No scripture supports the Rapture

[Copperhead]

so, like the Pope?

Nope. Not even close.

 

[Copperhead]

20Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.

i guess this is the relevant verse, sorry

Don't see any relevance there either. Especially so when taken in context. Seems, in context, the entire passage is referring to false prophets of Israel and the people of Israel. I suppose if one comes from a position that the church has replaced Israel, one might see it that way. I see no relevance.

It actually probably is more relevant to this:

Isaiah 40:31 (NKJV) But those who wait on the Lord
Shall renew their strength;
They shall mount up with wings like eagles,
They shall run and not be weary,
They shall walk and not faint.

 

[bbyrd009]

I didn't name any names, so how do you automatically assume that they are not reputable?

i'm not, i am just asking who reputes them

They are not considered reputable by you

actually the exceptions, which are rare, i generally accept as reputable, so you kinda lost me there sorry

You make yourself out as the sole authority on scripture, and anyone that doesn't hold your view to the letter is wrong.

wth are you even talking about? I am not at all convinced that Ezekiel 13:20 is about rapture heresy. "Fly like birds" is interpreted in other ways, possibly even "ensnared like birds," which considering v 21 strikes me as more likely. But there are still the "charms" (now that you have performed the acceptable altar works, you are saved, forevermore) and "pillows" (which strike me as "rapture")

so the point is how one interprets these, and obviously they are not that clear, as they are disputed like pretty much every other word in the Bible, and i go to some lengths to make clear that i do not know, i say it all of the time. So have a nice day.

 

[bbyrd009]

I suppose if one comes from a position that the (C)hurch has replaced Israel

gee, ya think? "God with us?"

 

[bbyrd009]

I see no relevance.

then the question is--and it has not changed yet, in like 3 pages now--what is the relevance, do you think--iow no wrong answers here really, as no one knows for sure i guess--of "soft landings" and "pillows" and "hunt souls, to make them fly like birds?"

and with that i'll leave you the last word here, have a good day, gotta run

 

[Copperhead]

gee, ya think? "God with us?"

Well, the church replacing Israel by some shows a misunderstanding of who Israel is and what the church is. Both currently and their destinies. Israel has always had an earthly application with earthly promises. The church has a spiritual application with heavenly promises. If the Church has replaced Israel in the earthly application, then God is a liar.

His covenant with Abraham and to his physical descendants is unconditional. Israel could not forfeit the covenant God made with Abraham and his physical descendants if they wanted to. And some idea that other nations are now the true physical descendants is arrogance to the extreme and nonsense based on Middle Ages folklore.

Take a good look at the actual description of this in Genesis 15:7-21. A covenant in the ancient times was confirmed by the parties of the covenant cutting some sacrificial animals in two, then both parties walking between the cut pieces reciting the terms of the covenant. The reasoning was a blood oath that if either party violated the terms of the covenant, they were to be like these cut up animals. God put Abraham to sleep and passed between the pieces on His own. That showed that God Himself was confirming the covenant and it was taking upon Himself the full burden of maintaining the covenant.

If the covenant is no longer valid, and Israel has no right to the covenant and it now belongs to the church, then God is a liar and His word is a sham. But God is one that delights in making and keeping His promises. He holds His word higher than anything else. If He cannot be trusted to honor that covenant, then He cannot be trusted in regards to salvation either, because His word is meaningless. And to say that He has abrogated the covenant, in violation of the oath He took, is impugning God's character and down right blasphemy.

And God has indeed upheld His word.

Ezekiel was told to lie on one side for several days, and then the other side for several days to show the number of years that Israel would be punished for their rebellion against God. 430 years. 70 of those were done in the Babylonian captivity. But most of the Hebrews did not return at the end of that captivity.

Leviticus 26 describes that if Israel remained obstinate against God, that their punishment would be 7 times more. Since only a fraction returned after the Babylonian captivity, most of the Hebrews remained in rebellion of God.

Ezekiel's prophecy of 430 years minus the 70 in Babylon leaves 360 years 360 years multiplied by 7 times the punishment of Leviticus 26 is 2520 years. The prophetic calendar is based on 360 day years. Multiply 360 by 2520 and it comes to 907200 days. Divide those days by 365.25 of the Julien calendar and you get 2483.8 years. Take those years and apply them to the August of 537 BC (which would be -536.4 for math purposes) when Cyrus issued the decree to rebuild the temple (also the point where most of Israel remained in rebellion of God by not returning to the land after this decree by Cyrus allowing them to return), factor out that there is no "0" year (it goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, there is no zero year) and you come out to May 1948, when modern Israel was declared a sovereign, independent nation again.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, the church replacing Israel by some shows a misunderstanding of who Israel is and what the church is. Both currently and their destinies. Israel has always had an earthly application with earthly promises. The church has a spiritual application with heavenly promises. If the Church has replaced Israel in the earthly application, then God is a liar.

His covenant with Abraham and to his physical descendants is unconditional. Israel could not forfeit the covenant God made with Abraham and his physical descendants if they wanted to. And some idea that other nations are now the true physical descendants is arrogance to the extreme and nonsense based on Middle Ages folklore.

Take a good look at the actual description of this in Genesis 15:7-21. A covenant in the ancient times was confirmed by the parties of the covenant cutting some sacrificial animals in two, then both parties walking between the cut pieces reciting the terms of the covenant. The reasoning was a blood oath that if either party violated the terms of the covenant, they were to be like these cut up animals. God put Abraham to sleep and passed between the pieces on His own. That showed that God Himself was confirming the covenant and it was taking upon Himself the full burden of maintaining the covenant.

If the covenant is no longer valid, and Israel has no right to the covenant and it now belongs to the church, then God is a liar and His word is a sham. But God is one that delights in making and keeping His promises. He holds His word higher than anything else. If He cannot be trusted to honor that covenant, then He cannot be trusted in regards to salvation either, because His word is meaningless. And to say that He has abrogated the covenant, in violation of the oath He took, is impugning God's character and down right blasphemy.

And God has indeed upheld His word.

Ezekiel was told to lie on one side for several days, and then the other side for several days to show the number of years that Israel would be punished for their rebellion against God. 430 years. 70 of those were done in the Babylonian captivity. But most of the Hebrews did not return at the end of that captivity.

Leviticus 26 describes that if Israel remained obstinate against God, that their punishment would be 7 times more. Since only a fraction returned after the Babylonian captivity, most of the Hebrews remained in rebellion of God.

Ezekiel's prophecy of 430 years minus the 70 in Babylon leaves 360 years 360 years multiplied by 7 times the punishment of Leviticus 26 is 2520 years. The prophetic calendar is based on 360 day years. Multiply 360 by 2520 and it comes to 907200 days. Divide those days by 365.25 of the Julien calendar and you get 2483.8 years. Take those years and apply them to the August of 537 BC (which would be -536.4 for math purposes) when Cyrus issued the decree to rebuild the temple (also the point where most of Israel remained in rebellion of God by not returning to the land after this decree by Cyrus allowing them to return), factor out that there is no "0" year (it goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, there is no zero year) and you come out to May 1948, when modern Israel was declared a sovereign, independent nation again.

Paul's interpretation of the OT and promises God made to Abraham and Israel contradict your argument.

 

[Copperhead]

Paul's interpretation of the OT and promises God made to Abraham and Israel contradict your argument.

Would you please provide Pauline scripture references to counter the Ezekiel/Leviticus based calculations I presented. Also, Pauline scripture references that counter the events of Genesis 15:7-21 I made mention of. There was no real "interpretation" done on any of the by me. The event in Genesis is quite clear in the passage. God was the only one who passed between the animals, so He is exclusively on the line for upholding the covenant. And the calculations were not interpretations, but simple applying what God had stated regarding years and multiple times punishment for continued rebellion using basic math. No mysterious arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air.

You are free to disagree with it, but it does require something more solid to counter it.

 

[keras]

Why DO people believe in a rapture to heaven?

It’s a great idea! Get away from this troubled world.

It is the only end times doctrine that many have ever been taught.

But the fact there is no actual supporting scripture for this idea, is no deterrent because some scriptures can be made to infer the idea of a rapture. There are prophesies telling about spiritual happenings, but none of them actually say that any living people will be taken to heaven.

As there are many prophesies telling about the future of Israel, some people make the error of thinking the Israel of God is the Jewish State of Israel and the Christian Church is therefore, separate from the Israel of prophecy. This is incorrect, many passages in the New Testament confirm that there is only one people of God, call them the Ekkelasia, spiritual Israel or simply God’s righteous Christian people and the rest of the world are the ungodly peoples, doomed for destruction.

But the false idea of Two People Two Promises has to be an immutable tenet of the rapture theory for them to go to heaven, while ethnic Israel faces tribulation, etc. That this idea is un-Christian: ‘let them burn, we will be safe’, as well as the shockingly bad notion of ‘escape from responsibilities’, seems to not be a concern for them.

With the belief of a rapture removal to heaven firmly fixed in their minds, people then fail to see the truth of what God has planned for the future. There will be testing times, to come upon everyone as Luke 21:35 makes crystal clear. What we must pray for is not escape by removal, but for the Lord’s protection, promised to His people during all that is coming and for them to stand, dressed in white linen, before Jesus when He Returns. Revelation 19:9-11

 

[Copperhead]

Respectfully disagree. Many passages have been given to show, even from the OT, that a removal of the righteous before the calamity of the wrath of God comes upon the earth is a valid position, and one can deny the numerical prescriptions regarding Israel all they want, but they are laid out for all to see. I know it flies in the face of what many have held for a long time, mostly because they have never taken such things into account. But it in not some new or wild idea or blatant abuse of scripture. Deny it all you want. But at least disprove the passages are valid for credibility.

And I have laid out my portions based on two witnesses... the OT and the NT. Given that the Bereans (who were commended for searching out the scripture), and all the churches of the NT for that matter, had was the OT to confirm what Paul and the other Apostles taught them, it is incumbent on anyone making a argument from a interpretation of NT scripture also justify their position firmly from the OT as well. There are many who view the OT as some antiquated bunch of scribblings that don't mean anything anymore, or that New Testament abrogates the Old Testament. No, the New Testament is in the Old testament, concealed. And the Old Testament is in the New Testament, revealed. They are two witnesses that support each others testimony. The Apostles would in no way teach anything that countered the OT and would commend those who confirmed what they were teaching by searching the OT to confirm them.

Throwing around Greek words like Ekklesia and cherry picking verses out of context does not make the case. Any position must be supported by ALL scripture, as espoused by Paul and Peter themselves.

Paul:
Acts 17:10-11 (NKJV) Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Peter:
2 Peter 3:14-16 (NKJV) Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[keras]

Respectfully disagree. Many passages have been given to show, even from the OT, that a removal of the righteous before the calamity of the wrath of God comes upon the earth is a valid position, and one can deny the numerical prescriptions regarding Israel all they want, but they are laid out for all to see. I know it flies in the face of what many have held for a long time, mostly because they have never taken such things into account. But it in not some new or wild idea or blatant abuse of scripture. Deny it all you want. But at least disprove the passages are valid for credibility.

It is the rapture to heaven theory that is the wild and new idea.
God does not change, Christians have been persecuted for their faith since Stephen. To think that this generation should be removed from any hard testing, is just pretentious and simply wrong.
I would like to see those prophesies that you say prove a rapture to heaven. I would warn you, that I know the Bible very well and have never seen one that says that. Protection, yes; removal, no.

 

[n2thelight]

Respectfully disagree. Many passages have been given to show, even from the OT, that a removal of the righteous before the calamity of the wrath of God comes upon the earth is a valid position, and one can deny the numerical prescriptions regarding Israel all they want, but they are laid out for all to see. I know it flies in the face of what many have held for a long time, mostly because they have never taken such things into account. But it in not some new or wild idea or blatant abuse of scripture. Deny it all you want. But at least disprove the passages are valid for credibility.

And I have laid out my portions based on two witnesses... the OT and the NT. Given that the Bereans (who were commended for searching out the scripture), and all the churches of the NT for that matter, had was the OT to confirm what Paul and the other Apostles taught them, it is incumbent on anyone making a argument from a interpretation of NT scripture also justify their position firmly from the OT as well. There are many who view the OT as some antiquated bunch of scribblings that don't mean anything anymore, or that New Testament abrogates the Old Testament. No, the New Testament is in the Old testament, concealed. And the Old Testament is in the New Testament, revealed. They are two witnesses that support each others testimony. The Apostles would in no way teach anything that countered the OT and would commend those who confirmed what they were teaching by searching the OT to confirm them.

Throwing around Greek words like Ekklesia and cherry picking verses out of context does not make the case. Any position must be supported by ALL scripture, as espoused by Paul and Peter themselves.

Paul:
Acts 17:10-11 (NKJV) Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Peter:
2 Peter 3:14-16 (NKJV) Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

What do you consider to be the wrath of God?

 

[Copperhead]

It is the rapture to heaven theory that is the wild and new idea.
God does not change, Christians have been persecuted for their faith since Stephen. To think that this generation should be removed from any hard testing, is just pretentious and simply wrong.
I would like to see those prophesies that you say prove a rapture to heaven. I would warn you, that I know the Bible very well and have never seen one that says that. Protection, yes; removal, no.

Not according to Ireneus and Ephraim the Syrian from their writings and sermons on the topic. Ireneus was a student of John.

I posted it before, but in some folk's zeal to affirm their position they must have overlooked it. Isaiah 26, the entire chapter with specific attention verses 20-21 give about as clear of picture short of actually using the word rapture. And the Latin Vulgate uses the term Rapturo in translating Harpazo from the Greek in the NT. From which we get our Anglicized word, Rapture. Zephaniah 2:2-3 gives a pretty interesting allusion that supports the Isaiah passage. And Zephaniah 1:7 seems to be an allusion that the wedding feast is occurring in heaven just prior to the Day of the Lord, which throughout scripture is a reference to the wrath of God coming upon the world. All of these OT passages suggest a pre-tribulation removal of the righteous.

 

[Copperhead]

What do you consider to be the wrath of God?

Exactly what the OT says regarding the last days before Messiah sets up His earthly kingdom.

 

[Wormwood]

Copperhead,

You made a general statement about the nature of God's promises that I believe are false. I have no desire to get bogged down in debate over your views on Ezekiel's temple, etc.

The idea that God's promises to Israel are physical and lack fulfillment and God's promises to the Church are merely spiritual is very flawed.

1. The early Church was Jewish. They did not see themselves as merely a "spiritual" fulfillment of anything. They were "true Israel" and all of God's OT promises were directed at them.
2. Paul says that the promises God made to Abraham and his "offspring" were directed to Jesus Christ. Thus, these promises were not "spiritual" but were specifically directed toward Jesus....the physical, incarnate Son of God.
3. The emphasis in ALL Paul's teaching regarding faith and the promises of God emphasize the fact that the dividing wall that separates Jew and Gentile is gone and all can be children by faith. Your argument insists that this isn't true and that there is special privilege to being a physical Israelite.
4. Circumcision was a physical "everlasting" covenant. Yet Paul makes it very clear that it means nothing and that those who rely on it...either Jew are Gentile...are cut off from grace. Seems weird he would discard a "physical" covenant seal for Israel if the focus of the Church was merely spiritual. I mean, Paul was a Jew.
5. The notion that the Messiah failed to establish the promises of God to Israel at his first appearance I think is very troubling. This seems to be the very thing that upset the Pharisees and why they rejected him as their Messiah. Jesus did fulfill the promises of God to Abraham and Israel and I think the NT authors bear this out in vivid detail.

 

[Copperhead]

You made a general statement about the nature of God's promises that I believe are false. I have no desire to get bogged down in debate over your views on Ezekiel's temple, etc.

Well for sure! I can concur that we not get bogged down in Ezekiel's vision of the temple, especially since I never brought it up.

1. The early Church was Jewish. They did not see themselves as merely a "spiritual" fulfillment of anything. They were "true Israel" and all of God's OT promises were directed at them.

True, but they also recognized their unbelieving countrymen as also being Hebrews and descendants of Abraham. Paul especially so in his letter to the Romans. And go back and read the part in Acts about Steven.

2. Paul says that the promises God made to Abraham and his "offspring" were directed to Jesus Christ. Thus, these promises were not "spiritual" but were specifically directed toward Jesus....the physical, incarnate Son of God.

And indeed Messiah will physically reign on David's thrown in the future.

3. The emphasis in ALL Paul's teaching regarding faith and the promises of God emphasize the fact that the dividing wall that separates Jew and Gentile is gone and all can be children by faith. Your argument insists that this isn't true and that there is special privilege to being a physical Israelite.

Ok, now we get to the nitty gritty. I would assume you are referencing Galations 3:28, as that seems to be one of the major "go to" verses that many use who hold that the church as replaced Israel. Let's really look at that then....

Galatians 3:28-29 (NKJV) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

While in spiritually in Messiah, there is indeed neither Jew nor Greek, to imply it actually has a literal physical application regarding physical descendants of Abraham is a stretch. If you go down that road, you have to take the entire verse and not cherry pick that one part from it and ignore the rest. It also says there is also neither male or female. I defy you to grab a bunch of people this Sunday, have them stand in front of the congregation, and take their clothes off to prove there is neither male or female in the church. And I defy anyone who is an employee of a fellow believer's company to walk in the office one day and say there is neither boss nor worker and all are equal on the job site. I had to use that analogy since we don't condone slavery today.

Paul is using hyperbole to get the point solidly across that all of us are equal in the body of Christ. There is no hierarchy, no caste system, no preferential status, etc. We have been equally bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus and we are on an equal footing before God.

We, that trust in Jesus, are indeed the spiritual seed of Abraham, as we have the faith of Abraham. But except for those Jews that have come to faith in Messiah, we are not the physical descendants of Abraham. And the covenant regarding the land in Genesis 15 with Abraham was for him and all his physical descendants. There is not one verse in the NT that the church is now the holder to the covenant of the land promised to Abraham. And that covenant was an unconditional covenant, confirmed in Genesis 15 by God Himself being the only one who passed thru the cut animals. That covenant is dependent solely on the promise of God to Abraham. Israel couldn't abrogate that promise if they wanted to, otherwise, God does not honor His promises. In that case, everyone's salvation is in jeopardy.

4. Circumcision was a physical "everlasting" covenant. Yet Paul makes it very clear that it means nothing and that those who rely on it...either Jew are Gentile...are cut off from grace. Seems weird he would discard a "physical" covenant seal for Israel if the focus of the Church was merely spiritual. I mean, Paul was a Jew.

Irrelevant example. The discussion is regarding the physical descendants, and their relation to the Abraham as descendants. See answer to number 3.

5. The notion that the Messiah failed to establish the promises of God to Israel at his first appearance I think is very troubling. This seems to be the very thing that upset the Pharisees and why they rejected him as their Messiah. Jesus did fulfill the promises of God to Abraham and Israel and I think the NT authors bear this out in vivid detail.

I suppose you would. But has the temple been established that all nations would be required to come to during the Feast of Tabernacles? Not that I can tell. Is Messiah ruling from David's thrown as promised to Mary by Gabriel would happen? Not yet. He is on His Father's thrown right now. Those are just two of the promises made to Israel that would be fulfilled by the Messiah, but have not yet. Has national Israel called out for Jesus to return and revive them? Not that I can tell. But Hosea made it very clear that had to happen before the Messiah could return, and Jesus Himself confirmed that. And since He hasn't returned, He isn't reigning on David's thrown as promised. There has to be physical descendants of Abraham and the nation to cry out for Messiah's return to rescue them as prophesied by Hosea. And lest we forget Daniel. Has Messiah put an end to sin on the earth? If you think so, turn on the news.

The problem the Pharisees had, and John the Baptist as well at one point, was they couldn't reconcile the passages in scripture that showed Messiah as a suffering servant and a conquering king. That is why many of them developed a dual Messiah theology... a Messiah ben Joseph that would be the suffering servant, and Messiah ben David that would be the conquering king. That is why John the Baptist sent a message to Jesus asking if He was the one or should they expect another. JB wasn't having doubts. He was just trying to reconcile the dual application of the Messiah. And Jesus' answer showed JB that Jesus was the total fulfillment.

Many of the Pharisees' big problem was that they were on a power trip. They wanted someone who would throw the yoke of Rome off of them. Jesus didn't come to do that at that time. So they rejected Him. But don't count them all out. Paul was a Pharisee of significant magnitude. He studied under Gamliel, which even today is still considered a major sage of Judaism. Nicodemus was a pharisee of major stature as well, as he was in the ruling class. And there is some evidence from extra biblical sources that Joseph of Arimathea was of one of the richest families in Israel, a member of the ruling class as well, and also a kinsman of Jesus, given that Pilate didn't question his asking for the body of Jesus after He died.

 

[n2thelight]

Exactly what the OT says regarding the last days before Messiah sets up His earthly kingdom.

Can you show one scripture that says Christ returns before the tribulation?

 

[Wormwood]

True, but they also recognized their unbelieving countrymen as also being Hebrews and descendants of Abraham. Paul especially so in his letter to the Romans. And go back and read the part in Acts about Steven.

Paul declares that the unbelieving Hebrews were "not my people," were "children of Hagar" and were "cut off" from the tree representing the faithful people of God. Moreover, he says, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.” (Romans 10:1, ESV) Clearly, he saw them as not saved. They could be "grafted back in" but this would happen ONLY by faith and had nothing to do with their flesh. The Gentiles would stand or fall based on their faith and the same was (and is) true of Israel.

I don't get your point about Stephen's speech. He compares those who didn't believe in Jesus with the unbelieving Israelites in the past who rebelled against Moses, killed the prophets and were rejected by God because they failed to keep his word.

nd indeed Messiah will physically reign on David's thrown in the future.

Jesus currently reigns on a heavenly throne which is far greater than any on this present earth. Paul said he is currently seated at the right hand of God above all principalities and powers in high places. Why would he exchange that for a piece of wood in Jerusalem? You are wanting to trade the lesser copy with the reality. Just as the earthly temple was nothing but a cheap copy of the heavenly one, so Paul says the earthly Jerusalem is merely a shadow of the heavenly one. Those who focused on the physical Jerusalem rather than the heavenly one, according to Paul, were in slavery (see Galatians 4:25-26).

While in spiritually in Messiah, there is indeed neither Jew nor Greek, to imply it actually has a literal physical application regarding physical descendants of Abraham is a stretch. If you go down that road, you have to take the entire verse and not cherry pick that one part from it and ignore the rest. It also says there is also neither male or female.

I am not cherry picking anything and that is not the primary verse I am focusing on. Allow me to quote the entire context so as not to "cherry pick."

“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.” (Galatians 3:1–18, ESV)

Paul is combatting people who are focused on the law and flesh rather than grace and faith. These Judiazers were consumed with national Israel, keeping the Law, circumcision, physical Jerusalem, etc. Paul is saying that if they keep focusing on the Law and their flesh (physical lineage) then his preaching to them was "in vain." They were duped and "bewitched." (In Philippians Paul said all the things he once boasted in (being and Israelite, circumcised, a Pharisee, etc.) he considered "dung" once he found Christ. It meant NOTHING to him and should to us as well)

He explains to them that Abraham was "righteous" before God because of faith and all Abraham's TRUE children would be children of faith. He later makes an illustration with Isaac and Ishmael indicating that Isaac was born by faith which make him a true heir and Ismael was born of flesh only which made him an illegitimate child. The "righteous shall live by faith." Without faith, flesh means NOTHING. Those in flesh and under law are cursed, but Jesus came to take that curse by being hung on a tree.

Moreover, Paul adds that the promises God made to Abraham were not to his "offsprings" (Israel) but to his offspring (singular...Jesus Christ). Thus the covenant God made to bless the children of Abraham were aimed at Jesus and those who are in Jesus Christ are true children of Abraham.

Paul goes on to say there is new Jew, Greek, male, female..etc. The point here is not that Paul is trying to eliminate gender identities, roles, etc. His point is that God's children are identified not by their lineage, sex or social position, but by faith alone. Faith determines a true child of Abraham and not the stuff these deceived people were trusting in (their genealogy and adherence to law).

Thus, I believe eschatologies that emphasize flesh over faith, the reestablishment of OT Temple and law, focus on earthly Jerusalem and thrones vs. the fulfillment of all God's promises to his people through faith in Jesus alone are also severely mistaken and putting confidence and focus on the very things Paul warned the Galatians to turn from. What makes us God's true children is faith alone. Faith is what made Abraham righteous. The righteous live by faith. And God's promises belong to those who put their faith in the object of God's promises, the seed of Abraham...Jesus of Nazareth. Focusing on nationalities, earthly temples and the like is to focus on the very things Paul was beheaded trying to turn his people away from.

 

[keras]

Ezekiel was told to lie on one side for several days, and then the other side for several days to show the number of years that Israel would be punished for their rebellion against God. 430 years. 70 of those were done in the Babylonian captivity. But most of the Hebrews did not return at the end of that captivity.

Too bad you don't bother to put what the Bible actually does say; Ezekiel 4:4-5....I ordain Israel's punishment for 390 days, one day for each year of their exile....Then Judah's for 40 years. They are separate times for separate nations, that have not rejoined as yet.
Note that the House of Israel was finally exiled in 718/717 BC, and their punishment was multiplied by 7, Leviticus 26:18, making a total time of exile; 2730 years. This is just completed, so the true, righteous Christian Israel, Galatians 6:16, can very soon go to live in their heritage. Galatians 3:29

 

[Copperhead]

Can you show one scripture that says Christ returns before the tribulation?

I never said that He will. What left field did that come out of?