michaelvpardo
Well-Known Member
Justaname,
For a brief moment I forsook you,
But with great compassion I will gather you.
8 “In an outburst of anger
I hid My face from you for a moment,
But with everlasting lovingkindness I will have compassion on you,”
Says the Lord your Redeemer.
Yeah no mention of wrath here. This is taken from the NASB. In fact it mentions a gathering, or maybe rapture?
Thanks for bringing this translation to my attention, because it helps to prove a point. I have a printed copy of this particular translation which was used at a local church that I attended together with my wife. My understanding was that the NASB is a very accurate translation, but like all translations there appears to be a bent toward a favored doctrine, in this case the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture. According to Strong's concordance the Hebrew word "qetseph" (Strong's # 7110) means a "splinter (as chipped off): figuratively used to mean "rage or strife: - foam, indignation, x sore, wrath." The translators chose to soften the translation to "outburst of anger" (coincidentally the human definition of wrath) to remove the appearance that God would demonstrate wrath against His own people, yet this clearly denies what the scripture plainly says with respect to Israel in it's apostasy. In this translation the translators have chosen to give the Almighty judge of all creation the characteristics of human wrathfulness, as in the idea that God demonstrates outbursts of anger, as opposed to righteous judgment. In this case, it would appear that the NASB is a terribly poor translation, rather than a good one, but this is to be expected when you start from a false doctrinal premise, e.g. that God is like us and acts the way that humans do. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." God does not resemble His creation, but rather we are intended to reflect His nature. Jesus, as the perfect human displaying the attributes of God, demonstrated what might be called an outburst of anger when He turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, when cleansing the "Father's house" of leaven in preparation for the passover, but this wasn't really an outburst so much as a demonstration of "zeal" for His "Father's house". God does not have outbursts of anger, but does display godly wrath. The outpouring of the wrath of God is an act of justice on His part, not an emotional outburst.
I think that people get confused because they understand correctly that Jesus suffered the wrath of God in our place, as the propitiation of our sin, but the physical suffering of Christ on the cross was not the wrath that we are spared from. Many people, including Christians have had to suffer physical tortures as bad as or worse than those suffered by Christ. Many other men were crucified, flayed, beaten and abused, many tortured to the point of begging for death (and sometimes at the hands of religious men) prior to being hung, beheaded, burnt at the stake, etc. No, there was an element to Jesus' sufferings that were eternal and beyond our comprehension, which paid a price for our eternal redemption, but physical suffering in this life is by no means the extent of God's wrath against sin or there would be no hell. The enormity of the physical sufferings of Christ in our perception is that He was more than a man, but the holy One, and beloved Son of God, completely innocent of wrong doing, while every other man typically is guilty of something, and under the standard of God's law worthy of the punishment of death.
There is no question that God will gather His people together in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, and the gathering of His church is associated with the restoration of Israel. The scripture says that Israel is to inherit the gentile nations. Who do you think that inheritance refers to? If the antichrist and all who have received his mark and consumed at the return of Christ, what gentile nations does Israel Inherit? Clearly the church doesn't inherit Israel, and who else is left? Don't think that inheritance in the text is any kind of a bad thing. The inheritance of the Lord is all creation and the inheritance of the priesthood is their God.
Consider Noah, he wasn't removed from the wrath of God, but was protected through the judgment against all flesh together with his family and all the animals that entered the ark. No matter how bad things might get upon the earth, the Lord is able to bring His people through them. Suppose for a moment that you were present when this thing like a great mountain slammed into the earth. If you were anywhere near the impact, you would die pretty much instantly, and if that were the case, you would as part of His body, find yourself instantly in the presence of Christ. Would you have suffered wrath or been delivered from it? Whats more, if God could deliver Daniel's three friends from the midst of a fire hot enough to kill the men who threw them into it, without even the least bit of a trace of smoke on their clothes, don't you thing He could keep you intact through any peril?
Flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God, but an unbeliever standing next to you when that mountain crashed into the earth would not be at the end of his or her troubles. I don't want to suffer pain or tribulation, nor do I want to see others suffer the same, even if they are unsaved people. Would God be unjust to make me watch people suffer wrath, especially considering that I haven't been faithful to do all that I can to deliver those people from destruction? Would God be unjust to let me suffer hunger when I've lived a life of relative comfort and have been well fed, but haven't done all I could to provide for others with need? While I've known people who've devoted all their livelihood and means to missionary work and the provision of those in need, you don't find many "mother Theresas" in the western world, or the eastern for that matter. If there were a perfect church perhaps the Lord would remove them before the times of the tribulation or at least prior to the persecutions to come, but where is that perfect church? The Lord does say to the church of Philadelphia (and thereby to all the churches) "Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those that dwell on the earth." While this could be speaking to the event of the rapture, that interpretation doesn't make a great deal of sense. Consider the expression, "the word of My perseverance." This suggests that the Philadelphian church had to perservere under some significant pressure. Do you think that refers to perservering under the pressure of being called names by the media, or being forced to pay taxes for abortion, or being fired for refusing to perform one? These things could be called unkind and unjust, but don't really stack up against the kind of persecution that the early church faced, e.g. being stoned to death, set on fire, fed to wild beasts for sport, etc. I don't mean to suggest that we have to suffer those things to be faithful, but why would God deliver us from all such things when those who suffered genuine persecutions for their faith are called "worthy" to have been chosen for them and to receive special crowns for their martyrdom?
The pretribulation rapture doctrine just doesn't stand up to the test of the entire counsel of God. It requires two completely different "elect" peoples, two different "chosen" peoples, two different "churches" (the OT "congregation" is just a different word for "church") two different brides for God, and multiple occurences of the 1st resurrection, or resurrection of the just. When the Apostle Paul speaks about the restoration of Apostate Israel, he doesn't refer to them as a seperate entity from the church and why should he? They will enter into the covenant of peace which we already have in Christ.
If I were to die of a plague, or famine, or war, or any of the evils that are to come upon the earth, I trust that I would find myself immediately in God's presence, so wouldn't I have been kept from the hour of trial to come upon the whole earth? Some say that only the good die young, as though that were a bad thing, but typically in this world, the longer you live, the more evil you experience and the more sin that you end up committing. If you know the Lord, death can be more than a mercy, even as the Apostle said, to live is Christ (for those who are in Him) and to die is gain. We serve the Lord in this world and in the next, but most people never have the option of either one. I could understand the doctrine of a pretribulation rapture if it were for the less than faithful church, or mediocre church, but this isn't what Christ says to His churches. A weight of glory comes from a weight of suffering. The scripture actually says of the church that we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.
The notion that God would suddenly say, "All you guys have been exceptionally faithful in your professions, avocations, occupations, and declarations, so I'm just going to pull you out of the troubles that my multitudes that come out of the great tribulation will have to suffer," seems more than a little silly. When the book of the revelation talks about the plagues, the bowl judgments and all that, it says that men wouldn't repent of all their sorceries, idolatatries, murders, fornications, etc., so where does the great multitude that comes out of the great tribulation come from? The scripture says what it says. I'm not making these things up. The pretribulation rapture doctrine, appealing as it is, just doesn't work with the bulk of scripture. It fits every definition of isogetic interpretation rather than exogetic interpretation, and has all the ear marks of cultic teaching, whether it's been accepted by mainstream evangelicalism or not. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. As you demonstrated with the translation you provided, this "non essential" doctrine actually contaminates the written word by causing translators with preconceptions to water down the truth in order to make it more palatable to our anemic form of modern christianity.
For a brief moment I forsook you,
But with great compassion I will gather you.
8 “In an outburst of anger
I hid My face from you for a moment,
But with everlasting lovingkindness I will have compassion on you,”
Says the Lord your Redeemer.
Yeah no mention of wrath here. This is taken from the NASB. In fact it mentions a gathering, or maybe rapture?
Thanks for bringing this translation to my attention, because it helps to prove a point. I have a printed copy of this particular translation which was used at a local church that I attended together with my wife. My understanding was that the NASB is a very accurate translation, but like all translations there appears to be a bent toward a favored doctrine, in this case the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture. According to Strong's concordance the Hebrew word "qetseph" (Strong's # 7110) means a "splinter (as chipped off): figuratively used to mean "rage or strife: - foam, indignation, x sore, wrath." The translators chose to soften the translation to "outburst of anger" (coincidentally the human definition of wrath) to remove the appearance that God would demonstrate wrath against His own people, yet this clearly denies what the scripture plainly says with respect to Israel in it's apostasy. In this translation the translators have chosen to give the Almighty judge of all creation the characteristics of human wrathfulness, as in the idea that God demonstrates outbursts of anger, as opposed to righteous judgment. In this case, it would appear that the NASB is a terribly poor translation, rather than a good one, but this is to be expected when you start from a false doctrinal premise, e.g. that God is like us and acts the way that humans do. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." God does not resemble His creation, but rather we are intended to reflect His nature. Jesus, as the perfect human displaying the attributes of God, demonstrated what might be called an outburst of anger when He turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, when cleansing the "Father's house" of leaven in preparation for the passover, but this wasn't really an outburst so much as a demonstration of "zeal" for His "Father's house". God does not have outbursts of anger, but does display godly wrath. The outpouring of the wrath of God is an act of justice on His part, not an emotional outburst.
I think that people get confused because they understand correctly that Jesus suffered the wrath of God in our place, as the propitiation of our sin, but the physical suffering of Christ on the cross was not the wrath that we are spared from. Many people, including Christians have had to suffer physical tortures as bad as or worse than those suffered by Christ. Many other men were crucified, flayed, beaten and abused, many tortured to the point of begging for death (and sometimes at the hands of religious men) prior to being hung, beheaded, burnt at the stake, etc. No, there was an element to Jesus' sufferings that were eternal and beyond our comprehension, which paid a price for our eternal redemption, but physical suffering in this life is by no means the extent of God's wrath against sin or there would be no hell. The enormity of the physical sufferings of Christ in our perception is that He was more than a man, but the holy One, and beloved Son of God, completely innocent of wrong doing, while every other man typically is guilty of something, and under the standard of God's law worthy of the punishment of death.
There is no question that God will gather His people together in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, and the gathering of His church is associated with the restoration of Israel. The scripture says that Israel is to inherit the gentile nations. Who do you think that inheritance refers to? If the antichrist and all who have received his mark and consumed at the return of Christ, what gentile nations does Israel Inherit? Clearly the church doesn't inherit Israel, and who else is left? Don't think that inheritance in the text is any kind of a bad thing. The inheritance of the Lord is all creation and the inheritance of the priesthood is their God.
Consider Noah, he wasn't removed from the wrath of God, but was protected through the judgment against all flesh together with his family and all the animals that entered the ark. No matter how bad things might get upon the earth, the Lord is able to bring His people through them. Suppose for a moment that you were present when this thing like a great mountain slammed into the earth. If you were anywhere near the impact, you would die pretty much instantly, and if that were the case, you would as part of His body, find yourself instantly in the presence of Christ. Would you have suffered wrath or been delivered from it? Whats more, if God could deliver Daniel's three friends from the midst of a fire hot enough to kill the men who threw them into it, without even the least bit of a trace of smoke on their clothes, don't you thing He could keep you intact through any peril?
Flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God, but an unbeliever standing next to you when that mountain crashed into the earth would not be at the end of his or her troubles. I don't want to suffer pain or tribulation, nor do I want to see others suffer the same, even if they are unsaved people. Would God be unjust to make me watch people suffer wrath, especially considering that I haven't been faithful to do all that I can to deliver those people from destruction? Would God be unjust to let me suffer hunger when I've lived a life of relative comfort and have been well fed, but haven't done all I could to provide for others with need? While I've known people who've devoted all their livelihood and means to missionary work and the provision of those in need, you don't find many "mother Theresas" in the western world, or the eastern for that matter. If there were a perfect church perhaps the Lord would remove them before the times of the tribulation or at least prior to the persecutions to come, but where is that perfect church? The Lord does say to the church of Philadelphia (and thereby to all the churches) "Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those that dwell on the earth." While this could be speaking to the event of the rapture, that interpretation doesn't make a great deal of sense. Consider the expression, "the word of My perseverance." This suggests that the Philadelphian church had to perservere under some significant pressure. Do you think that refers to perservering under the pressure of being called names by the media, or being forced to pay taxes for abortion, or being fired for refusing to perform one? These things could be called unkind and unjust, but don't really stack up against the kind of persecution that the early church faced, e.g. being stoned to death, set on fire, fed to wild beasts for sport, etc. I don't mean to suggest that we have to suffer those things to be faithful, but why would God deliver us from all such things when those who suffered genuine persecutions for their faith are called "worthy" to have been chosen for them and to receive special crowns for their martyrdom?
The pretribulation rapture doctrine just doesn't stand up to the test of the entire counsel of God. It requires two completely different "elect" peoples, two different "chosen" peoples, two different "churches" (the OT "congregation" is just a different word for "church") two different brides for God, and multiple occurences of the 1st resurrection, or resurrection of the just. When the Apostle Paul speaks about the restoration of Apostate Israel, he doesn't refer to them as a seperate entity from the church and why should he? They will enter into the covenant of peace which we already have in Christ.
If I were to die of a plague, or famine, or war, or any of the evils that are to come upon the earth, I trust that I would find myself immediately in God's presence, so wouldn't I have been kept from the hour of trial to come upon the whole earth? Some say that only the good die young, as though that were a bad thing, but typically in this world, the longer you live, the more evil you experience and the more sin that you end up committing. If you know the Lord, death can be more than a mercy, even as the Apostle said, to live is Christ (for those who are in Him) and to die is gain. We serve the Lord in this world and in the next, but most people never have the option of either one. I could understand the doctrine of a pretribulation rapture if it were for the less than faithful church, or mediocre church, but this isn't what Christ says to His churches. A weight of glory comes from a weight of suffering. The scripture actually says of the church that we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.
The notion that God would suddenly say, "All you guys have been exceptionally faithful in your professions, avocations, occupations, and declarations, so I'm just going to pull you out of the troubles that my multitudes that come out of the great tribulation will have to suffer," seems more than a little silly. When the book of the revelation talks about the plagues, the bowl judgments and all that, it says that men wouldn't repent of all their sorceries, idolatatries, murders, fornications, etc., so where does the great multitude that comes out of the great tribulation come from? The scripture says what it says. I'm not making these things up. The pretribulation rapture doctrine, appealing as it is, just doesn't work with the bulk of scripture. It fits every definition of isogetic interpretation rather than exogetic interpretation, and has all the ear marks of cultic teaching, whether it's been accepted by mainstream evangelicalism or not. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. As you demonstrated with the translation you provided, this "non essential" doctrine actually contaminates the written word by causing translators with preconceptions to water down the truth in order to make it more palatable to our anemic form of modern christianity.