Dispensationalism

[PinSeeker]

Adam was judicially guilty of disobeying God's command to not eat from that tree. No one after him and Eve had access to that tree, so no one could break that commandment.

I agree, but it's not about the sin itself, but the condition Adam and Eve fell into ~ death in sin ~ and we are all born into, even conceived, in, as David says in Psalm 51, cited above. So, in Adam, the federal head of the human race, we were all represented by him, and therefore in him from conception. Adam's unrighteousness was imputed to all his posterity ~ Eve was the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20) ~ from that time forward. There is no time in our lives, even from conception forward, that we are not in need of God's righteousness being imputed to us through Jesus ~ just like Abraham. Adam and Eve were made the same promise as Abraham in Genesis 3:15 ~ Jesus. And this is how we should understand Hebrews 1:1-2, that God spoke to our fathers in different ways ~ methods, but not in substance ~ and in these last days He has spoken to us by his Son ~ a different Method, for sure, but not Substance. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him. This was always true, not just from the time He said it forward.

The Law is good, but people are depraved, and therefore the Law is a ministry of condemnation and death, because all break it, and are lawbreakers.

Yes, but how it was to be acted on is different now than before Jesus's coming. The Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral Laws all pointed to Jesus, and salvation accomplished by Him. As Hebrews 7 says, "(the) former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God." This hope is Jesus. As for the Ceremonial and Civil Law itself (the Moral is still in effect), for the ancient Israelites it was a type/shadow of Jesus ~ by obeying it, they are really approaching God through Jesus ~ whereas, for us, because Jesus has come, it still has great purpose, but it now acts as a mirror which shows us our need for Jesus Himself in approaching God. But it always was, and is, and forever will be about Jesus, and this is the point. dispensationalism makes way more of the separation of the Old Testament and the New; there really is none. The Bible is the story of us. I mean, it's all about Jesus, as Jesus Himself said, of course. But God has one people, not two. One story, not two. What Paul says in Ephesians 1 is true for all His people of all times:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:3-14)​

There seems to me to be a substantial difference between the requirement of a daily and monthly and yearly and so on sacrifice, that must be perpetuated, to the once for all sacrifice of Christ.

Yes, there is, woodenly speaking, a difference, of course, but the former points to the latter, and the latter at all times has been and always will be the only real, effectual thing, and so the end effect is the same.

That God's message to us is different at times, that is the dispensationalism.

I understand, but that dispensationalism makes much more of this difference than really is the case is the issue. It's not dispensational in the sense that dispensationalism make it out to be.

And maybe this is the simplicity, the "new and better ways", those are the dispensational differences I'm pointing to.

But "dispensational" implies discreteness ~ as in, it used to be this, and then it was that, and then it was that, and then it was that ~ rather than cumulativeness ~ as in it was this, and then it was this plus that, and then it was this and that plus that... and now it's all of it encapsulated in one full Thing, even one Person ~ and that's the issue.

One does not negate the other.

Right, I agree... The lesser points to the greater, and the greater is the full, perfect, final iteration of the lesser.

Why should we think these prophecies will not be fulfilled as written? Both of them? Israel will live in their glorious kingdom in their promised land, AND the meek shall inherit the earth.

Well, I agree, but not in the sense of separation applied by dispensationalism. Yes, Israel ~ all of Israel, which includes both ethnic Jew and Gentile and is thus a multitude of people (numbering as the stars of heaven, the grains of sand on the seashore, as God told Abraham) from every tongue, tribe, and nation ~ will inherit the promised land, the whole earth, which is pointed to or symbolized in the Old Testament by the promised land Abraham was brought to.

I think we should not be so quick to discount the plain sayings of prophecy. No offense meant!

Right; none taken. But the plain sayings of prophecy ~ there is really more... much more... to them than it appears on its face.

Have you followed through the OT as Jacob/Israel is called Jacob in this place, and Israel in that place, and noted the surrounding contexts for these?

Well, yes, I've followed through, marks. But I don't make a hard separation between the OT and the NT and thus miss the greater context of God's Word. That's the point, essentially.

I think when God calls them Jacob, it's to make a particular point, the fleshy part of Israel.

I agree, but there's a greater context ~ or maybe Context, with a capital 'C' ~ that this dovetails into and should point us to.

1. Who do you think John is "seeing" in Revelation 7?
He saw the raptured church in heaven, and 144,000 Jewish males on the earth.

Well I didn't think that would be your answer... I agree in a sense... John's Revelation is a dream, marks, and not hard reality. It is symbolic and indicative of what the reality will be, but not hard reality itself. Do you believe only 144,000 men will be saved? Surely not. Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

2. Who is Israel? Remember what Paul said in Romans 2:28-29, Romans 11:25-26, and Galatians 3:28-29.
God's chosen people whom He brought from Egypt, the children of Jacob. Who is the "Israel of God" except those of Jacob who have believed? Isn't that what Paul teaches? The true Jew is spiritually circumcised.

Okay, well this seems a contradiction of your answer to question number 1 above. And frankly, it seems that your first sentence here, the declarative "God's chosen people whom He brought from Egypt, the children of Jacob" is contradicted by the remainder of your response, that "Who is the 'Israel of God' except those of Jacob who have believed? Isn't that what Paul teaches? The true Jew is spiritually circumcised". The former seems very limited, only applying to the Israelites of old, and the latter seems very expansive, inclusive of all of Israel, both Jew and Gentile, of Old Testament times as well as New, which I would agree with. Do you see what I'm saying?

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

4. Is that 144,000 number a hard, literal 144,000 people?
Was Jesus in the tomb 3 days? Were there 12 Apostles? How many are sealed on the forehead with the seal of the living God carried to them by an angel? How many does the Bible say? Should we believe it?

Ah... Well yes, 3 days, 12 Apostles, but you're basically saying that apples are... well I was about to say oranges, but I'm not sure that implies fully implies the incongruence of what you're saying here... I'm just going to say again that Revelation is an entirely different genre of literature than the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the rest of the New Testament (although there are some allusions to what is imaged in the gospels and epistles here and there for sure). John's Revelation can certainly be understood by everyone, and everyone can be blessed by it, as John himself says of his prophecy in Revelation 1:3. But... well, just to take John in particular, he would be the first to tell us that Revelation is not to be understood in a... well, in the face-value sense of a Dick-and-Jane first grade primer, but as a picture book, or even a fantasy novel with real-life implications, but not real life itself in the hard and fast, face value, one-to-one sense.

5. Are the 144,000 of Revelation 7:1-8 a different group from the great multitude from every tongue, tribe, and nation in Revelation 7:9-17?
The ones are seen in heaven as the others are seen on earth. The ones are from all nations, the other from a single nation. Isn't that, again, what the Bible itself says?

Well, the former is the same as the latter. That's what the Bible says. The 144,000 of verses 1-7 are indicative of the complete, complete completeness ~ yes, I know that is repetitive and seems to not make sense on its face, but it does; 144,000 is a symbolic number... 12 times 12 times 1000 ~ of the whole people of God, the great multitude from every tongue, tribe, and nation in verses 9-17. This Single Nation, the Israel of God, is represented in two different ways but symbolically first seven verses and fully fleshed out in the following eight verses. The same thing happens in Revelation 14:1-5, and Revelation 19:1-9... and in Revelation 20:4-6, the latter (Revelation 20:4-6 in the sense of coming to be, intimately similar to what Paul says in Ephesians 2, that "(we) are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the Cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, (is growing) into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

I realize that the reason we have these disagreements is because we read the Bible differently, and this discussion does demonstrate that fact.

That it does.

And if I'm to be blamed for holding to what it says, so be it.

<chuckle> Okay, well, right back at you, my friend. Every word.

However, Gentiles do not become Jews in Christ.

Not ethnic Jews, I agree. But Jews ~ true Jews of God. And that has not come to be just recently...

PinSeeker: And this is how all Israel will be saved. By "all Israel," marks, he means all believers, all those of God's Israel.

That's a tautology.
No, it's a clarification ~ made by Paul, and ultimately God, as He is really the Author of His Word ~ a fleshing out of who Israel really is, who all makes up God's Israel.

All the saved will be saved.

THAT is a tautology. Yes, of course, all saved will be saved. But it's also true, though ~ even we and all believers living now ~ are both saved and being saved. This is the "now-and-not-yet" aspect of the Gospel. As Paul says to the Ephesians, "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:4-7), and to the Philippians, "He Who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6). And you might know that in saying "whosoever/everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved," both John (in John 3:16) and Paul (in Romans 10:13) are referring directly to Joel 2:32, where Joel writes:

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh... ; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy... Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit... And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls" (Joel 2:28-32).​

This "whosoever," this "everyone," is not an unlimited number but a limited number ~ limited to those whom the LORD calls. Only the ones whom the LORD calls will call upon the name of the LORD. This is... not a tautology.

? lesser/greater?? You seem to be treating these prophecies as allegory first, and prophecy second.

No, but this is very often the come-back... Not at all. The term 'allegory' insinuates that there is some hidden meaning, and also that there is a one-to-one relationship between the two and that's not the case. The meaning is not hidden, and the relationships are for the most part one to many ~ and not merely future only.

I hold them to be prophecy pure and simple...

Yes, me, too... but, while not hard to understand, not so simple.

...and these things will happen.

Yes, and they've been happening since Jesus's ascension (at the end of the gospels and in Acts 1), and especially Pentecost (Acts 2).

If that's some shoddy second rate interpretation, I'll happily wear that also. I'll be the fool to believe it's true.

Well, I wouldn't call it "second-rate," just... And it seems to me you're not a fool by any stretch of the imagination. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1), right?

Some of these other things you've said, they even have their own places in the Bible, like the meek inheriting the earth. Let that passage say what it says, and this passage to say what it says.

Well, yes, it says what it says; with that I certainly agree...

Grace and peace to you, marks.

 

[marks]

Well, I wouldn't call it "second-rate," just...

I think at the end of it all, where I see facts, you see allegories, which you call, Higher meanings. Or call them something else. Only, the 144,000 Jewish Males, well, they aren't that, not really.

When I think something will be literally fulfilled, you think it will be fulfilled in some other way.

Adultery and lust, the dots are connected by Jesus Himself. What dot is connected to 144,000 Jewish males that shows us it is not so?

I'd ask you the same question I ask many people.

What If . . . God intended to communicate to us that at a certain time in history, 144,000 Jewish males would be sealed with the seal of God on their foreheads by an angel, IF that were what He intended to say . . . how would you suppose He would express that?

Why should we not suppose that this was exactly what God did?

You've written much, and as I have time I can respond, however, this is what it's going to come to. What I read literally you do not. I find this to be the common cause for disagreement over the Bible, for the most part.

Much love!

 

[ChristisGod]

I think at the end of it all, where I see facts, you see allegories, which you call, Higher meanings. Or call them something else. Only, the 144,000 Jewish Males, well, they aren't that, not really.

When I think something will be literally fulfilled, you think it will be fulfilled in some other way.

Adultery and lust, the dots are connected by Jesus Himself. What dot is connected to 144,000 Jewish males that shows us it is not so?

I'd ask you the same question I ask many people.

What If . . . God intended to communicate to us that at a certain time in history, 144,000 Jewish males would be sealed with the seal of God on their foreheads by an angel, IF that were what He intended to say . . . how would you suppose He would express that?

Why should we not suppose that this was exactly what God did?

You've written much, and as I have time I can respond, however, this is what it's going to come to. What I read literally you do not. I find this to be the common cause for disagreement over the Bible, for the most part.

Much love!

It boils down to the literal vs spiritual interpretation of scripture. I believe the other side errors on spiritualizing all of those literal and physical promises God made to Israel and the land .

 

[PinSeeker]

I think at the end of it all, where I see facts, you see allegories...

Characterizing what I see as "allegories" is not correct, marks. That's language is often used to tear down others' viewpoint and build their own up, and that's quite dishonest.

Only, the 144,000 Jewish Males, well, they aren't that, not really.

Well, you said that, not me. So is that literally true but not literally true? Or not true at all? Allegorical? Or... what? I'm kind of poking you here...

When I think something will be literally fulfilled, you think it will be fulfilled in some other way.

Yeah, "some other way," meaning not literal, right? No, not at all. It will be literally fulfilled, but that literal fulfillment is different ~ better, actually, even much, much better ~ than dispensationalists suppose it to be.

Adultery and lust, the dots are connected by Jesus Himself.

Agree; certainly, that's my point. But I think we're still not seeing eye to eye on that.

What dot is connected to 144,000 Jewish males that shows us it is not so?

Oh, the dot is certainly connected, but in a much greater way.

I'd ask you the same question I ask many people.

Ah yes, a question. Well good. And... uh-oh, at the same time...

What If . . . God intended to communicate to us that at a certain time in history, 144,000 Jewish males would be sealed with the seal of God on their foreheads by an angel, IF that were what He intended to say . . . how would you suppose He would express that?

<chuckle>

Why should we not suppose that this was exactly what God did?

I'm not asking anybody to suppose otherwise.

What I read literally you do not.

In your opinion. But that is not the case.

I find this to be the common cause for disagreement over the Bible, for the most part.

Fair enough. Yeah, it's really hard not to think the tearing down is intentional, so maybe this is a good time to stop. But, you can make that call.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

It boils down to the literal vs spiritual interpretation of scripture.

See, this is not a correct dichotomy, either, Christophany.

I believe the other side errors on spiritualizing all of those literal and physical promises God made to Israel and the land .

Not true at all. There is literally... See what I did there? "Literally?" See? See??? ...no disagreement about literal nature of any of God's promises to Israel or even the literal nature of Israel. But people will certainly continue to characterize it ~ mischaracterize it ~ as such. Ah, well, so it goes...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

What I said was really not about the sin itself, but to demonstrate in some way the lesser-to-greater ~ or immediate-to-ultimate, or even first-to-second/final ~ pattern throughout Scripture. How ever we put it, the latter does not "negate the other," as you say later in one of these immediately previous posts, but it is the fuller iteration of what was always true, even from the beginning.

Indeed, Jesus showed us how the command to not murder meant to not murder in any sense of the word, whether it be in you hand or your heart. Jesus said this, so we have Biblical Authority that this is so.

Let's look at 2 prophecies.

Ezekiel 39:25-29 KJV
25) Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;
26) After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.
27) When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;
28) Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.
29) Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

For me, this is a very specific prophecy. It presupposes the captivity of Jacob, which is well established in the Bible. Israel's captivity is being expelled from their promised land to be consigned to live in gentile lands, rules by gentiles.

A time will come when God will bring all of Jacob, and the whole house of Israel (2 names commonly used in Scripture for the Israelites, the children of Jacob, and the patriarchs), out of the gentile lands they were in. All will be returned, none left remaining. And further, God will pour out His Spirit upon them.

This prophecy is echoed in Ezekiel 36, Isaiah 59, Joel 3, there are many of these. And Jesus also prophesies the gathering of the chosen, which in His prophecy happens apart from the gathering of the gentiles for judgment, including both wicked and righteous. Again, just like in Joel 3, and the other parallel passages.

My understanding is that the primary intent of this passage is to communicate to an oppressed people, specifically God's chosen nation which He chose from among the others, that the day would come that God would restore them to their land, in salvation, rebirth, Jesus having fulfilled the Law on their behalf, and as they come to faith in Him, receiving the blessings of the covenant.

All directly prophesied, all intended by God to happen.

Considering the clarity and repetition of the prophecies, I'd be looking for something like we find in Revelation 12, "I saw another great sign in heaven, a great red dragon . . .", and, "that ancient serpent, the devil, and Satan". Where this is explained in what it means, just as Jesus explained adultery, and the angel explained the sign, and like that.

I'm not aware of passages like that, which show some "deeper" or "spiritual" meaning, and in particular that changes in any fashion the plain sense meaning. Something that tells me that God really has something different in mind, though He spoke this way.

You speak of a "fuller iteration", dual fulfillment prophecies, like that, I'd have to examine that passage by passage. There are some very interesting prophecies indeed! Even a dual fulfillment doesn't take away from the first fulfillment, or second fulfillment, however you look at it. I find these mostly subjective, people have different ideas about that, then there are "mountain peaks", different ways to look at prophecies.

Me, I'm simple, I like to identify the beginning of the prophecy, here, "thus saith YHWH", and the conclusion of the prophecy, here, "saith YHWH", just before turning to historic narrative. And once I've seen the bounds of the prophecy, to learn what it says, and believe what it says.

We can certainly make applications to ourselves, others, our churches, many things as the Spirit leads us, yet this passage remains a foretelling of coming events.

And in the same way, this one:

Matthew 25:31-33 KJV
31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

The time is plain. Jesus comes in power and great glory, He sends out the angels who gather the chosen, He takes His throne of glory, and the nations are gathered to be separated in judgment.

This is also prophesied just as plainly in Joel 3, the regathering of Israel - the nation chosen from among all the nations - followed by the gathering of gentile nations for judgment.

It seems to me that those who believe this to be a true and accurate foretelling of coming events likewise see dispensational differences in the Bible. And that by the same token, those who do not see dispensational differences likewise do not see this as a "mere" foretelling of coming events. I find it becomes a parable, either of the Great White Throne, or something else, but specifically not what it actually says.

I have a very difficult time understanding how such meaning to the Scriptures can be discarded? And I feel it IS discarded. Jesus did not speak this as a parable, it's as much prophetic as His coming in power and glory. Though of course there are those who say that was 70 AD, except every eye did not see Him, and Israel was not gathered. And others say, He comes when He comes into your heart, and others say still other things.

That to me is the problem when you leave aside the plain sense meaning of a passage like this. You have to supply what the real meaning is. Now, if you are looking at a passage that interprets this for you, then it's Biblical, like the example of the dragon. But if not, then it's what makes sense to you, really, your opinion. Again, no offense intended, only to identify the source. My opinions are only that. My opinions based on my perceptions and all that can be flawed. But I believe the Bible.

I believe the day will come when Jesus returns, and He will send out His angels, and first gather the chosen nation, and then gather the rest of the nations, and separate them righteous and wicked. And the kingdom age will begin.

We are in trouble! We both like to write! But then, you are what I'm looking for on a forum. Someone nice and smart who disagrees with me. We sharpen each other's countenance if we're doing it right! Much more than just getting smarter, becoming more whole.

Much love!

 

[marks]

But this, "...but His message is different, our Risen Lord..." I fully disagree with. Abraham did not fully understand like we do because we can look back on our risen Lord in person, whereas it was just an idea, so to speak, for Abraham. But he believed God in the same manner we do (or, vice-versa, since Abraham came way before us... .

This is again something that seems plain to me. God's Gospel to me was nothing about children, while to Abraham that's exactly what it was. Abraham believed God, His power to bring it about, and we believe God, and His power to save. But these are in fact different things.

We are baptized into the risen Christ, regenerated, alive in the Spirit. To Abraham was imputed righteousness. Nothing to sneeze at, don't misunderstand me. Being justified is what qualifies us to be born of God. But Abraham had to wait for that. Our covenant is built on better promises. Something else that is dispensational. Better, and therefore, different promises.

It's a wonderful connection that we are the children of faithful Abraham, the one promised to be the father of "many nations". And just the same, when God made Abraham the promise, that's what it was. It wasn't actually an idea for Abraham, it was a real concern for him. God's promise to Abraham had nothing to do with sin, righteousness, judgment, rebirth, forgiveness, it was that he would have countless children. That was the good news preached to Abraham, that God would not leave him childless, which was Abraham's fear.

Whether we can make applications, learn various spiritual truths, all these things are good, if in fact they are valid, just the same, that does not mean that God's promise to Abraham was as stated, and to us likewise, and all of these should be understood in their plain sense and wholely true.

Much love!

 

[marks]

So what you said here, though, speaks to my point, marks, although I still think that even in saying it, you're still missing it Yes, Hebrews 11, makes clear that we are all saved ~ all of us, in Old Testament times and New ~ in the same way... through faith, which, as Hebrews 11:1 says, is the assurance of what is hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Yes, Abraham believed God, and this was credited to him as righteousness (the assurance and the conviction came from outside of him ~ from God through the Holy Spirit ~ and the righteousness was not his own, but actually Jesus's and, yes, I agree, credited/imputed to him). This was his being born again. And the same thing happened to all the men and women of old mentioned in Hebrews 11, and the same thing happens to all of us ~ at God's times appointed (in the sense of Acts 13:48... as many as are appointed (by God; this is His purpose of election, expounded upon by Paul in Romans 9 through 11) believe.

Saved by faith, but the dispensing of that faith was different.

God took Abraham outside, directed him to look at the sky, Can you count the stars?

We receive the preaching of the cross.

But his faith was not rebirth, which is regeneration by baptism into Christ's death and burial to share His resurrection. It results in being born of God, His spirit child, a new creation, a being that did not exist before. We've left Adam's line of humanity and have been born into Jesus' line of humanity, a child of God. That did not happen before His death and resurrection.

Abraham received a judicial imputation of righteousness. We receive that same imputation, and also a new spirit life, that Abraham did not know.

The days are coming, the prophet wrote, that I will make a new covenant . . . a new heart . . . are coming, that is, not yet by that time.

If there is a spiritual significance to that passage that somehow means that the plain sense meaning isn't true, I'd reject it, and go for what the prophet said. Excepting of course if the Bible itself told me something differently.

The Vineyard in Isaiah is an example of that. It is allegorical of Israel, but then it's presented in such a manner, and is itself explained.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Characterizing what I see as "allegories" is not correct, marks. That's language is often used to tear down others' viewpoint and build their own up, and that's quite dishonest.

I mean it in this way,

allegory

1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
2. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby-Dick are allegories.
3. A symbolic representation.

Rather than looking at the narrative in the standard meanings of the terms used, to instead look at what those terms actually represent, such as "144,000" representing the fullness, Virgin males from each tribe representing the chaste bride of all nations, things like that, opposed to what I've been calling the "plain sense" view, where 144,000 can be counted to that number, and they are in fact Jewish virgin males. And I'm not saying you say these things, only to give an example.

Hopefully this will clarify my intention. I mean only to identify and contrast two different points of view.

You seem to be presenting "a literal fulfillment, but of what it really means, the 'spiritual', or 'allegorical' meaning being something better than it would seem, something showing God's grace and power to all peoples, and not just one small group."

Is that fair to say?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Well, you said that, not me. So is that literally true but not literally true? Or not true at all? Allegorical? Or... what? I'm kind of poking you here...

An angel will come from the east, and it will carry with it the Seal of the Living God. And with that seal, he shall seal 12,000 men from each of 12 Israelite tribes, men who have not yet had sex. And until they are sealed, the wind and such will be restrained from harming the earth. That's what it says, it makes perfect sense to me, and nothing changes anything it says. So far as I can find. There is nothing in the Bible that tells me this isn't so, and it references this group in other places. Why should I not believe it? Why should I not consider this an amazing example of God's power and love and grace? Just like all the others?



Much love!

 

[marks]

Yeah, "some other way," meaning not literal, right? No, not at all. It will be literally fulfilled, but that literal fulfillment is different ~ better, actually, even much, much better ~ than dispensationalists suppose it to be.

Personally, I find the things prophesied to be amazing and wonderful, so maybe we have different preferences. But mostly I'm in love with learning God's truth.

Show me from the Bible that the 144,000 are NOT exactly that. I'm open to anything! I've changed views on things, I don't think I understand every passage in the Bible. Show me from the Bible what it really means.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Fair enough. Yeah, it's really hard not to think the tearing down is intentional, so maybe this is a good time to stop. But, you can make that call.

I don't mean these things in a derogatory sense. I'm sorry if I've offended!

Much love!

 

[PinSeeker]

Indeed, Jesus showed us how the command to not murder meant to not murder in any sense of the word, whether it be in you hand or your heart.

Well, but His purpose was to show that the Law is much farther reaching than merely "the hand." He said, "You have heard..." but then "but I tell you..." you hear that, I know.

Let's look at 2 prophecies.

Okay...

Ezekiel 39:25-29 KJV
This prophecy is echoed in Ezekiel 36, Isaiah 59, Joel 3, there are many of these.
My understanding is that the primary intent of this passage is to communicate to an oppressed people, specifically God's chosen nation which He chose from among the others, that the day would come that God would restore them to their land, in salvation, rebirth, Jesus having fulfilled the Law on their behalf, and as they come to faith in Him, receiving the blessings of the covenant. All directly prophesied, all intended by God to happen.
Considering the clarity and repetition of the prophecies, I'd be looking for something like we find in Revelation 12, "I saw another great sign in heaven, a great red dragon . . .", and, "that ancient serpent, the devil, and Satan". Where this is explained in what it means, just as Jesus explained adultery, and the angel explained the sign, and like that.

I'm not aware of passages like that, which show some "deeper" or "spiritual" meaning, and in particular that changes in any fashion the plain sense meaning. Something that tells me that God really has something different in mind, though He spoke this way.

You speak of a "fuller iteration", dual fulfillment prophecies, like that, I'd have to examine that passage by passage. There are some very interesting prophecies indeed! Even a dual fulfillment doesn't take away from the first fulfillment, or second fulfillment, however you look at it. I find these mostly subjective, people have different ideas about that, then there are "mountain peaks", different ways to look at prophecies.

Me, I'm simple, I like to identify the beginning of the prophecy, here, "thus saith YHWH", and the conclusion of the prophecy, here, "saith YHWH", just before turning to historic narrative. And once I've seen the bounds of the prophecy, to learn what it says, and believe what it says.

We can certainly make applications to ourselves, others, our churches, many things as the Spirit leads us, yet this passage remains a foretelling of coming events.

And in the same way, this one:

Matthew 25:31-33 KJV
31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

The time is plain. Jesus comes in power and great glory, He sends out the angels who gather the chosen, He takes His throne of glory, and the nations are gathered to be separated in judgment.

This is also prophesied just as plainly in Joel 3, the regathering of Israel - the nation chosen from among all the nations - followed by the gathering of gentile nations for judgment.

It seems to me that those who believe this to be a true and accurate foretelling of coming events likewise see dispensational differences in the Bible. And that by the same token, those who do not see dispensational differences likewise do not see this as a "mere" foretelling of coming events. I find it becomes a parable, either of the Great White Throne, or something else, but specifically not what it actually says.

Sure. Well, Ezekiel's, Isaiah's, and Joel's prophecies were all pre-exilic. As such, their immediate fulfillment was the liberation of Israel from Babylon and their return to Israel and the rebuilding of the temple. The ultimate fulfillment is yet to come, and yes, is what will happen at the end of this age, when the Lord returns. Yes, that final Judgment is described by Jesus there in Matthew 25:31-33 is most certainly analogous ~ the same event ~ as what is described in Revelation 20:11-12. But marks, are we really sheep and goats? Well, as for you and me, sheep? Well, no, not literally. Right? But a plain reading of the text of Matthew 25:33... See, I'm with you on the plain reading thing, but maybe at least some of the plain readings are not what you suppose them to be, marks. I may be wrong about what you really think, marks, but I think you can't break free from the idea that God's Israel only consists of ethnic Jews. Maybe you can respond to that.

I have a very difficult time understanding how such meaning to the Scriptures can be discarded?

I'm not "discarding" anything.

And I feel it IS discarded.

Yes, I understand, but it is not. What I am saying, though, is that so often, people understand it only in its immediate sense and not its ultimate sense. Their understanding of it is too small; they inadvertently make it out to be something much smaller than it is.

Jesus did not speak this as a parable, it's as much prophetic as His coming in power and glory. Though of course there are those who say that was 70 AD, except every eye did not see Him, and Israel was not gathered. And others say, He comes when He comes into your heart, and others say still other things.

Do you discount what happened in 70 A.D.? Because I would say that was the immediate fulfillment of some of the things He said, but not the ultimate fulfillment, which is yet to come.

That to me is the problem when you leave aside the plain sense meaning of a passage like this.

I'm leaving aside nothing.

You have to supply what the real meaning is. Now, if you are looking at a passage that interprets this for you, then it's Biblical, like the example of the dragon. But if not, then it's what makes sense to you, really, your opinion. Again, no offense intended, only to identify the source. My opinions are only that. My opinions based on my perceptions and all that can be flawed. But I believe the Bible.

Hmmm, okay, well, I believe the Bible, too. Surely your not insinuating that I don't, or that I'm somehow adding something to it... I do, and I'm not.

I believe the day will come when Jesus returns, and He will send out His angels, and first gather the chosen nation, and then gather the rest of the nations, and separate them righteous and wicked. And the kingdom age will begin.

Sure. Agreed. But the kingdom is here now. Jesus Himself said that, you know... Just not in it's fullness.

We are in trouble! We both like to write!

HA! Yeah, agreed. Yeah I'm trying to get short, here. Not "short," as in ticked off, but short as in... we kind of need to cut this thing down. Again, I think one of, if not the main issue, is that you won't see the real promised land as greater than physical Israel and God's Israel as greater than merely ethnic Jews.

But then, you are what I'm looking for on a forum. Someone nice and smart who disagrees with me. We sharpen each other's countenance if we're doing it right! Much more than just getting smarter, becoming more whole.

Hm. Well thanks for the kind words. But you do want me to change my mind and agree with you, right? I mean, that's true of me, too... Well, not that this excuses us for being prideful, but we are yet sinners, after all...

Much love![/QUOTE]

 

[PinSeeker]

Personally, I find the things prophesied to be amazing and wonderful, so maybe we have different preferences. But mostly I'm in love with learning God's truth.

No, me, too, marks. I think, actually, the prophecies and promises are even more amazing and wonderful than you realize.

Show me from the Bible that the 144,000 are NOT exactly that. I'm open to anything! I've changed views on things, I don't think I understand every passage in the Bible. Show me from the Bible what it really means.

Well, you can just look at Revelation 7, which is what we were talking about. I said before, and I'll say again that the group of people in the first half of that chapter, verses 1-8 ~ seemingly 144,000 hard and fast, but that number is symbolic of a complete, complete, completeness, as I said before ~ are the same group of people in the second half, verses 9-17, the innumerable multitude from every tongue, tribe, and nation.

I don't mean these things in a derogatory sense. I'm sorry if I've offended!

Not really offended, but apology readily accepted, brother. Or sister...? Well, brother in the androgynous sense, at least...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

But marks, are we really sheep and goats? Well, as for you and me, sheep? Well, no, not literally. Right? But a plain reading of the text of Matthew 25:33...

These are details which I find illuminate these passages.

Matthew 25:32 KJV
32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Are we literal sheep? Literal goats? Of course not. But that should not be an objection, Jesus Himself said, "as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats". "As" signifies that these terms are in fact meant allegorically, that these are not actual sheep. But if you've ever seen a shepherd divide the herd you'll have the idea of what Jesus is doing with the people.

I may be wrong about what you really think, marks, but I think you can't break free from the idea that God's Israel only consists of ethnic Jews. Maybe you can respond to that.

Israel was chosen from among the other nations, and God made certain promises to that chosen nation. God attached some of those promises to a covenant between Him and that nation. Other promises He had made were simply given to them. Israel's side of that covenant was fulfilled on their behalf by Jesus, and God will fulfill His part when Israel, at a national level, receives Jesus, which will happen when He returns in power and glory, and that kingdom will be established. At that time, all living Israelites will be gathered to the promised land in salvation, to be the head of the nations.

The Body of Christ is neither a "new Israel", nor a "spiritual Israel", and is not joined to be a part of ethnic Israel.

Jews who in the present day receive Jesus cease to be nationally identified, there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ, and are counted in the body of Christ, in the same way that gentiles coming to God then were counted among Israel.

Jews when Jesus returns will continue to be nationally idendified, again, the head of the nations.

Hopefully this will clarify how I understand this.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Yes, that final Judgment is described by Jesus there in Matthew 25:31-33 is most certainly analogous ~ the same event ~ as what is described in Revelation 20:11-12.

I don't see how that can be true, unless you change what Jesus said to mean something other than the normal use of the language He employed. You'd need to be more specific about how you see these the same. I see many differences, that make them entirely different.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Do you discount what happened in 70 A.D.? Because I would say that was the immediate fulfillment of some of the things He said, but not the ultimate fulfillment, which is yet to come.

I compare to the prophecy.

Ezekiel prophesied a complete regathering to the promised land, with none left in other nations, and never again to be removed from the land. Has that happened before? I'm not aware of that. Populations have risen and fallen, but that total regathering hasn't happened. Has it?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Hmmm, okay, well, I believe the Bible, too. Surely your not insinuating that I don't, or that I'm somehow adding something to it... I do, and I'm not.

Showing preference for what I read clearly stated in the Bible, even if I have some idea that it should be different. I discard my "this makes sense to me" when I see it in conflict with the teachings of the Bible.

I'm not projecting that onto you.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Sure. Agreed. But the kingdom is here now. Jesus Himself said that, you know... Just not in it's fullness.

The kingdom I'm referring to is when Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem, Israel as the head of the nations. David will be king of Israel, and the 12 Apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. That kingdom has not happened yet.

Much love!