Persuaded

I'll have to disagree, the Bible doesn't speak of spiritual death in reference to humans.

Paul speaking of himself:

Romans 7:9 (NKJV) I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

So when Peter writes, "The end of all things is near." 1 Peter 4:7 (NIV2011) he was writing to us? 

 

When John writes, "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near." Revelation 1:3 (NIV2011) he was writing to us?

 

When James writes, "You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near." James 5:8 (NIV2011) he was writing to us?

 

When Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Matthew 24:34 (NIV2011) he was speaking to us?

 

Finally, when Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:28 (NIV2011) was He talking to us or the very people who were standing right in front of Him; His disciples?

 

Virtually every single letter and gospel in the NT contains promises of Christ's return made to the people living then, which is made perfectly clear by the language they used to communicate it.  Words like "soon", "near", "at hand", "at the door" all communicate imminence and urgency.  Now, either Christ did what He promised or He did not.  But if He did not, why follow Him?  I'll leave you with what an atheist wrote about the problem for Christianity regarding Christ's promise of His return for the first century church:

 

-snip-

 

Surely God, who created the universe and language would've chosen words other than "soon" and "near" to communicate Christ's retun if His return had been promised to us, yes?

 

When Christ said "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened", I must choose whether I will take Him at His very clearly worded promise to that generation of His disciples, or try to reinterpret His words to mean something set far off into distant generations applying to us.  But if I have to change His words to fit my belief, then they're not really His words anymore, are they???

 

Think about it.

 

 

Yes, 1 Pet 4:7, James 5:8, and Rev 1:3 are for us. We are to live as though our life will be required of us, at any moment.

Also, the only context in which scripture expressly indicates that God is using a different clock than we on the earth is in regard to Christ's second coming, as an expression of His mercy. How many on this forum would have been denied a chance to believe, if He had come ten or twenty years ago? Peter says His delay is so that more may choose Him:

Mat 24:32-34 is for the generation that sees the signs, they will see the whole drama unfold. The prior verse, linking it to the parable of the fig tree, sheds light on this. When you see the fig tree shoot forth leaves, you know summer is near, so you also when you see these things (what things- the signs he has spoken of in verses 7 -after He says the end is not yet- through 24) know the end is near, and the generation that sees the beginnings of the signs, will see them completed. (my paraphrase)

Rev 1:1 gives a further hint of this idea, when it says "things which must shortly take place". The word "shortly" is translated a few ways, but basically means quickly, in quick succession, or suddenly. It's talking about how it will take place, not when.

And Mat 16:28 is understood by most to refer to the transfiguration, His "appearing in His kingdom", which happens six days later -the chapter break is in a tragic location here. "Not taste death" is also a euphamism for "before the next sabbath (sacrifice)". If, as you claim, this refers to those standing there seeing His second coming, then it happened in secret. Jesus emphatically said His second coming would not be secret:

It might be the case that they are different- I wouldn't insist that they are the same, but it seems more likely they are.

They are more similar than different, with four or six wings, eyes all around, having coal (Isa 6 and Eze 10), and again the association with the throne of God which almost becomes one of His titles- "He who dwells between the cherubim".

"Seraph(im)" is also the word for fiery serpent, used in Num 21 and Deu 8. I see Ezekiel using a word that evokes what he thinks those looked like, to describe what he sees in this vision. I imagine the tabernacle and temple (carved) cherubim were beautiful, and quite different than these in Ezekiel's vision.

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:

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:

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):

Hezekiah invites all Israel and Judah to come to Passover in Jerusalem:

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.

Persuaded,

All you've given me was conjecture. Head and body can not marry one another it's already one. It's sounds completely strange that the head marries the body to form one flesh in its literal and metaphorical meaning...what an odd teaching

Jesus did not teach that his body Is the bride nor did Peter.

In fact my challenge to you was to find my anywhere in scripture that the church is called the bride of christ...The church has been called the sons of God and the body of christ but never ever in any of the scripture has been called the bride of christ.

Here's the problem with this false doctrine:-

Firstly you ignored biblical scripture telling you who the bride is, new jerusalem. Again you have not addressed this issue and continually ignore it and I'll continually repeat it until you address this issue.

Secondly you ignore

Rev 19:7 says: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

How on earth has the church made herself ready, without spot or blemishes?

You single handedly take away grace with this church is the bride doctrine.

You see, being perfect is a gift and it is a gift we already have. Sorry, but the last time I read 2 Cor. 5:21, Romans 3:26, 1 Cor 1:30, and 2 Cor 9:10 it says we have been made the righteousness of God already. We are already without "spot or blemish". We are already perfect and righteous. Jesus can return now if God tells Him to. He can return at anytime. More importantly is the fact that if we are made righteous through the blood of Jesus then it takes away from us "the works" that we will have to do to become perfect. It makes it all about grace again and not something we do on our own. It makes it all about his ability to save us and His ability working in us to give us the power to overcome sin in our own lives. This is the fundamental reason Jesus gave His life for us. "The bride" teaching removes the fundamental purpose in the plan of salvation. Our salvation becomes about works and about making ourselves perfect and ready. Grace is denied.

Jesus dying on the tree, made me with out spot and blemish.

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.

Persuaded

Eph 5 the following scriptures make only a relationship comparison but they don't say we are the "bride of Christ". Also notice the topic of discussion is about husbands and wives, not a bride. The topic is about a husband and a wife. Nothing here relates to Jesus as having the church as a bride. In fact it clearly says Jesus is the head of the church.

see what you doing is making inferences. ... no where can you find me the term bride of christ.

All you have is inferences, I don't build my believe on inferences

yet the bible plainly tells you who the bride of the lamb is Revelation 21:9-10  states that the "the bride, the Lamb's wife" is the Holy Jerusalem. Which you conveniently ignore

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 5:32 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.

 

 

 

It's obvious you don't care what the Scriptures actually state.

 

 

 

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)

 

 

(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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

(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.

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.