The Covering Dynamic

[Spiritual Israelite]

We're already doing all of that.

I'm highlighting where Jesus said that Elijah was still to come and restore all things, even after he had been killed. That's where Jesus said that. After John's death, Jesus said, Elijah "shall be restoring", Future tense.

It was future tense as of the time the prophecy was given, not as of the time Jesus said it. That's what you're not getting. As I've already said, I believe what Jesus was saying there was, yes, you're right, it is true that the prophecy said that Elijah was coming first (before the coming of the Messiah), but I'm telling you that he already came and they didn't recognize him and killed him.

 

[marks]

As I said before, Jesus was not giving a new prophecy about the future in Matthew 17:11, but rather was referencing the OT prophecy. So, Elijah was coming from the perspective of the time the prophecy was given. Then Jesus clarified that he had come already in the person of John the Baptist. I've already covered this, so I'm wondering if you're reading everything I'm saying or not.

And Jesus also said, after John was dead, that Elijah comes and shall restore all things, shall restore - future - John was dead by then.

To me the question is whether you will believe this part of the passage also, or whether you will determine it actually means something a little different, like, it's not still future, even though that was the wording Jesus used, because it can't be fitted into a certain understanding. To me, that's what this comes down to.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It was future tense as of the time the prophecy was given, not as of the time Jesus said it.

Jesus gave a prophecy as a future event, with a certain outcome. I believe what He said.

Malachi gave the prophecy with a certain outcome. I accept what he said also.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It was future tense as of the time the prophecy was given, not as of the time Jesus said it.

The time that Jesus said it, He was giving a prophecy. That prophecy was for the future. John was already dead.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Consider what you are saying here. The question that's important to me, to me, is, what is the exact wording, and what does that exact wording mean?

So, tell me what you think it means then. Why would you not see the chosen as being the sheep when it's clear that the sheep are believers and the goats are not? Why would you see the gathering of the people who are divided into two groups as being entirely different people than the elect/chosen?

But we don't all approach the Bible in the same way, as I said at the beginning. And unless we are all willing to sift through the details with each other, I don't see much usefulness when we are so far apart in our positions.

I am trying to do that. Surely, you can see that? I am going out of my way to go into as much detail as possible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus gave a prophecy as a future event, with a certain outcome.

I disagree. I believe he referenced an OT prophecy and explained its fulfillment.

I believe what He said.

Can you refrain from these types of comments? You want to keep this friendly, right? Comments like this imply that you think I don't believe what He said. Of course I do. I believe everything He said. But, of course, we don't agree on the context of what He said in this case.

Malachi gave the prophecy with a certain outcome. I accept what he said also.

Same here. No need for a comment like this. We obviously disagree on this particular topic and will likely never agree. I think we've discussed it enough at this point, so let's agree to disagree and move on to something else.

You had said before that you wanted to talk about what the rapture is because you thought we disagree on that, but that hasn't come up yet. Would you like to talk about that now?

 

[rwb]

It was future tense as of the time the prophecy was given, not as of the time Jesus said it. That's what you're not getting. As I've already said, I believe what Jesus was saying there was, yes, you're right, it is true that the prophecy said that Elijah was coming first (before the coming of the Messiah), but I'm telling you that he already came and they didn't recognize him and killed him.

Exactly! Christ spoke of Elijah to come in the future, and Christ basically says the prophesy is fulfilled in John-the-Baptist. And through his preaching the hearts of many were changed as they embraced as they repented and accepted the truth of the Kingdom of heaven ordained to come.

Matthew 3:1-3 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And Jesus also said, after John was dead, that Elijah comes and shall restore all things, shall restore - future - John was dead by then.

To me the question is whether you will believe this part of the passage also, or whether you will determine it actually means something a little different, like, it's not still future, even though that was the wording Jesus used, because it can't be fitted into a certain understanding. To me, that's what this comes down to.

I've already explained my understanding of this and it has nothing to do with believing it or not. I simply interpret it differently than you. Let's try to refrain from accusing each other of not believing what Jesus said. That does not line up with the kind of tone that you indicated that you wanted to have in this discussion.

And, as I said in my previous post, I'd like to move on from this particular topic since we've discussed it enough at this point and clearly will not agree on it any time soon, if ever.

 

[marks]

So, tell me what you think it means then.

Jesus divides the nations like a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats. He welcomes the sheep into His kingdom based on the fact that they did the right works concerning Jesus' brothers. The sheep cannot be accounted as the group "Jesus' brothers", because who they are is determined by their actions towards others, not themselves, specifically Jesus' brothers therefore, Jesus' brothers, as referenced in this passage, are not the sheep.

And of course that two gatherings are named.

These sheep and goats, they are determined righteous or not based on their works. Those who are "in Christ" are specifically not. We are righteous because we've received Christ's righteousness. Personal works of righteousness towards salvation are eschewed by Paul throughout his letters.

Yet these are judged righteous based on their works.

If the Church - that is specifically, those who are "In Christ" were part of this gathering, the declaration of righteousness based on works would be wholely out of place. If those "in Christ" were a part of the gathering of the elect, then from where come the sheep?

But if you aren't willing to hold to that exact wording of the passage - I'm sorry - if you don't take the narrative just as written, then you aren't limited to these facts.

I take it just as Jesus prophesied, in the normal terminology of the day. "Elect" wouldn't be used of gentile Christians for 30 years or so, when Paul was writing his letters. And we don't take a later usage of the word by someone else to determine what an earlier speaker meant. We should - what I think - go by the normal customary meaning of the language at the time it was said. In other words, the Historical Grammatical Hermeneutic.

And when Jesus spoke of the Chosen, and the Nations, there's not a doubt in my mind what this meant at that time, to those people.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly! Christ spoke of Elijah to come in the future, and Christ basically says the prophesy is fulfilled in John-the-Baptist. And through his preaching the hearts of many were changed as they embraced as they repented and accepted the truth of the Kingdom of heaven ordained to come.

Matthew 3:1-3 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Right. That's the point I have made and I haven't gotten any response to that particular point yet. John the Baptist accomplished everything that the prophecy said Elijah was supposed to do, so why would anyone think that he (or Elijah himself) would have to come again to fulfill the prophecy? This idea that he did not accomplish what he was sent to do does not sit right with me at all.

 

[marks]

Revelation 7:2-8 KJV
2) And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3) Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4) And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5) Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6) Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7) Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8) Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Does anyone here besides me think this means 12,000 men from each of 12 Israeli tribes? Does anyone besides me think that these are "the servants of God" at that time? That the servants of God number 144,000, all from Israel?

That's what I think. I read what it says, and accept it as true.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Right. That's the point I have made and I haven't gotten any response to that particular point yet. John the Baptist accomplished everything that the prophecy said Elijah was supposed to do, so why would anyone think that he (or Elijah himself) would have to come again to fulfill the prophecy? This idea that he did not accomplish what he was sent to do does not sit right with me at all.

They abandoned Jesus and crucified Him. Didn't they?

Much love!

 

[marks]

I've already explained my understanding of this and it has nothing to do with believing it or not. I simply interpret it differently than you. Let's try to refrain from accusing each other of not believing what Jesus said. That does not line up with the kind of tone that you indicated that you wanted to have in this discussion.

I'm sorry, I meant a "general you", I should have worded this differently. My apologies!

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But if you aren't willing to hold to that exact wording of the passage - I'm sorry - if you don't take the narrative just as written, then you aren't limited to these facts.

I will address the rest of your post in a bit, but I just had to respond to this first. You lied to me. You said you wouldn't do this (use your "exact words" arguments) and you did it again. Why?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm sorry, I meant a "general you", I should have worded this differently. My apologies!

It didn't come across that way at all, but that isn't much better, anyway, since even a "general you" includes me.

Much love!

Hmmm.

 

[marks]

I disagree. I believe he referenced an OT prophecy and explained its fulfillment.

Matthew 17:11-13 KJV
11) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12) But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

I'm just looking at His wording there. After John's death, Jesus said, Elijah shall come first and restore all things. He didn't say, for instance, Elijah was to come first, and came, and restored all things, or something like that. He said that he comes first and shall restore all things, a prophecy of something future, indicated in the future tense of the verb, as shown in the various translations.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I will address the rest of your post in a bit, but I just had to respond to this first. You lied to me. You said you wouldn't do this (use your "exact words" arguments) and you did it again. Why?

I'm sorry, I forgot myself, I'm trying to speak differently for you. It was not intended as a lie.

So, just looking at what He said, this is what I find.

Much love!

 

[rwb]

The time that Jesus said it, He was giving a prophecy. That prophecy was for the future. John was already dead.

Much love!

Christ is already dead too, but we can still enter into the Kingdom of God by grace through faith IF we believe. The same is true of John-the-Baptist, all who heard him and believed the Gospel he proclaimed were baptized of him, confessing their sins. Isaiah also writes of one who would come to prepare the way of the Lord, and quoted in the New Testament as John-the-Baptist, the forerunner of Christ. It's not a future prophesy of Elijah to come, but on-going prophesy that is written for all who repent and believe the message John-the-Baptist, in the Spirit and power of Elijah preached.

Isaiah 40:3 (KJV) The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Mark 1:2-3 (KJV) As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mark 1:4-5 (KJV) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They abandoned Jesus and crucified Him. Didn't they?

Yes. What is your point as it relates to what I had said, which was about John the Baptist and not Jesus?

 

[rwb]

Matthew 17:11-13 KJV
11) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12) But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

I'm just looking at His wording there. After John's death, Jesus said, Elijah shall come first and restore all things. He didn't say, for instance, Elijah was to come first, and came, and restored all things, or something like that. He said that he comes first and shall restore all things, a prophecy of something future, indicated in the future tense of the verb, as shown in the various translations.

Much love!

Actually Christ says Elijah had come and through his preaching the Gospel all things shall be restored. Not by Elijah coming in the future, but because Elijah is the first New Testament prophet to proclaim the Gospel unto the Jews, and through the Gospel preached, the Kingdom of God was being built and all things shall be restored as they were in the beginning before sin and death through sin entered God's creation once the spiritual Kingdom of God is complete.