ECT Some Basic Theses of NT Eschatology

[Interplanner]

I'd like to cycle through these propositions with people here. We did #1 last week. Please move on to #2.

1, Rom 11 is prodding not prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is the true RT issue
3, Isaiah shifted David's promises
4, Acts 26 is the true shape of Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of the parable of the vineyard are all who are active in the Gospel's mission; there is no such thing as knowing the Gospel without knowing it in a missionally-active way
6, Rom 2 on the judgement of God surprised Jews at the time
7, 2 Pet 3 is the best, longest passage on the 2nd coming
8, The NT does not mix 1st century Judean events with the future worldwide judgement day
9, The apostles spent most of their exposition on Ps 2, 16 and 110, not Ps 83, Ez 38 and Zech 14
10, "Saved" in Rom 11 (Isaiah) is justification from sin




Gal 3:17 is the true replacement theology issue.
Paul showed here that God has not changed agreements in dealing with mankind. There are not two programs. There is not one people on one and the rest on another. In the Judaism he was raised in Paul, realized (once in Christ) that it was voiding and replacing the worldwide promised Gospel with the Law. But it was Judaism doing it, not God.

The artificial RT issue of today has mistaken this basis and thinks that modern Israel will get special blessings similar to the ancient one as though it was a separate arrangement from the other nations. It says that some Christians are wrongly saying this ethnos Israel and particular blessings for it are replaced. The opposition to this RT never seems to go back to Gal 3:17 to get things straight. It generally believes that there are 2 programs and peoples running in the Bible after the church appears. Not sure what they say about believers before Gen 12.

 

[Interplanner]

More exactly, the modern RT opposition thinks the church was an after thought, which is a way of saying that a golden age of Judaism was always intended.

 

[Danoh]

More exactly, the modern RT opposition thinks the church was an after thought, which is a way of saying that a golden age of Judaism was always intended.

No, it is you who continue to conclude that about this supposed modern day opposition you perceive. It is you who continue to conclude said supposed modern day opposition thinks some supposed church was an afterthought.

I know that what I believe and assert is that that Church which is His Body was "hid in God," Ephesians 3:9.

But, no surprise there, as to your conclusions; as you have continued to fail to understand the whole of what had been the RT issue as an issue in Gal. 3 way back in Paul's day.

Just shows you had to have read your "partial" notions of it in a book somewhere; building something else out of it as its' supposed whole.

On the one hand, you are only "partially' on track about what said RT and its origin were back then.

On the other; it is obvious from what you then end up concluding from what little you have gotten right about it, that your reasoning is the result of other men's labors.

You're sharper than most of your fellow "Partials" on here.

You demonstrate well your having taken to the task of thinking a thing through to its implied conclusions in line with how your school does like few of your fellows on here have yet demonstrated.

Problem is your training in how to think a thing through. Yours is thinking a thing through long misguided by a system of thought itself misguided.

As when the Pharisees took issue with the Lord over the washing of hands and what not. From within their misguided system's system of thought, all they could think was "what is wrong with his guy!"

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25.

 

[Interplanner]

fyi, JerryS just said that if Israel had repented on Pentecost day, there wouldn't have been a church. God is holding the offer for Israel for the future. That's what I mean by an afterthought. (This was in 'preterists and mt 24:34')

Danoh,
instead of a pile of sentences starting with "you" why don't you just treat Gal 3:17 in a couple lines the way you see them. Just a few please, you are a very scattered writer.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I must say this. Only Paul understood the Rapture, this is the exact teaching of Paul's which Peter said were hard to understand.

The Jews had no concept of the church among the nations. When they speak of the Lord's coming it is His coming to judgement they talk about.

The exception to this is John.

The Jews could not grasp that before God's wrath is poured out on an unrepentant world the church MUST be taken out....hence the catching away.

 

[Interplanner]

The OT is full of a coming mission to the nations. I don't know what they would call it. From many prophecies it sounded very much like the nations would be joined to Israel or part of it, for ex., Is 61-63.

But Judaism thought this would happen by the nations obedience to the Law. Instead Eph 3:6 says it was true through the Gospel, through Christ's work.

I doubt very much that Peter was as worried by questions about the rapture as you are. It is hardly mentioned in the NT. The only question it answers is what happens to believers alive on the last day of time.

Check your last line above: why would God's wrath be poured out on a repentant world?

 

[Danoh]

I must say this. Only Paul understood the Rapture, this is the exact teaching of Paul's which Peter said were hard to understand.

The Jews had no concept of the church among the nations. When they speak of the Lord's coming it is His coming to judgement they talk about.

The exception to this is John.

The Jews could not grasp that before God's wrath is poured out on an repentant world the church MUST be taken out....hence the catching away.

Agreed as to your first statement, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Not as to your 2nd one - Israel was/is also a church, Exodus 12: 2; Acts 7:38; Joel 2: 16-17.

John 14 is not referring to the Rapture - earlier, He had identified the Father's house as the Temple, John 2:15-16.

The "many mansions" refers to positions of office as well as to chambers in the Temple, 1 Kings 6: 2, 5; 2 Kings 23:11, 12; 1 Chronicles 9:26.

The Lord told the 12 that in light of His Words to them in Matthew 19:28.

As to your last statement; I believe that you meant Peter and company, but also that you meant "on an unrepentant world."

And again, you are confusing churches, congregations, or assemblies - there is that "church" that "was in the wilderness under Moses," Acts 7:38; Hebrews 3:14-16.

Note that that together Acts 7:38 and that passage in Hebrews mention Israel's believing remnant among that "Church."

Note also the confession that what the Lord said in Matthew 16:16 is based on, and who He said that to - to Peter - in light of Matthew 19:28.

Matthew 16:

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What is verse 16's "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" a reference to?

John 1:

45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

The Matthew 16 "church" is being built on the confession of Israelites that Jesus is the Prophesied Christ; the Son of God: the King of Israel.

As Jerry often rightly points out [that I so love to give him a hard time about]; their belief on Jesus being the Christ; their Prophesied Messiah, the Son of God: The King of Israel, saves them.

Acts 4:

8. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9. If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10. Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man
stand here before you whole.
11. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I'll close with what John wrote about this required belief; specific to Israel - John 20:

30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

In short, that is what an Israelite had to believe - that Jesus of Nazareth was/is their Prophesied Christ, the Son of God: the King of Israel!

Not to us, nor about us, but for us, thus; boy can we rejoice in their portion with them - because theirs is also the Glory of the Son!

Praise the Lord for his Two-Fold Purpose: Prophecy and Mystery!

Now watch Interplanner and company screw this post up :bang:

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
you are clearly trying to make one Gospel and one people out of this which is great. You are almost there.

The thing about the 'mansions' being different offices and buildings (prob in the catch-all millenium) is not the idea at all.

All Scripture is for all mankind. His other sheep. Stop using his "other sheep" about that Israel v Jacob nonsense, and use it about the nations as the OT overwhelmingly does (rom 9-11, 15). So Jn 20 is not "for Israel" any less than it is for anyone on earth.

"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
Is 49

 

[Interplanner]

I got away from this order. #6 was on the 'people' of Mt 21.

It would be good to review all together at once.

1, Rom 11 is prodding not prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is the true RT issue
3, Isaiah shifted David's promises
4, Acts 26 is the true shape of Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of the parable of the vineyard are all who are active in the Gospel's mission; there is no such thing as knowing the Gospel without knowing it in a missionally-active way
6, Rom 2 on the judgement of God surprised Jews at the time
7, 2 Pet 3 is the best, longest passage on the 2nd coming
8, The NT does not mix 1st century Judean events with the future worldwide judgement day
9, The apostles spent most of their exposition on Ps 2, 16 and 110, not Ps 83, Ez 38 and Zech 14
10, "Saved" in Rom 11 (Isaiah) is justification from sin

 

[Hawkins]

The big picture is,

Romans 2:16 says that the gentiles are not judged by the same set of law given to the Jews. Although the gentiles don't have the law (Mosaic Law), they will still be judged by law but another set of Law which is written in their hearts.

To be more precise, God needs only one set of Law to be used on the Judgment Day which is reserved for the unsaved. The saved will be saved though God's Grace displayed in the various covenants.

Basically, the gentiles will be saved by God's Grace through Christ if they are deemed qualified by their efforts in observing the Law written in their hearts. The Jews will be saved by God's Grace through Jesus Christ if they are deemed qualified by their efforts in observing the Law given by Moses. The rest will be deemed unqualified by the covenants granted and thus will be judged by God's universal set of Law which Adam broke in Eden. The above applies to all mankind along the history of humanity.

The best of the best, of course is to accept the New Covenant brought us by Jesus Himself.


That being said.


The Grace part (in the form of redemption by faith and/or promises) will not be done away in successive covenants as Grace is Christ.

Even the Law part can be accumulative in terms of observing, it however may be abolished in perspective of the final judgment.

Has God written the moral code to the Jews? Yes He did. He did the same to all mankind in a previous covenant possibly the one with Noah. Once the Jews got the newer covenant from Moses, from the perspective of the final judgment, the Jews will be judged by how well they observe the Mosaic Law. Do they need to follow their conscience (Law in heart) to act as the gentiles do? Yes they definitely need to follow what their conscience says to act even though, unlike the gentiles, they are not judged that way.

By applying the same token, when we acquired the New Covenant which says that we are going to be saved by faith (i.e., Grace only through Christ), do we gentiles need to follow our conscience (Law in heart) to act? Yes, of course. You still need to act according to the moral code given, you are no longer judged that way though.

Do the Jews need to follow Mosaic Law once they believe in Christ? They can, however they can also give up Mosaic Law as a whole. Giving up Mosaic Law however will make them a gentile instead of a Jew from a legal/lawful point of view. If they give up Mosaic Law as a whole, they are thus the gentiles who need to follow the Law in Heart/self conscience/moral code to act.

In a nutshell, Grace (faith) picks up from where you failed the Law, it by no means says that you can sin in whatever way you like.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The OT is full of a coming mission to the nations. I don't know what they would call it. From many prophecies it sounded very much like the nations would be joined to Israel or part of it, for ex., Is 61-63.

But Judaism thought this would happen by the nations obedience to the Law. Instead Eph 3:6 says it was true through the Gospel, through Christ's work.

I doubt very much that Peter was as worried by questions about the rapture as you are. It is hardly mentioned in the NT. The only question it answers is what happens to believers alive on the last day of time.

Check your last line above: why would God's wrath be poured out on a repentant world?

That is because Pete was not Gentile, now we SEE Israel is being gathered WHY? for the same purpose that the church will be raptured, to separate Israel from the wrath of God.

In fact God's wrath will come upon those nations that come up with Antichrist against Israel.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Agreed as to your first statement, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Not as to your 2nd one - Israel was/is also a church, Exodus 12: 2; Acts 7:38; Joel 2: 16-17.

John 14 is not referring to the Rapture - earlier, He had identified the Father's house as the Temple, John 2:15-16.

The "many mansions" refers to positions of office as well as to chambers in the Temple, 1 Kings 6: 2, 5; 2 Kings 23:11, 12; 1 Chronicles 9:26.

The Lord told the 12 that in light of His Words to them in Matthew 19:28.

As to your last statement; I believe that you meant Peter and company, but also that you meant "on an unrepentant world."

And again, you are confusing churches, congregations, or assemblies - there is that "church" that "was in the wilderness under Moses," Acts 7:38; Hebrews 3:14-16.

Note that that together Acts 7:38 and that passage in Hebrews mention Israel's believing remnant among that "Church."

Note also the confession that what the Lord said in Matthew 16:16 is based on, and who He said that to - to Peter - in light of Matthew 19:28.

Matthew 16:

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What is verse 16's "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" a reference to?

John 1:

45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

The Matthew 16 "church" is being built on the confession of Israelites that Jesus is the Prophesied Christ; the Son of God: the King of Israel.

As Jerry often rightly points out [that I so love to give him a hard time about]; their belief on Jesus being the Christ; their Prophesied Messiah, the Son of God: The King of Israel, saves them.

Acts 4:

8. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9. If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10. Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man
stand here before you whole.
11. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I'll close with what John wrote about this required belief; specific to Israel - John 20:

30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

In short, that is what an Israelite had to believe - that Jesus of Nazareth was/is their Prophesied Christ, the Son of God: the King of Israel!

Not to us, nor about us, but for us, thus; boy can we rejoice in their portion with them - because theirs is also the Glory of the Son!

Praise the Lord for his Two-Fold Purpose: Prophecy and Mystery!

Now watch Interplanner and company screw this post up :bang:

I also believe the saved Jews are the body of Christ, I also believe the Jews are a people set aside by God for His purpose to be revealed at the last time.

 

[Interplanner]

Totton,
define last time.
define what needs to be revealed. How can you get through Heb 1:1-2:4 and the opening of Jude, and think there is anything yet to say?

Did I mention that one of those references was Hebrews?

 

[Danoh]

The big picture is,

Romans 2:16 says that the gentiles are not judged by the same set of law given to the Jews. Although the gentiles don't have the law (Mosaic Law), they will still be judged by law but another set of Law which is written in their hearts.

To be more precise, God needs only one set of Law to be used on the Judgment Day which is reserved for the unsaved. The saved will be saved though God's Grace displayed in the various covenants.

Basically, the gentiles will be saved by God's Grace through Christ if they are deemed qualified by their efforts in observing the Law written in their hearts. The Jews will be saved by God's Grace through Jesus Christ if they are deemed qualified by their efforts in observing the Law given by Moses. The rest will be deemed unqualified by the covenants granted and thus will be judged by God's universal set of Law which Adam broke in Eden. The above applies to all mankind along the history of humanity.

The best of the best, of course is to accept the New Covenant brought us by Jesus Himself.


That being said.


The Grace part (in the form of redemption by faith and/or promises) will not be done away in successive covenants as Grace is Christ.

Even the Law part can be accumulative in terms of observing, it however may be abolished in perspective of the final judgment.

Has God written the moral code to the Jews? Yes He did. He did the same to all mankind in a previous covenant possibly the one with Noah. Once the Jews got the newer covenant from Moses, from the perspective of the final judgment, the Jews will be judged by how well they observe the Mosaic Law. Do they need to follow their conscience (Law in heart) to act as the gentiles do? Yes they definitely need to follow what their conscience says to act even though, unlike the gentiles, they are not judged that way.

By applying the same token, when we acquired the New Covenant which says that we are going to be saved by faith (i.e., Grace only through Christ), do we gentiles need to follow our conscience (Law in heart) to act? Yes, of course. You still need to act according to the moral code given, you are no longer judged that way though.

Do the Jews need to follow Mosaic Law once they believe in Christ? They can, however they can also give up Mosaic Law as a whole. Giving up Mosaic Law however will make them a gentile instead of a Jew from a legal/lawful point of view. If they give up Mosaic Law as a whole, they are thus the gentiles who need to follow the Law in Heart/self conscience/moral code to act.

In a nutshell, Grace (faith) picks up from where you failed the Law, it by no means says that you can sin in whatever way you like.

A thought...

Romans 1:18 thru Romans 3:20 are a history of God's dealings with man and man's absolute failure in same, prior to what Paul then introduces in Romans 3:21 forward - "the righteousness of God without the law..."

First he lays out why God turned from the Gentile, then he deals with the issue of how that the Jew was proven no better despite his having had the owner's manual, so to speak.

He is laying out how that God had all along been proving all mankind "under sin" by their own hand.

That out of the way, he then begins to go into God's solution in His Son!

Some powerful reading there in the Word!

For when Luther finally got this "righteousness of God" distinction straightened out; which he asserted he first came to see when he finally understood Romans 1:17 properly, just a few years after that that the brother lit up all Europe with its truth!

In short "after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Cor. 1:21.

 

[Interplanner]

That is because Pete was not Gentile, now we SEE Israel is being gathered WHY? for the same purpose that the church will be raptured, to separate Israel from the wrath of God.

In fact God's wrath will come upon those nations that come up with Antichrist against Israel.

why do people keep saying Israel will be spared and then happily quote Zech passage about half the city being destroyed and the women raped before God comes and fights the nations? great sparing huh?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Totton,
define last time.
define what needs to be revealed. How can you get through Heb 1:1-2:4 and the opening of Jude, and think there is anything yet to say?

Did I mention that one of those references was Hebrews?

You absolutely have to accept that Paul had more light on eschatological matters than the other possuls, it is on this very subject that Pete wrote "there be many things [in Paul's letters] hard to be understood." He was speaking about the thousand years. In fact John's Revelations can be aligned with Paul whereas Peter's understanding and Hebrews do not quite align...Hebrews was never written by Paul.

This is simply because the Jews did not see that Israel was to be laid aside until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, there was to be a parenthesis, a gap.

Once this gap period is fulfilled then God will take on Israel once more and the Jewish understanding will be back, bang on target.

During this time of parenthesis with the Joos laid aside, the church is God's Israel among the nations ....to zero on the very end times of the end times, for it does have that double meaning. Before God can pour His wrath upon a Christ rejecting world, He has to get His church out from among the nations......only Paul understood the catching up of the church.

Now look here when God pours out His wrath it will be on all the nations that come up against Israel, it is not the final consummation of all things as the Joos understood, the loud bangs and fervent heat etc. It is the consummation of this age....there is yet an age to come, the Millennium, the 1,000 years in which the saints will reign with Christ....for He must reign until God has put all things under His feet...the last enemy to be defeated is death.

Satan [who during the 1,000 years] will be bound] will be loosed one more time, then will come the final battle and all the loud bangs and melting away of the firmanent etc....just as the Jews always expect.

Then comes the general resurrection and the judgement

Then God will create a new heavens and a new earth

 

[Interplanner]

You absolutely have to accept that Paul had more light on eschatological matters than the other possuls, it is on this very subject that Pete wrote "there be many things [in Paul's letters] hard to be understood." He was speaking about the thousand years. In fact John's Revelations can be aligned with Paul whereas Peter's understanding and Hebrews do not quite align...Hebrews was never written by Paul.

This is simply because the Jews did not see that Israel was to be laid aside until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, there was to be a parenthesis, a gap.

Once this gap period is fulfilled then God will take on Israel once more and the Jewish understanding will be back, bang on target.

During this time of parenthesis with the Joos laid aside, the church is God's Israel among the nations ....to zero on the very end times of the end times, for it does have that double meaning. Before God can pour His wrath upon a Christ rejecting world, He has to get His church out from among the nations......only Paul understood the catching up of the church.

Now look here when God pours out His wrath it will be on all the nations that come up against Israel, it is not the final consummation of all things as the Joos understood, the loud bangs and fervent heat etc. It is the consummation of this age....there is yet an age to come, the Millennium, the 1,000 years in which the saints will reign with Christ....for He must reign until God has put all things under His feet...the last enemy to be defeated is death.

Satan [who during the 1,000 years] will be bound] will be loosed one more time, then will come the final battle and all the loud bangs and melting away of the firmanent etc....just as the Jews always expect.

Then comes the general resurrection and the judgement

Then God will create a new heavens and a new earth

Lol: possuls. That's a new one!

Peter was not talking about the millenium. He was saying that the delay could be very long, by God's grace toward mankind. The delay is the Mt24:29 delay. It originally says that the end of the world would be right after the events that took place in Judea in that generation. But a delay was allowed.

The NT never speaks of a parenthesis or any need to do anything further with Israel. Rom 11 is entirely resolved in the present. The quote from Isaiah is present (that means historic for Paul; it's already taking place). The "Israel" that is to be "saved" (justified from sins, not a restoration of a theocracy) is ongoing. He does not mean the state or ethnos he grew up in. He means the one that is by faith and that includes Gentiles already. v30 says all of God's dealings on these things are in and through Christ. There is no more dealing with one ethnos one way and another another way. That is why v32's doxology says "To whom is God a debtor of anything?" No one.

The NT is emphatic on the passages dealing with the promises to the fathers that they are fulfilled as rendered in Christ. Rom 3, 4, Eph 2, 3, Acts 13's sermon, Acts 26's presentation, Hebrews (all), 2 Cor 1, 3-5, Gal 3-4. It cannot be missed except by people trained in systems not to read the NT clearly.

Christ is enthroned, Acts 1, 2, 3, Eph 1-2. But we do not see everything subject to him.

re the millenium of Rev 20, you'll notice that there is nothing Judaic about it. And it ends in a short rebellion. It is not wise to start any doctrine from the Rev because of the type of writing that it is. You must start from the letters.

Yes, there is NHNE, but Christ is already that creation, 2 Cor 5, Gal 6. That's why in the Rev 21, there is no (Judaic) temple because God/Christ is the temple and the sun.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Lol: possuls. That's a new one!

Peter was not talking about the millenium. He was saying that the delay could be very long, by God's grace toward mankind. The delay is the Mt24:29 delay. It originally says that the end of the world would be right after the events that took place in Judea in that generation. But a delay was allowed.

The NT never speaks of a parenthesis or any need to do anything further with Israel. Rom 11 is entirely resolved in the present. The quote from Isaiah is present (that means historic for Paul; it's already taking place). The "Israel" that is to be "saved" (justified from sins, not a restoration of a theocracy) is ongoing. He does not mean the state or ethnos he grew up in. He means the one that is by faith and that includes Gentiles already. v30 says all of God's dealings on these things are in and through Christ. There is no more dealing with one ethnos one way and another another way. That is why v32's doxology says "To whom is God a debtor of anything?" No one.

The NT is emphatic on the passages dealing with the promises to the fathers that they are fulfilled as rendered in Christ. Rom 3, 4, Eph 2, 3, Acts 13's sermon, Acts 26's presentation, Hebrews (all), 2 Cor 1, 3-5, Gal 3-4. It cannot be missed except by people trained in systems not to read the NT clearly.

Christ is enthroned, Acts 1, 2, 3, Eph 1-2. But we do not see everything subject to him.

re the millenium of Rev 20, you'll notice that there is nothing Judaic about it. And it ends in a short rebellion. It is not wise to start any doctrine from the Rev because of the type of writing that it is. You must start from the letters.

Yes, there is NHNE, but Christ is already that creation, 2 Cor 5, Gal 6. That's why in the Rev 21, there is no (Judaic) temple because God/Christ is the temple and the sun.

There are 2 keys to this 1. Parenthesis 2. the 1,000 year reign.

If you DO believe in those doctrines you see them EVERYWHERE in Paul's letters, if you do not believe in them you see them nowhere at all. Paul's letters change from being sublime and mystic to being factual if you believe in the Mill, I mean Ephesians and Colossians

I cain't give you a mindset. I can show you that there is another age to come.

Isaiah speaks about the latter days how that Israel will be the highest mountain e.g. the greatest nation, that there would be worldwide righteousness, peace and prosperity...nations will beat their swords into plowshares etc.

But Jesus describes the end of the age quite differently, He said there would be war, famine, natural disaster...right up to the time of His appearing.

Again Paul says that God's plan for the fullness of time is to reconcile ALL things not only in heaven but on earth to Himself through Christ.

You see that Paul agrees with Isaiah.....

Now obviously Jesus cannot be wrong and the only solution can be that His return signals the end of the age...not the end of the world.

There is another age to come.

This is what I mean about Paul...

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. for the creation was subjected to futility not of it's own will but by the will of Him who subjected it in hope.

Because the creation itself will be set free from it's bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the creation has been groaning in travail together until now....and not only creation but we ourselves who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait the adoption of sons, the redemption of our bodies.

You see then that the curse is to be lifted from creation, not heaven, heaven was never in bondage to decay. When Paul talks about travail that is pregnancy talk, that is new birth talk and he is saying it in relation to the creation.

 

[Totton Linnet]

As for Israel being laid aside Paul totally teaches it, it is gunna happen in Acts in Romans it has happened...until the Gentiles are brought in. That is what the Lord taught in the "little apocalypses" saying "Jerusalem would be trampled down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be complete"


But those branches which have been graffed out will be graffed back in, Israels demise has meant blessing for the world their acceptance will be life from the dead.

I disagree with MAD that this includes the Jewish church...they were not graffed out. It is disobedient Israel which is to be restored, the Christ rejecting Israel.

The hardening which has come upon them is not permanent.

 

[Interplanner]

In Acts? it is taught in Acts? Have you read ch 13, 26, 28?

In Romans you probably mean the end of 11. It is not what it is saying. The whole chapter is not to be read as prediction but as spurring them to be in his mission (see the middle where he says so).

The two "until" passages (Lk 21 and "you will not see me ... until...") are not enough and not strong enough to support such a doctrine. There is no clear statement about things coming afterward. It is simply saying (in Lk 21) Jerusalem will be a mess for the duration of the Gentile period. In Mt 23, it is saying the people who sing that Psalm about Jesus will see him, the Christ. In Rom 11, the Until means that the partial hardening will be there (like it has in the past) to the end of time. That's because God is not working with entire ethnos. He never has. Israel at the time of the 1st century thought He had, but it is mistaken thinking on their part. See Gal 3:17. That verse is about 1st century Judaism's replacments of this and that.