The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[Spiritual Israelite]

We can't discuss this subject constructively unless we agree about the larger question at hand. Let me remind us both. The larger question at hand is whether the OT stands on its own or whether one needs to have the NT at hand in order to understand the OT. I maintain that the OT stands on its own. Jesus, the apostles, and the disciples all used the OT as if it could be understood without the aid of the NT. We could multiply examples from the NT to prove this.

Both you, @Spiritual Israelite, and I have explanations as to why Peter is not disagreeing with Joel. All three of us have added explanatory information in order to harmonize Peter's sermon with the word of Joel.

For instance, @Spiritual Israelite suggested that "The beginning of the fulfillment was occurring on the day of Pentecost." And I can agree with that. That is also what I believe. But surely you can see, can't you, that this bit of explanatory information isn't what Peter actually said. Right. Did Peter say that this was the beginning of the fulfillment? No. He didn't literally say that. But I would maintain that @Spiritual Israelite's explanation is a reasonable inference from what Peter said in light of what Joel said.

Do you agree or not?

Why did you come across before as if you believed that this (what was happening on the day of Pentecost) had nothing to do with that (the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32) at all? Were you just not thinking about what you were saying or have you changed your mind recently?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did answer it, thats my answer, if you need something else keep searching and maybe someone else will answer it.

If that's all you have, that's fine. But, it didn't make any sense to me as an explanation of why we would need to leave earth to meet Him in the air only to come right back down to the earth.

Okay, but Im not sure, im leaning towards the earth, maybe the renewed earth

How can it take place on the earth in light of what it says here:

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

And how can it take place on the earth in light of this, assuming that you agree that this takes place before the great white throne judgment:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

These would allow for it to occur on the new/renewed earth, but not on the earth as we know it, which will be burned up (see 2 Peter 3:10-12 above) and will pass away (see Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21:1).

 

[covenantee]

This passage proves my point. Jesus is critical of these men because they didn't believe the prophets. His critical remarks are predicated on the fact that the OT is comprehensible. If these men needed the NT in order to understand the prophets. then it would be fair of Jesus to chastise them for disbelief. Jesus would never criticize a man for not believing what he couldn't understand. But these men could understand the prophets apart from the NT, which is why Jesus said what he did.

The passage disproves your point. They couldn't understand the prophets until Jesus of the NT opened their understanding.

Luke 24
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This passage proves my point. Jesus is critical of these men because they didn't believe the prophets. His critical remarks are predicated on the fact that the OT is comprehensible. If these men needed the NT in order to understand the prophets. then it would be fair of Jesus to chastise them for disbelief. Jesus would never criticize a man for not believing what he couldn't understand. But these men could understand the prophets apart from the NT, which is why Jesus said what he did.

You understand that "these men" being referenced in that passage were His disciples, don't you? Do you think anyone else understood the OT scriptures any better than the disciples did at that time? Do you think you have more discernment than the disciples did?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, we all take Peter's understanding to be true. Our discussion centers on what Peter meant by what he said. Your objection to my view is that I am adding to Peter's words; that I am not taking Peter's words at face value. I highlighted a portion of your post so that you might see that you and I both are supplying additional information to better understand what Peter meant to say.

If you can see this, we can proceed.

I don't like you putting it as "what Peter meant to say". He said exactly what he meant to say because it was what the Holy Spirit inspired him to say. You putting it that way gives the impression that he didn't word things the way he meant to or the way he should have. That may not be what you intended, but it's how it comes across. Do we all have to discern what he meant by what he said, which was exactly what he meant to say? Sure. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

I just found out from another of your posts that you actually agree that the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 was occurring on the day of Pentecost, which you did not indicate before. So, what exactly is your understanding of Joel 2:28-32, keeping in mind that it began to be fulfilled long ago on the day of Pentecost already?

I know you have emphasized the reference to "all flesh" before. What do you think it means when it talks about His Spirit being poured out on all flesh? You agree that His Spirit is poured out on all believers as time goes on, don't you? If you read Acts 2:21 (which quotes Joel 2:32) it talks about all of those who call on the Lord being saved. So, is the prophecy not about all who call on the name of the Lord being saved and receiving the Holy Spirit during this New Testament time period? I don't see any reason to read any more into it than that.

 

[covenantee]

I'm saying that the scriptures stand on their own. The covenant is a different question. That is, we don't need the NT to understand the OT.

Do you sacrifice animals?

If you don't believe that the NT is necessary to understand the OT, then you should be sacrificing animals.

Are you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you sacrifice animals?

If you don't believe that the NT is necessary to understand the OT, then you should be sacrificing animals.

Are you?

Let's see how he tries to get around this one. If you tell him 1 + 1 = 2 he will find a way to conclude that 1 + 1 = 3 instead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm saying that the scriptures stand on their own. The covenant is a different question. That is, we don't need the NT to understand the OT.

In regards to the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed can you show me where the OT indicates that his seed were Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16) and those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29)?

 

[Timtofly]

Let's say there is one Israel as you believe. That would mean that Paul was saying they are not all the nation of Israel who are descended from the nation of Israel. What does that even mean if he's only talking about one Israel there? How can you descend from the nation of Israel but not be part of the nation of Israel? That makes no sense.

Paul was saying they were no longer part of Israel. Not that they were never a part of Israel.

 

[David in NJ]

I'm not entirely clear on how I, as a Postrib, feel Jesus comes back with his saints, let me speculate a little. We have these 2 important passages regarding Jesus' 2nd Coming with and for his Church. Dad raised an important question in my mind: does Christ come with or for his Church, or both?

My initial thought here is that when we look at these 2 passages together, it appears that Christ comes with the departed saints and for Christians who are still alive on earth. What do you think?...

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

1 Thes 4.14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

It really appears to me that there are 2 stages here. 1st, the sign of the Son of Man appears in heaven. That is when he "bring with him those who have fallen asleep in him." 2nd, Jesus gathers his elect from the four winds, which sounds very much like a gathering to the clouds. And indeed Paul confirms that it is a gathering to the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

So we have a 2 step process, Christ appearing with his departed saints, and then his gathering those still alive to the clouds. However, we are told in Acts 1 that he is coming again in the same way he left. That means the appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds must be followed by his appearance on earth. In Zechariah 14, we read that it will be on the Mt. of Olives, a literal place on earth.

Zech 14.4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.

2 Sam 15 tells the story how David, who suffered a conspiracy in Jerusalem, left the city and went up on the Mt. of Olives. Interestingly, David expresses hope that God will allow him to return later, to visit Jerusalem again and see the place where the ark is to be. This place, that Jesus is returning to, will show the completion of his promise to Israel, to return to the very people who have rejected him.

It is quite CLEAR in 1 Thess ch3 & ch4 that:
a.) the LORD is coming with the Saints
b.) those CHRIST brings with Him are the departed Saints who are now in Heaven
c.) this is why HE raises the Dead in Him FIRST
d.) Lastly, the few remaining/ALIVE saints will be caught up and join the Resurrected Saints

 

[Keraz]

It is quite CLEAR in 1 Thess ch3 & ch4 that:
a.) the LORD is coming with the Saints
b.) those CHRIST brings with Him are the departed Saints who are now in Heaven
c.) this is why HE raises the Dead in Him FIRST
d.) Lastly, the few remaining/ALIVE saints will be caught up and join the Resurrected Saints

This belief is wrong, because scripture never says those people who were faithful believers, who have died, will go to live in heaven. What we are told is that the dead remain in their graves until the final Judgment. Job14:10-12, David 'sleeps'; Acts 13:36, and Revelation 20:11-15 tells us when that final Judgment will happen.

Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 19:14 are undeniable: Jesus will Return accompanied by His angel army.
Translations which say: 'Saints', coming with Jesus, are wrong and cause a scriptural anomaly, an opposing belief that is actually impossible. Jesus said so: John 3:13

 

[brightfame52]

If that's all you have, that's fine. But, it didn't make any sense to me as an explanation of why we would need to leave earth to meet Him in the air only to come right back down to the earth.


How can it take place on the earth in light of what it says here:

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

And how can it take place on the earth in light of this, assuming that you agree that this takes place before the great white throne judgment:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

These would allow for it to occur on the new/renewed earth, but not on the earth as we know it, which will be burned up (see 2 Peter 3:10-12 above) and will pass away (see Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21:1).

These are things Im not dogmatic on, I just know they shall occur, and remember this is after or at the end of time as we know it, Rev 10:5-6

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

I do believe the next notable event will be Christs Second Coming, and then the White Throne Judgment, no thousand year mil !

 

[David in NJ]

This belief is wrong, because scripture never says those people who were faithful believers, who have died, will go to live in heaven. What we are told is that the dead remain in their graves until the final Judgment. Job14:10-12, David 'sleeps'; Acts 13:36, and Revelation 20:11-15 tells us when that final Judgment will happen.

Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 19:14 are undeniable: Jesus will Return accompanied by His angel army.
Translations which say: 'Saints', coming with Jesus, are wrong and cause a scriptural anomaly, an opposing belief that is actually impossible. Jesus said so: John 3:13

Good Morning Keraz,

Prior to Christ's Death & Resurrection, the Saints waited in Paradise(this is not Heaven).

When Christ Rose with the Victory, HE brought the Saints(who have died) to Heaven.

This is why we SEE the Saints in Heaven in Revelation.

Remember, the Scripture says those who are "asleep" in Christ are those who have died and their spirits/souls go to Christ upon death of the physical body.
This is why it says: "God will bring with Christ the Saints"

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why did you come across before as if you believed that this (what was happening on the day of Pentecost) had nothing to do with that (the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32) at all? Were you just not thinking about what you were saying or have you changed your mind recently?

I am fully cognizant of the underlying debate that we are having with regard to Amillennialism. I hold that Jesus Christ will physically reign on earth for a thousand years, ruling over physical Israel and ultimately over the entire world. I maintain that Joel is focused on the gathering of his kinsmen at a time just prior to Christ's return. At that time, God will pour out his spirit on ALL FLESH, indicating all the Jews gathered at Jerusalem. Joel is focused on the final gathering.

Fulfillment of prophecy is one of the major points of debate between Amillennialism and Premillennialism. Amil maintains that all prophecy has already been fulfilled in Christ. And so the underlying question on the table in this discussion is whether or not Joel's prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. Does Joel have more to say about our future or not?

Peter preached a sermon on the occasion when God had poured out his spirit on a group of disciples during the Jewish festival of Pentecost. A crowd of people heard these men speaking in other tongues, thinking them to be drunk. Peter explains that the outpouring of the spirit and speaking in tongues corresponds, in some way, to what Joel predicted.

We are discussing what Peter meant by "this is that." Some are asserting one particular understanding of the phrase while others are asserting another understanding of that phrase. On the one hand, Peter might be saying, "This event exactly corresponds to what Joel predicted"; On the other hand, Peter might be saying, "Joel predicted an outpouring of the Spirit and this is what we are seeing now."

It's as if Peter is saying, "Isn't it interesting how we seem to be experiencing what Joel predicted: a gathering at Jerusalem accompanied by an outpouring of the Holy Spirit?" And we can open our Bibles to the prophet Joel and see a resemblance between what Joel predicted and what happened to Peter and the other disciples. Did Joel predict a gathering of the people to Jerusalem? Yes. Did he predict an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at that time? Yes.

But, did Joel predict Pentecost? I would say no because although the two events are similar, they aren't exactly the same. There remain significant differences between what Joel predicted and what Peter witnessed that day.

Once again, in the future, the Jews will gather together at Jerusalem, and at that time God will pour out his spirit on them all.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The passage disproves your point. They couldn't understand the prophets until Jesus of the NT opened their understanding.

Luke 24
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

Was it that they couldn't understand, or did Jesus say they were slow to believe? I think there is a difference. Yes?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You understand that "these men" being referenced in that passage were His disciples, don't you? Do you think anyone else understood the OT scriptures any better than the disciples did at that time? Do you think you have more discernment than the disciples did?

Did you catch the fact that although these men were disciples, they didn't recognize Jesus as they walked? And later in the day, once the Spirit opened their eyes, they recognized him.

Jesus said that these men were "slow to believe" not slow to understand. These men didn't have an intellectual problem and the text was not that hard to understand. Rather these men had a spiritual problem, which required that the Holy Spirit open their eyes.

This same aspect is true about us today. If and when the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, then yes, we can discern more than the disciples did while blinded.

 

[David in NJ]

I am fully cognizant of the underlying debate that we are having with regard to Amillennialism. I hold that Jesus Christ will physically reign on earth for a thousand years, ruling over physical Israel and ultimately over the entire world. I maintain that Joel is focused on the gathering of his kinsmen at a time just prior to Christ's return. At that time, God will pour out his spirit on ALL FLESH, indicating all the Jews gathered at Jerusalem. Joel is focused on the final gathering.

Fulfillment of prophecy is one of the major points of debate between Amillennialism and Premillennialism. Amil maintains that all prophecy has already been fulfilled in Christ. And so the underlying question on the table in this discussion is whether or not Joel's prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. Does Joel have more to say about our future or not?

Peter preached a sermon on the occasion when God had poured out his spirit on a group of disciples during the Jewish festival of Pentecost. A crowd of people heard these men speaking in other tongues, thinking them to be drunk. Peter explains that the outpouring of the spirit and speaking in tongues corresponds, in some way, to what Joel predicted.

We are discussing what Peter meant by "this is that." Some are asserting one particular understanding of the phrase while others are asserting another understanding of that phrase. On the one hand, Peter might be saying, "This event exactly corresponds to what Joel predicted"; On the other hand, Peter might be saying, "Joel predicted an outpouring of the Spirit and this is what we are seeing now."

It's as if Peter is saying, "Isn't it interesting how we seem to be experiencing what Joel predicted: a gathering at Jerusalem accompanied by an outpouring of the Holy Spirit?" And we can open our Bibles to the prophet Joel and see a resemblance between what Joel predicted and what happened to Peter and the other disciples. Did Joel predict a gathering of the people to Jerusalem? Yes. Did he predict an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at that time? Yes.

But, did Joel predict Pentecost? I would say no because although the two events are similar, they aren't exactly the same. There remain significant differences between what Joel predicted and what Peter witnessed that day.

Once again, in the future, the Jews will gather together at Jerusalem, and at that time God will pour out his spirit on them all.

The Prophecy of Joel is for ALL the world = ALL whom the FATHER will call = John 3:16

Here it is - read carefully: Acts 2:14-21

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice, and addressed the crowd: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen carefully to my words. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only the third hour of the day!
16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out My Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on My menservants and maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
lood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness,
and the moon to blood,
before the coming of the great and glorious Day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord
will be saved.’

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't like you putting it as "what Peter meant to say". He said exactly what he meant to say because it was what the Holy Spirit inspired him to say. You putting it that way gives the impression that he didn't word things the way he meant to or the way he should have.

I'm not suggesting that Peter didn't word things the way he meant or the way he should have. I am saying that Peter's words can be taken more than one way: 1) the way he meant them to be taken, 2) the way his listeners might inadvertently take his meaning.

Communicating ideas through language is challenging. The process is simple enough, we place words into sentences, and we place sentences into paragraphs. The goal is to remove all ambiguity and to focus the range of possible meanings down to one meaning. Words by themselves have a semantic range of meaning. The sentence narrows down the semantic range to only a few possible meanings. A paragraph attempts to narrow down the semantic range to a single meaning.

I'm sure you have heard warnings about taking verses out of context. (Not saying that you do this.) The warning seeks to alert the Bible student to the inherent ambiguity in a single sentence. Outside of the paragraph, the verse can have more than one possible meaning. Those who focus on a single phrase or a single verse, inadvertently misconstrue the author's original intent.

What Peter said is "this is that", but these are just three words out of an entire paragraph. Three words are ambiguous since they contain a wide semantic range. We will inadvertently misconstrue Peter's meaning if we don't take the context into account. For this reason I say, "what Peter meant to say." What I mean is "the idea that Peter intended to convey with his words, after we have considered the immediate context and what Joel meant to say in context."

I just found out from another of your posts that you actually agree that the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 was occurring on the day of Pentecost, which you did not indicate before. So, what exactly is your understanding of Joel 2:28-32, keeping in mind that it began to be fulfilled long ago on the day of Pentecost already?

The context of Joel is a gathering together of "those who fear the Lord" at Jerusalem in order to pray for the deliverance of Israel from her enemies. At that time, when Jewish "God-fearers" gather in Jerusalem, God will pour out his spirit on all of them. Pentecost is very similar to what Joel predicted since the people gathered together in Jerusalem during a time when God poured out his spirit on the disciples. Similar but not the same thing.

During Peter's time, the people gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate the festival of Pentecost just as Moses commanded. However, during the time Joel predicts, the people will gather together for a more practical and significant reason. During that time, God will bring famine and fires on Israel and during that time, her enemies will attempt to take advantage of her weakness. Aware of the impending danger, the "God-fearers" among those living in Israel will hear the call and make the trip to Jerusalem to pray for the deliverance of Israel from her enemies. What Peter experienced and what Joel predicted are very different. The only correspondence between the two is the gathering at Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

I know you have emphasized the reference to "all flesh" before. What do you think it means when it talks about His Spirit being poured out on all flesh?

All Jewish flesh who have been gathered at Jerusalem to pray for deliverance.

You agree that His Spirit is poured out on all believers as time goes on, don't you?

Yes. I believe this aspect of Joel's prophecy began at Pentecost. This is why Peter encourages his people to repent and accept Jesus to be the Christ.

If you read Acts 2:21 (which quotes Joel 2:32) it talks about all of those who call on the Lord being saved. So, is the prophecy not about all who call on the name of the Lord being saved and receiving the Holy Spirit during this New Testament time period? I don't see any reason to read any more into it than that.

Peter is speaking into a situation that looks very similar to what Joel predicted, and from his perspective, maybe the Day of the Lord was about to begin. But as we learned later, the Day of the Lord didn't begin then.

When Joel speaks about calling on the name of the Lord, he is painting a very different picture than the one Peter experienced. During Peter's time, there wasn't fire, smoke, famine, or celestial events. Israel wasn't experiencing famine or an army of fires. The priesthood wasn't mourning over the fact that they couldn't find as much as a bowl of wine for a libation.

During the time that Joel predicted, a time in our future, the call will go out to all the land for the people to assemble in Jerusalem. In other words, during that time these folks will literally "call" on the name of the Lord. And due to the fact that these came to Jerusalem they will not be burned up in the fires. Traveling to Jerusalem will save their life. Joel refers to them as "survivors."

Joel 2:32

“And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the Lord has said, Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.​

Those who come to Jerusalem to call upon the name of the Lord will survive the fires and these folks will not only experience spiritual salvation, they will also experience physical salvation.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you sacrifice animals?

If you don't believe that the NT is necessary to understand the OT, then you should be sacrificing animals.

Are you?

That doesn't follow. As I said, Jesus and the disciples had no problem understanding the OT, which is why they offered sacrifices according to Moses. And the NT is also understandable when it declares that a Gentile is not required to live Jewishly in order to find salvation through Jesus Christ.

Did you think I was saying that the NT wasn't necessary? I never said that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In regards to the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed can you show me where the OT indicates that his seed were Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16) and those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29)?

You are confusing "meaning" with "significance". Paul didn't explicate the story of Abraham. The story was comprehensible to those who lived prior to Paul. Rather, Paul was explaining the importance of the story of Abraham as it relates to the saving work of Jesus in contradistinction to the teaching of the Judaizers who claimed that anyone seeking to be blessed according to the Abrahamic promise needed to be circumcised just as Abraham was.

Understand. One would not understand Paul's point if one didn't already understand the story of Abraham. Paul isn't saying, "You all might think the story means one thing, but I'm here to tell you it means something entirely different." That is not what Paul is doing.

What Paul is actually doing is proving that the story of Abraham does NOT imply that a Gentile needs to convert to Judaism. And Paul is using a comprehensible story of Abraham to prove it.