Persuaded

Yes, cherubim. Also seen in Isa 6 (he calls them "seraphim"), the Garden, over the Mercy Seat of the tabernacle (and woven into the fabric of the inner covering), and in Rev 4, always accompanying or signifying the presence of God. Also, interestingly, in the wilderness the tribes were instructed to camp on four sides of the tabernacle, in four groups of three tribes. Each tribe had a symbol it displayed on a flag. The lead tribes of the four camps, the tribes that faced the tabernacle, bore flags depicting a lion (Judah), a man, an ox, and an eagle. (I don't remember the other tribe affiliations offhand, it's easy to look up). The four gospels are seen as portraying Christ as King (Messiah, Matthew), a man (Luke), a servant (Mark), and as God (John). The classic symbols for those four roles are the lion, man, ox, and eagle. Ezekiel was a priest, seeing a vision. It's reasonable to interpret this with some levitical symbolism, but the text generally interprets the elements that are described. Mostly I just see this as Ezekiel trying to put into words things that were difficult to describe.

I'd say the Day of Christ comes first, and for the church. It is the church rapture, for those alive on the earth. It is how the church, and the special relationship of the indwelling Spirit, is removed. Which isn't to say the Spirit won't be active on the earth afterward. Many will come to believe during the trib, and that can't happen without the Spirit. But like king Saul, the presence of the Spirit will be conditional, not "promised forever" as now, for the church. And to be clear, for those that hold different views, I don't see this use of "Day of Christ" as some kind of pretrib proof; rather, it's just another example of scripture seeming to go out of its way to allow a pretrib view. It seems to best explain why Paul, an OT scholar, would substitute "Christ" into the well known "Day of the Lord" phrase. He seems to have deliberately coined a new phrase, and if that is true then I'm confident Paul had a good reason to diverge from the words of the OT.

Rev 20 is satan being bound and put into the abyss. Today, he's free to roam, as the god of this earth (2 Cor 4:4). He doesn't need further loosening! [1Pe 5:8 KJV] Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: The restrainer of 2 Thes 2 isn't the church. The restrainer is the Holy Spirit, but in His role as indwelling the church. The church is the vessel through which the Holy Spirit restrains evil in this world. Because of Jesus' promise in John 14, the restrainer can't leave, unless the church is removed as well. We almost define "church" by the Acts 2/pentecost indwelling of the Spirit- the spirit and the church are inseparably linked: [Jhn 14:16-18 KJV] 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. Jesus promised Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail over the church. In Revelation, we see "saints" being overcome. Therefore the saints of Revelation are not the church.

"Day of Christ" is not the same as the "Day of the Lord". "Day of Christ" occurs a handful of places in Paul's writings, and is the day the believer sees Christ, either by dying or rapture, but always with a note of anticipation, something for the believer to look forward to: [1Co 1:8 NKJV] who will also confirm you to the end, [that you may be] blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Phl 1:6 NKJV] being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete [it] until the day of Jesus Christ; [Phl 1:10 NKJV] that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, [Phl 2:16 NKJV] holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain. The passage in 2 Thes 2:2 is correctly rendered "Day of the Lord" as in the critical texts in this case- one of the few places that the KJV has it wrong. The Day of the Lord is characterized by dread and destruction, judgment and darkness, and several times is rendered "the great and terrible Day of the Lord". So in 2 Thes 2 the Day of the Lord, the OT's yowm Jehovah, is what comes after the apostasy, after the man of sin is revealed. There is nothing in the passage to refute a pretrib rapture. Also, it's helpful to understand that in many passages the "Day of the Lord" can refer to a period of time and not necessarily a single Day. In some cases it seems to apply to the entire wrath portion of Revelation, rather than the climactic last day.

Genesis 2:3 (KJV) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. The US was founded on biblical principles, and by conviction and tradition most continued to observe a weekly day of rest. Church attendance was expected just to be seen as a civilized person, and stores were generally closed on Sundays. Many stated had laws to that effect, the "blue laws". I wonder if it is a coincidence that as our nation distances itself from the last traces of Sunday rest, that we are simultaneously abolishing the smallest reference to God's creation? It seems that the two are inversely related- creation was broadly taught when Sunday rest was the norm, and as we have insisted on our Sunday liberty to do work, we have reaped the consequence of losing sight of God's creation. Clearly, both symptoms are a part of a bigger problem, but I can't help but see some hint of "I told you so" in Gen 2:3. Is 1 Cor 10:23 relevant here? 1 Corinthians 10:23 (KJV) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Paul apparently wasn't aware that Peter had the keys and was the head of the church: Galatians 2: 11 Now when Peter[fn] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

The letters of correction that Paul wrote to the various local 1st century churches, and the letters of correction that Jesus wrote in Rev 2&3 to various 1st century churches, all suggest that churches after Acts are not a valid source of instruction. Indeed, if we take "Nicolaitians" as an untranslated word, we see that it means "to conquer the laity", which describes a church that rules over the people. [Rev 2:15 KJV] So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. A few Bible and canon thoughts- first a favorite quote, I don't know from whom: "The Word is a sword. It doesn't need defending if it is just removed from its sheath and used!" The Bible (and more) are pre-authenticated by Jesus before He left: [Jhn 16:13 KJV] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. The Bible also self-authenticates itself by its integrity of message and idiom, all despite the differences of the author's backgrounds. This forum is evidence of the miraculousness of this process, since so much is in dispute here, yet within the scripture we see a single message said in many ways, but agreeing. If I dumped all the parts for a jet engine on a garage floor, and slipped in a lawnmower piston, you'd be able to tell after getting familiar with the rest of the parts that it just didn't belong...

Joshua was Moses' minister, his servant (Josh 1:1). Moses had seen Jesus earlier, in the burning bush (Ex 3:14, John 8:58) , also telling him to remove his shoes. I don't think it would escape Joshua's notice that the Captain of the Lord's host was using the same phrase as voice of the burning bush. Confronted with the presence of God, face to face, would you argue?!? Other laws broken: Levites were not to go to war, here they lead the army. The ark was not to go to war, again it leads the army. And, Josh 6:8 tells us the Lord lead/participated in the procession: 8 And it came to pass, when Joshua had spoken unto the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns passed on before the LORD, and blew with the trumpets: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD followed them. Which, I think, is the only place in the OT where "the Lord fought in battle" (Zechariah 14:3).

There are no lost ten tribes. There has never been any lost tribes. Before the captivity, during the captivity, on the return from the captivity, at the close of the OT, and the start of the NT, there are references to "all Israel". Before the Babylonian captivity, the faithful of the northern kingdom (Israel) moved to the southern kingdom (Judah): [2Ch 11:14-17 KJV] For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the LORD: And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years: for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon. The Lord addresses all Israel, in Judah and Benjamin (southern kingdom tribes): [2Ch 11:3 KJV] Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying, The northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians, and they scattered them to other lands as was their custom, but some were left and co-mingled with people of other scattered nations to become the Samaritans. More nk tribes in the sk: [2Ch 15:8,19 KJV] And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the LORD, that [was] before the porch of the LORD. And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God [was] with him. Hezekiah invites all Israel and Judah to come to Passover in Jerusalem: [2Ch 30:1,5 KJV] And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the LORD God of Israel.... So they established a decree to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba even to Dan, that they should come to keep the passover unto the LORD God of Israel at Jerusalem: for they had not done [it] of a long [time in such sort] as it was written. Isaiah, writing to the captivity, addresses them throughout as "house of Jacob, house of Israel". Some are prophetic, but many are not. Example: [isa 46:3 KJV] Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne [by me] from the belly, which are carried from the womb: Jeremiah, writes to all Israel among those left behind in Jerusalem during the captivity, : [Jer 2:4 KJV] Hear ye the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel: Ezra and Nehemiah use "Israel" to describe those that returned to the Jerusalem: [Neh 12:47 KJV] And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the singers and the porters, every day his portion: and they sanctified [holy things] unto the Levites; and the Levites sanctified [them] unto the children of Aaron. and later: [Mal 1:1 KJV] The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. Still later, as Jesus sends the 12 out to preach: [Mat 10:6 KJV] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. and again, to the Canaanite woman: [Mat 15:24 KJV] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew claims that Isaiah 9:1,2 is fulfilled as Jesus preaches to the people of Zebulon and Nephtali (two northern kingdom tribes): [Mat 4:14-16 KJV] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, [by] the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. Luke writes of a woman of Asher (another nk tribe): [Luk 2:36 NKJV] Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.... Compare how Peter addresses his audience in Acts 2: [v14 KJV] ...Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem... [v22 KJV] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God... [v36 KJV] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly...

Those in the OT were faithful in anticipation of Christ: [Gal 3:7-9 KJV] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before (earlier) the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. [Heb 11:1,2 KJV] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. [Creation, Abel, and Enoch] [Heb 11:6 KJV] But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. [Noah, Abraham, Sara] [Heb 11:13-16 KJV] These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. [offering of Isaac, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph] [Heb 11:24-26 KJV] By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. [Fled Egypt, Jericho, and lots more examples] [Heb 11:39,40 KJV] And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Our faith is based on the fact of Christ. Interestingly, our faith confirms or fulfills or validates their faith (Heb 11:40b). Conversely, our lack of faith is an insult to their faithfulness. [Rom 10:17 KJV] So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. These from Heb 11 had faith, therefore according to Paul in Romans they had to have heard God's revealed Word. We have a record of God speaking to some (Enoch walked with God; Abraham was called out of Ur and later he and his sons were given the promises; Moses in the burning bush; Joshua spoke to the Captain of the of the Lord's host), and can only presume that the others had the Word similarly conveyed to them.

One way that we are the body is by becoming one flesh with Him. The marriage is the method, the mechanism that makes us His body, by being joined with Him as one flesh. [Eph 5:30, 31 KJV] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. I explained a reasonable view of the New Jerusalem being a reference to its inhabitants- those who will dwell there, because it makes no sense to call a city itself a bride. If you think that the marriage to the New Jerusalem isn't a metaphor but that it somehow describes a relationship between Christ and the bricks and geometry of a physical city, then we'll just disagree on that. Since the scripture isn't explicit as to the exact meaning of the marriage to the New Jerusalem, it's reasonable to use the rest of scripture to see what message John meant to convey. I think Marilyn sees Israel as the bride, I see big problems with that. So another possibility is the church as the bride, which fits scripture, and the concept of a ruler from Israel taking on a gentile bride is foreshadowed throughout the OT- Isaac, Joseph, Boaz are a few, each themselves a well-recognized type or model of Christ. NT elements I can quickly think of that do have parallels in a Jewish wedding: Payment of the price of betrothal, His death Sharing of the cup Leaving to prepare a place in His Father's house We are entreated to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior (this is getting ready for the marriage -it has nothing to do with adding to our righteousness) No man knows the hour when the bridegroom will come for the bride He announces His coming with a shout and trumpet call The bride is removed, taken to the Father's house, and then presented to the world in a feast John says Jesus began His ministry at a wedding; He taught with wedding parables; He used many references that make the most sense in the context of a wedding. And, the explicit references by Paul to the church as a bride. I don't see how you and Marilyn dismiss Eph 5 and 2 Cor 11- the alternate interpretations you have given simply don't match what is said in those chapters- I've tried to read them in the way you describe and I can't see a way to make them fit that meaning. So I'm comfortable taking Paul's words as saying what they mean, and taking the "coincidental" but persistent allusions to the wedding as the best framework against which to judge the meaning of the New Jerusalem as being identified by the inhabitants that Paul described. I have never heard anyone advocate that the bride should add to her righteousness. Any that use the bride to teach such are clearly wrong. But, while we are on this earth we can spend our time becoming ready by learning of Him. I think that's what most of us do when we come here...

Your understanding of Paul's meaning contradicts God's words to Abraham: Genesis 17:7 (KJV) 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Abraham is "the father of the faithful", so in that way, only, are we descendants of Abraham. That doesn't make us Jews or Israelites. We don't inherit those promises. God's Word and His promises can't be broken. God did not promise something to Abraham, and then change His mind.

Hi Marilyn, He loves the body as a bride. Two metaphors there, but here we don't become the body until we are joined as one flesh, at the wedding. I won't restate what I said about each verse in Eph 5, but it's clear that both the wedding event and loving marriage are portrayed, and the whole passage is depicting Christ and the church. We as a church -not individuals- are the bride. I'm a man, and not the least offended. But in a pearls before swine way, that wouldn't be a witnessing tool to unbelievers. There's people I wouldn't call sheep, either! I've reread 2 Cor 11 in a bunch of translations to try to get your take on it, but it still looks like it says just what it sounds like: 2 Corinthians 11:2 (NLT) For I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God himself. I promised you as a pure bride to one husband--Christ. That's the goober-easy translation...

Lamad, In the OT, Israel is likened to the adulterous wife of Jehovah, who will be forgiven and returned to her rightful place. Christ's death is a different transaction- a payment, not a divorce scheme. He shouted "tetalistai" from the cross, "it is finished"- but also means "paid in full". Don't take my word for- go study the old Jewish wedding practices. You'll see how they are referenced throughout the NT. We become bible scholars, but forget the Jewish culture that frames the discussion.

But Marilyn: the body, as one flesh, is because of the marriage! -in this case. My impression is you're too hung up on these metaphors. There are several that are used of the church, and to say it is only "the body" is clearly wrong. We are sheep, a priesthood, a family, a body, and yes a bride. I'm baffled by your interpretation of 2 Cor 11:2. I see none of what you say in that verse, or in its context. The metaphor of the bride isn't "new doctrine". It pervades Christ's parables and Paul's writings. Again, I absolutely see Israel as a separate entity, but she can't be both the wife Hosea speaks of, and the one Paul speaks of. They are just fundamentally different.

Do you somehow take bride literally? -it describes our relationship to Jesus, but a collective group of people can't be a literal bride. Nor can a city. It's not ignoring Rev 21 if I see that it doesn't make literal sense and so compare it to other scripture to see what does make sense, what is consistent with the whole Word. Here's the wedding stuff in Eph 5 (starting after the wives being told to obey their husbands): [Eph 5:24 KJV] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. Still relational here, as you said. [Eph 5:25 KJV] Husbands, love your wives (gyne: wife, girl, woman, betrothed woman), even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Now, this isn't talking about a married man dying for his wife, it's about a bridegroom paying all he can (the mohar) to establish the Ketubah, the betrothal covenant. Christ gave everything, before the church was His, while we were all yet sinners. The ancient concept of betrothal was as a purchase. (Deut 24:1, 1 Cor 6:20, Rev 5:9) [Eph 5:26 KJV] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, The bride, during her time of betrothal, is required to cleanse herself with a Mikveh, or purifying bath. Even today, in orthodox weddings a mikveh certificate is a required by the bride. [Eph 5:27 KJV] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. "That he might present it" confirms that we aren't talking about the conduct of a married couple- this is wedding night stuff. [Eph 5:28 KJV] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. [Eph 5:29 KJV] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: [Eph 5:30 KJV] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Back to relational stuff. [Eph 5:31 KJV] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Again, quoting Gen 2, this is about getting married, not married life. [Eph 5:32 KJV] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. This whole discussion that Paul has given us has been about Christ and the church. First, we are to model the relationship of Christ to the church through our marriage relationships and second, that our wedding (if done in the traditional Jewish style) is a model of the church's purchase, betrothal, purification, and joining.

Eph 5:32 says it pretty clearly, that a marriage is a model for the relationship of Christ to His church. Then overlay the concept of the Jewish wedding onto much of the NT and it becomes pretty clear. I tried to write the wedding description above (post 406) in a way that was accurate to the event, but suggested the scriptures that hang on its structure. If I have time later, I'll try to insert scripture references into each part of the wedding description, that relate to the church. If I say that Washington is nuts these days, do you take that to mean the physical city, or the people known to inhabit and work there? Does it make sense for a city to be a bride? Perhaps the "as" in "as a chaste virgin" refers to the chastity (or righteousness)? The gal is metaphorical, but her chastity is a simile? My righteousness is not my own, therefore for me to be presented as a chaste virgin would take some trickery, in that God has to see Christ's righteousness covering me. He sees me, but it's as He's seeing Christ's righteousness. Make sense? Lastly, A simile is a rhetorical figure expressing comparison or likeness that directly compares two objects through some connective word such as like, as, so, than, or many other verbs such as resembles. Although similes and metaphors are generally seen as interchangeable, similes acknowledge the imperfections and limitations of the comparative relationship to a greater extent than metaphors. Similes also hedge/protect the author against outrageous, incomplete, or unfair comparison. Generally, metaphor is the stronger and more encompassing of the two forms of rhetorical analogies.

Allow me to offer the strongest possible rebuke against this reprehensible statement. [1Sa 26:9 KJV] ...for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD'S anointed, and be guiltless? (David, speaking of Saul)

Why would you think He has to have any time in order to prepare those? Is that really part of His real Message there just because He said I go to prepare? Will we now go into meaningless fleshy thinking tirades on how long it would take Him to prepare those abodes for His? We can only assume He has already prepared them, when He ascended to The Father. Our Lord Jesus is Who will build the temple per Zech.6, which is about that Millennial temple of Ezekel 40 forward. That means the temple the Jews plan to build for the last days prior to His coming, will not be the same. Sorry, this reminds me of "Hath God said..." He doesn't need time. But He said what He said. It's not fleshly thinking or man's doctrine to rely on what He said.

If you truly understood your Old Testament, you'd understand how God attached the name 'Israel' to His Salvation by Faith first given through Abraham, and it involved His Birthright Promises included with it. That Promise by Faith has always been the OT link to the New Covenant Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3 and Romans 4). No. Abraham was counted faithful before the circumcision covenant. He became the "father of them that believe" in Gen 15, he became the "father of the circumcised" in Gen 17. In this sense, he was still a gentile in Gen 15. The covenants God gave to Abraham and his seed, to Isaac, and Jacob, (and David) don't devolve to the church- they are given to whom the Lord gave them, or the Word of God is of no effect. Yes, the Jews of today must come to God through Christ. And, based on the promise of Gen 17:7, He will (continue) be a God to them. That isn't a meaningless statement, like "God is God to everyone"! God will also fulfill the new covenant of Jer 31 in Israel: [Jer 31:31-34 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: 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: 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. 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. The author of Hebrews makes application of the new covenant abolishing the old in ch8, but it makes the Word of God of no effect if we claim that it does not apply to those to whom it was given!

(Yes, God will inhabit the temple in the mil. I mis-wrote as I responded to a different email and didn't change my focus.) But Jesus said the words of John 14 a long time before the mil; He's been in His Father's house a long while now and that can't be the Eze 40 temple since that is yet future. [Jhn 14:2,3 KJV] 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. How can he go a long time ago to prepare rooms in a temple that will be here and in the future?

Is the Ezekiel 40 temple "my Father's house"? -certainly not in the sense Jesus is using it in John 14. Will God again dwell in a building made with hands? Will He be behind a veil, again??? ---- The commonwealth of Israel is just Israel, the state of Israel. That verse says we are still aliens to the state of Israel. We haven't become Israelites, Hebrews, or Jews. They received the promises and covenants, and the means (the Law) by which God could be approached. Now we, not through their promises or covenants, but by the blood of the new covenant, can approach God. We haven't changed ethnicity; but our access, which we lacked in times past, is now made available by the cross. The method of access changed, not the ethnicity of we who now have access.

Israel is not described as the bride, but as the adulterous (idolatrous) wife of God, as the woman giving birth to the man child which the dragon has tried (throughout Israel's history, all the way back to Eve) to devour. It's important to recognize that this woman is a wife (not a bride), she is unfaithful (not a virgin), and a mother (again, not a virgin), but that God still adores her. The bride of Christ is a different gal. These are two conceptually related metaphors, but like any metaphor things get silly if pushed too far. The church is also described as sheep or flock, as the body or parts of the body, as a temple or tabernacle, as a priesthood, as a family (1 Tim 5:1,2), and as a bride. Each metaphor is used to describe an attribute or characteristic, but the metaphors don't (necessarily) interact with each other. Similarly, it's silly to call God a two-timer if we recognize that He has used the metaphor of wife for Israel and bride for the church. Paul tells us in Eph 5 that marriage is a model of the Church's relationship to Christ: [Eph 5:30,32 KJV] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Perhaps it's better to see "his body" as a "one flesh" reference to a marriage? Paul describes the bride: [2Co 11:2 KJV] For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ. It's useful to take a look at the traditional jewish wedding, as a backdrop for much of the NT. We have the Ketubah or betrothal, where the bridegroom takes the initiative to negotiate a price (mohar) to purchase her. Then, the covenant is made, and they are considered to be husband and wife. The bride is "sanctified", set apart, for her bridegroom. They drank from a cup of wine to symbolize the covenant. Next the bridegroom left the bride and went home to his father's house and prepared their dwelling place in the father's house. The bride prepared her trousseau and made herself ready for marriage. This went on for a year or so. When he was ready, the bridegroom came, generally at night, to take the bride to live with him. The bridegroom, best man and attendants walked in a torch lit procession to the bride's house. The bride was expecting the bridegroom, but didn't know the exact time he would come. So the bridegroom would announce his coming with a shout. The bridegroom received the bride, and she and her attendants joined the bridegroom and his attendants home to the father's house. The bride and groom were escorted to the bridal chamber (huppah). With attendants outside, the bride and groom went inside alone and consummated the marriage, the groom announced the consummation, the bride gave her proof of virginity to a bridesmaid who gave it to the bride's father as future proof against claims she wasn't a virgin, and the attendants returned to the party to announce the consummation while the bride and groom returned to the huppah. The guests partied for seven days while the bride and groom remained in the huppah. Afterward, the groom brought his bride out, unveiled her, and presented her as his wife to everyone. (Taken mostly from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia) And Marilyn, Christ never appeared in His resurrection body without sharing a meal with someone. So that mansion (room, place) better at least have a dining hall!

Saturday after sundown means Sunday night gets counted. ...and so we're clear, we're all on the same page that "in the heart of the earth" means death, not burial, right? He died before sunset, which means the counting has to start with a day...

Rereading this thread, it seems I owe Marilyn and Willa an apology- I didn't mean to be dismissive of your posts, and in reacting to your posts as abstract ideas rather than as expressions by people I may have been too blunt. I guess I see this chapter as being generally and overall traditionally misunderstood, so it doesn't seem useful (to me) to tease at the nuances if they are built on the flawed traditional overall view. I've read a handful of commentaries on this chapter, and none that support the traditional view go to any length to support that view from scripture, nor attempt to defend the traditional view against other views. That bothers me, and I had hoped to make some others bothered by it too.