even the smallest element will perish, but retains its importance and its integral moral connection with the whole. Comp. Tholuck; Gess, Christi Pers. und Werk, I. p. 292; and before him, Calvin on ver. 17.

Esaias

03-15-2020, 03:47 AM

Preterist author Kurt Simmons refutes the "covenantal interpretation of heavens and earth" as referring to the old covenant, temple, priesthood, law, etc:

http://www.preteristcentral.com/Symbolism%20of%20the%20Heavens%20and%20Earth%20-%20Covenantal%20or%20Social%20and%20Political.html

Esaias

03-15-2020, 03:59 AM

Nicodemus1968

03-15-2020, 04:52 AM

Nicodemus1968

03-15-2020, 06:55 AM

Esaias

03-15-2020, 07:21 AM

Have you read writings from Don K. Preston?

The universalist?

Esaias

03-15-2020, 07:27 AM

If the heavens and earth passed away in either AD70 or at the cross, and if the heavens and the earth means the law with temple etc, then AFTER that date sin is impossible and nothing in the old testament scripture is morally binding on anybody. Which means universalism is the logical result. No law = no sin = no condemnation = no death = no sinners = no lost people.

Please explain how this is not true?

Upon re-reading my question here, I realise it was worded so badly it doesn't deserve a response. I must have been tired when I posted it, because it reads like gibberish to me now. So, uh, never mind about that. I'll cogitate on it and try to figure out what I was trying to ask, then repost it in English.

:heeheehee

Nicodemus1968

03-15-2020, 08:04 AM

The universalist?

Whoops! I take that as a yes. :heeheehee

Nicodemus1968

03-15-2020, 09:28 AM

If the heavens and earth passed away in either AD70 or at the cross, and if the heavens and the earth means the law with temple etc, then AFTER that date sin is impossible and nothing in the old testament scripture is morally binding on anybody. Which means universalism is the logical result. No law = no sin = no condemnation = no death = no sinners = no lost people.

Please explain how this is not true?

Do you believe there are 2 covenants in place right now?

Because if there are 2 covenants in place that means,
2 covenants= 2 ways to be saved= 2 ways to believe

Esaias

03-15-2020, 09:38 AM

Do you believe there are 2 covenants in place right now?

Because if there are 2 covenants in place that means,
2 covenants= 2 ways to be saved= 2 ways to believe

No. Besides, you are responding to a post that has waxed old and is ready to vanish away.

Nicodemus1968

03-15-2020, 09:46 AM

Matthew 5:17-18
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

If the law was complete and lacked nothing why did Jesus have to fulfill?
What was it that the law lacked?

[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So if heaven and earth means the physical heaven and earth then that means where still under the mosaic law, correct?

So that means

Hebrews 8:13 KJVS
[13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Has not been fulfilled.

Matthew 24:1-3
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. [2] And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. [3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

World:
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age course eternal (for) ever (-more) [n-]ever (beginning of the while the) world (began without end). Compare G5550.

What age/period was coming to an end, or maybe what covenant was coming to an end?

Matthew 24:34
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

A UPC elder once said, The disciples must’ve gotten it wrong because Jesus is still coming back. Well if we believe that he hasn’t fulfilled all things and if the generation passed without all those things being fulfilled, that must mean there are other things in this word that must be incorrect.

Nicodemus1968

03-15-2020, 09:50 AM

No. Besides, you are responding to a post that has waxed old and is ready to vanish away.

I see.

Bowas

03-15-2020, 03:59 PM

Upon re-reading my question here, I realise it was worded so badly it doesn't deserve a response. I must have been tired when I posted it, because it reads like gibberish to me now. So, uh, never mind about that. I'll cogitate on it and try to figure out what I was trying to ask, then repost it in English.

:heeheehee

Made me laugh. I have done that as well, and wondered, what in the world was I try to say? lol

votivesoul

03-16-2020, 09:33 PM

Thank you for the response, Votivesoul. I remain unconvinced, as no scripture has been presented which, in my opinion, actually demonstrates or shows anyone in the Bible using heaven and earth as a euphemism for the temple. I see where it is routinely interpreted that way by the prponents of the view, who then use that intepretation to interpret Matt 5 and Matt 24 in the same way. I also see that "fuzzy logic" I mentioned earlier, as you go from earth to footstool to temple. I honestly see that approach or method of interpretation as extremely problematic for reasons already explained so I won't belabour it.

I do appreciate the discussion, though, and I do appreciate you taking the time to make the case for your view.

Let the LORD's praises continually be in our mouths, brother. I am enjoying the chance to sharpen and better articulate my own understanding, and like what you are offering as a rebuttal so I can either make my case air-tight or drop it altogether.

I will try to get on soon and respond more. Maybe not until Wednesday, however.

Whoop Harted

03-17-2020, 10:17 AM

Anyone who believes that heaven and earth are physical MUST still adhere to the laws.

They have no choice.

This we have Apostolic sabbatarians.

Apostolics who claim to follow the laws of Moses, sabbaths, food requirements, etc.

But.....

If you believe that the Heaven refers to the temple and earth refers to the city....

You would believe that the physical ended at 70 ad and that now the physical laws are now fulfilled in the spiritual.

What people believe on this verse definitely influences how they approach the laws of God.

At least that is what I have observed.

Esaias

03-17-2020, 02:00 PM

Nicodemus1968

03-17-2020, 02:45 PM

Heaven and earth passing away or not, is not to be determined by sound-bite sophistry. But by the Scripture. There is no Scripture that says "heaven and earth means the temple and Jerusalem", nor are there ANY examples of Jesus or the apostles saying that the temple and Jerusalem are heaven and earth.

Moreover, such a belief is contradictory and absurd. The new heaven and new earth is then a new temple and a new city, right? But wait. If the new heaven is the new temple, then what is the new city? What is the new earth? "The new city is new Jerusalem"! But isn't that the church? Then what is the new temple? "The church!" So the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven to the earth and not having any temple means the church comes from the church to the church and it has no church?

Bravo! The levels of absurdity have never been scaled with such alacrity and dexterity as what can be read on AFF. :rolleyes:

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If Heaven and Earth have not passed, that means the Law is in full effect today!

If we understand “heaven and earth” as figurative language referring not to physical creation, but to something else, then it would be possible for heaven and earth to pass so the law can pass.

But if the heaven and earth Jesus is speaking about is physical then that means the Law is still abiding and we have 2 laws in tact. The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Yet the law or words of Christ the Bible says

Matthew 24:35 KJVS
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Tithesmeister

03-17-2020, 03:59 PM

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If Heaven and Earth have not passed, that means the Law is in full effect today!

If we understand “heaven and earth” as figurative language referring not to physical creation, but to something else, then it would be possible for heaven and earth to pass so the law can pass.

But if the heaven and earth Jesus is speaking about is physical then that means the Law is still abiding and we have 2 laws in tact. The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Yet the law or words of Christ the Bible says

Matthew 24:35 KJVS
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Brother, did you not read the verse that preceded Matt 5:18?

What did Jesus come to do?

Do you think he failed?

Why did you not post the scripture in red all the way to the end?

Let me try.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus says he came to fulfill the law. Do you think he failed to fulfill the law? I think he succeeded.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus fulfilled the law. If he didn’t, we need to be making sin offerings in the temple. Because that amounts to far more than a jot or tittle of the law.

Esaias

03-17-2020, 04:36 PM

Nicodemus1968

03-17-2020, 04:56 PM

You forgot to highlight "till all be fulfilled".

Next?

Great, at least we agree heaven and earth have passed.

Nicodemus1968

03-17-2020, 04:56 PM

Brother, did you not read the verse that preceded Matt 5:18?

What did Jesus come to do?

Do you think he failed?

Why did you not post the scripture in red all the way to the end?

Let me try.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus says he came to fulfill the law. Do you think he failed to fulfill the law? I think he succeeded.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus fulfilled the law. If he didn’t, we need to be making sin offerings in the temple. Because that amounts to far more than a jot or tittle of the law.

Did I say he failed?

Tithesmeister

03-17-2020, 05:17 PM

Did I say he failed?

Did you say the law was fulfilled?

Esaias

03-17-2020, 05:23 PM

Great, at least we agree heaven and earth have passed.

:smack

Snap out of it! Somebody get some cold water, the brother is hallucinating!

Nicodemus1968

03-17-2020, 06:04 PM

Did you say the law was fulfilled?

Did I need to?

Go read what I was responding to. We’re discussing if heaven and earth is the physical or was it figuratively spoken. The one I was responding to doesn’t believe heaven and earth have passed.

Go drink some communion, and relax.

Esaias

03-17-2020, 06:17 PM

Did I need to?

Go read what I was responding to. We’re discussing if heaven and earth is the physical or was it figuratively spoken. The one I was responding to doesn’t believe heaven and earth have passed.

Go drink some communion, and relax.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, even IF the phrase is used figuratively, it doesn't mean the phrase refers to the temple and Jerusalem.

Which by the way, last I checked, Jerusalem is still on the maps. :)

shag

03-18-2020, 09:42 PM

Esaias

03-18-2020, 11:05 PM

Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger.

earthquake?

Figurative for judgement?

Isaiah 13:1 KJV
The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

Neither the temple of Jehovah nor the city of Jerusalem were located in Babylon. Which proves that even figurative uses of cosmic disturbance language are NOT about specific locales or objects, but about the social upheaval involved. Which is what I've been saying throughout this thread.

Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility of earthquakes, eclipses, etc during momentous events (both past and future). Consider this:

Joshua 10:11 KJV
And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.

Also, the events of the Exodus included unexplainable cosmic disturbances and departures from known "laws of science" such as darkness engulfing Egypt but not the Israelites:

Exodus 10:22-23 KJV
And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days: [23] They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

There is no indication these are "figurative language" examples. Everything indicates they were real, observable, literal phenomena. Therefore, we cannot be too quick to dismiss language about cosmic disturbances as figurative. Nor should we allow an eschatological framework to guide our exegesis of individual texts and statements. It should be the other way around.

Nicodemus1968

03-19-2020, 08:12 AM

Isaiah 13:1 KJV
The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

Neither the temple of Jehovah nor the city of Jerusalem were located in Babylon. Which proves that even figurative uses of cosmic disturbance language are NOT about specific locales or objects, but about the social upheaval involved. Which is what I've been saying throughout this thread.

Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility of earthquakes, eclipses, etc during momentous events (both past and future). Consider this:

Joshua 10:11 KJV
And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.

Also, the events of the Exodus included unexplainable cosmic disturbances and departures from known "laws of science" such as darkness engulfing Egypt but not the Israelites:

Exodus 10:22-23 KJV
And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days: [23] They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

There is no indication these are "figurative language" examples. Everything indicates they were real, observable, literal phenomena. Therefore, we cannot be too quick to dismiss language about cosmic disturbances as figurative. Nor should we allow an eschatological framework to guide our exegesis of individual texts and statements. It should be the other way around.

Absolutely, like you already stated there are plenty of instances where it was not figurative yet real. I believe that!

Here’s another;

1 Kings 19:11-13
And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord ; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: [12] And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. [13] And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

I believe that was a real event that happened.

I’m not saying that with that every time words are used they’re used in a figurative meaning. With that said we cannot be blind to what God is saying when he does use words that do not have a physical, natural meaning. Remember, he told the disciples the reason he speaks in parables is because,

Matthew 13:11
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

He told the disciples its given unto you to know, but to them it is not given! Who are the “them” Jesus is referring to?

He said In a couple chapters back,

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

He is talking about babies? No, he is speaking figuratively:

Babes:
From an obsolete particle νη ne; implying negation and G2031; not speaking that is an infant (minor); figuratively a simple minded person an immature Christian: - babe child (+ -ish).

Nicodemus1968

03-19-2020, 08:44 AM

Esaias

03-19-2020, 10:02 AM

The issue at hand,

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Is Jesus speaking of a physical heaven and physical earth in this scripture, or is he using those words figuratively?

Was he saying that until Israel's "WORLD," symbolized by the city and temple was destroyed, the law would not pass away?

If he is talking about this physical heaven and earth, then the law has not passed and were still under the law.
Ive known some to say that he was speaking of his (Jesus) law! Well, thats not true because he is speaking to the jews and they didn't believe he had a law, they didn't believe he was the messiah.

And if that was the case that’s contradicts

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

His words will never pass! So, the law that he is mentioning cannot be his law that has been written on our hearts.

It has to be the Mosaic law, the law that was given to the children of Israel on Mt. Sinai. If Heaven and Earth are physical, and obviously that has not passed away. Then that means were still under the law or Moses!

Or, the Jews are under the law of Moses, and myself as a gentile is under the law of Christ?

That means we have 2 covenants for 2 groups. That goes against scripture.

What doesn’t go against scripture is, Jesus is using the words “Heaven and Earth” figuratively, as there WORLD as the Jews knew it was going to end. And, Isaiahs prophecy has come to pass,

Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

For some reason you keep ignoring the following:

1. Luke 16:16-17 KJV
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. [17] And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Here is Luke's version of what Jesus was saying. He claims Jesus was saying "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail." His explanation is EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE CLAIMED IN THIS THREAD. /debate

2. ..."till all be fulfilled." In Matthew Jesus said two things: till heaven and earth pass not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass from the law, and not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law untill all things come to be ("are fulfilled".). The first proposition is modified by the second proposition. The first is a statement describing the stability of the law and its jots and tittles (AS PROVEN BY LUKE'S ACCOUNT). The second is a statement MODIFYING the previous blanket statement whereby the jots and tittles do pass away as things are fulfilled or come to be. This is why the Ten Commandments still have moral authority while the law of sacrifice has been modified from a Levitical system to the Melchizedek system of Messiah.

3. You have two covenants existing simultaneously up to AD70. That which put an end to the need for animal sacrifice is NOT the cross, but the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, in your theology. The central event in history is NOT the Cross, but AD70. If by some fluke the Jews had maintained their temple, REDEMPTION AND SALVATION WOULD STILL BE UNAVAILABLE. Exactly like dispensationalists who unwittingly place the Jews at the CENTER OF IT ALL, you have done the same thing: Jews have replaced the Cross as the key focal point of salvation and eschatology. I know you don't see that, but that's what you have done. According to the Bible, the Cross ended any validity of the Levitical system of sacrifices for sin. According to you that didn't occur until AD70. AD70 is the center of your theology. The Cross is the center of the Bible's theology.

4. Nowhere does the Bible say heaven and earth are euphemisms for the temple and Jerusalem.

5. Jerusalem is still on the maps, so your figurative "earth" hasn't actually passed. "Oh but it was (temporarily) sacked!" As it was by Nebuchadnezzar, did heaven and earth pass then?

There are even more holes in this unbiblical theology, more than the finest Swiss cheese, but the 5 I listed are big enough for a nutria rat to climb through so I'll stop there. :thumbsup

jediwill83

03-20-2020, 12:46 PM

Absolutely, like you already stated there are plenty of instances where it was not figurative yet real. I believe that!

Here’s another;

1 Kings 19:11-13
And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord ; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: [12] And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. [13] And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

I believe that was a real event that happened.

I’m not saying that with that every time words are used they’re used in a figurative meaning. With that said we cannot be blind to what God is saying when he does use words that do not have a physical, natural meaning. Remember, he told the disciples the reason he speaks in parables is because,

Matthew 13:11
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

He told the disciples its given unto you to know, but to them it is not given! Who are the “them” Jesus is referring to?

He said In a couple chapters back,

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

He is talking about babies? No, he is speaking figuratively:

Babes:
From an obsolete particle νη ne; implying negation and G2031; not speaking that is an infant (minor); figuratively a simple minded person an immature Christian: - babe child (+ -ish).

1 Kings 19:11-13
And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord ; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: [12] And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. [13] And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Ok first time even looking at this thread and saw this scripture Ive read many times and even preached from it a time or two.

The question in my mind was "How the heaven did God cause wind to rend mountains? Wouldnt the wind just slide off unless it was bearing debris to cause erosion?"

I got a sudden image of not bare mountains but with some trees...trees with roots...roots into soil and gripping boulders and stone and the wind acting on the trees which when downed cause the avalanche which broke the rocks...

Just never saw it in that perspective of a man in a cave hearing gusting wind and then having an avalanche rumble over your cave opening and around....until now that is...