The Day of the Lord, will the church be raptured?

[Salty]

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.

 

Have you not read 1 Cor.15:23-28? and all Scripture associated with that timing PRIOR to the coming of the new heavens and a new earth? The coming "thousand years" reign by Christ and His elect on earth will be a literal event, it's not metaphor. And for that thousand years, there will be a temple established in the area of today's Jerusalem where that reign will occur. An honest look at the events Rev.20 and Rev.22:14-15 reveals that time that parallels Ezekiel 40 forward.

 

But after... that "thousand years", per Rev.21:22, there will be no temple there in the holy city. Some of the events between Rev.21 & 22 are not in chronological order. The Rev.22:14-15 is one obvious pointer to that with the wicked existing outside the gates of the holy city still when the tree of life and God's River is manifest, which is what Ezekiel shows also.

[Salty]

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).

 

When Jacob made a pillar stone his pillow, dreamed of angels ascending and descending upon a ladder, and woke up, he said God must be in that place. So he anointed that pillar and called it Beth-El, which means House of God. That stone followed Israel in the wilderness, and it is representative of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

1 Cor.10

⁴ And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

Exodus 17

⁶ Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

 

That wasn't just a 'rock' OF Horeb, it was 'the' rock that followed them from which living waters flowed when Moses was told to smite it (see Zech.13 "smite the shepherd").

 

The following is end time prophecy...

 

Gen.49

²² Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:

²³ The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:

²⁴ But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)

 

The unbelieving Jews today have yet to recognize The New Covenant Jesus Christ, The Stone the builders rejected. So of course they do not want anyone else to be recognized as God's Israel, especially not Gentiles. Some Jews that have accepted Christ Jesus as Messiah even have a problem realizing that God's Church is Christ's Church, and thus God's Israel of the New Covenant that all must come to in order to be saved, including those born of the seed of Israel. That confusion will end when our Lord Jesus returns.

[Persuaded]

(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?

[Salty]

 

(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.

[Persuaded]

 

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:

 

[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!

[Persuaded]

 

 

(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.

[Persuaded]

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.

[Persuaded]

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 5:24 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.

[Marilyn C]

Hi inchrist,

 

I totally agree with you. The Apostle Paul is not teaching a new doctrine here about a `bride,` just after he has taught about the `Body.` Note Paul says -

 

`...for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes & cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are MEMBERS OF HIS BODY.` (Eph. 4: 29 & 30)

 

Also the Apostle Paul also does not present us to Christ, as Persuaded thinks. (2 Cor. 11: 2) Paul will present his own disciples BUT it is the Lord Himself who will present us to the Father.

 

As inchrist has so clearly stated there is NO presentation of a new doctrine that we are a `bride.` The difficulty I see is that many people read the Bible about themselves instead of about Christ & His purposes for the 3 groups, the Body of Christ, Israel  (the Bride) & the nations.

[iamlamad]

 

LAMAD,

Then by reasoning your theory is false...Israel has always been the bride of God and not the church. God can not have two wives.

From your dispensation view, you do the very thing you accuse replacement theologians of, replacing Israel with the church

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!

 

You are missing a very valid point: the marriage laws are in effect until one or the other party dies. When one dies, the other is released from that covenant. The truth is, Jesus DIED. He is now free to marry again.

 

Why did Jesus speak of adultery here?

 

Luke 16

¹⁶ “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. ¹⁷ And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.

¹⁸ “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.

 

No one had asked him about divorce at that time. Could he have been talking about God and Israel here?

 

LAMAD