The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[Randy Kluth]

'will bring with Jesus'. The statement implies direction. Where will Jesus 'bring' to? and where from? and who will he bring to and from?
If the the dead saints are awaiting a resurrection then its obvious he is not bring them to this earth.
I think it is meant Jesus will bring them to his Father.....the resurrected dead and those alive when he returns to
meet the Lord in the air. If we look at both 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 the context tells us that this is when and here immortality is bestowed.
The 'bringing' is not to this earth because the dead and the living are already here. They await a transformation from mortal to immortal which I Corinthians 15 makes clear and this happens at Jesus return.

I remain confused, but I appreciate the added information. Yes, I'm trying to figure out, from Paul's perspective, what he's saying. Is he bringing departed spirits to their bodies, or transforming them in heaven using the metaphorical term, "raised up?"

If their bodies do not exist on earth in the form of elements to be produced as bodies, then God may make these immortal bodies out of thin air in heaven, and then bring them and their bodies with Christ to be revealed on earth.

And if Jesus and his saints are revealed on earth, is this revelation largely in the sky or down on the earth? What does it mean for Jesus to come in the same way he left? Is this a landing on earth? Or is this simply a revelation of his return in the form of a reestablished Christianity on earth?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, you make a good point, and I'll have to think about it. You may be right that the exact location of Jesus' return matters less than the "way" he comes back, physically and visibly. I was just basing my judgment about the location on the Mt. on the Zech 14 passage. I'm not sure if I'm even interpreting it right because it is speaking not of Messiah, specifically, but of the Lord God.

It may be that the *place* the Lord returns is actually *in the air,* appearing as lightning among the clouds. Is this actually a "physical return?" I don't know.

To answer your question, I believe so because it talks about Him coming from heaven in the same manner that He ascended to heaven, which was visibly. So, He will be seen "as He is" as John wrote about in 1 John 3:2. And we know He has an immortal body.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because that text is only about judgment especially of the beast and the false prophet which is before
the final defeat of satan

That is all that is mentioned specifically there, but, again, not every passage about the second coming contains every detail related to it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So what does anybody think is the thing the living believers thought they would attain to at Christ's Return?

They may have thought they were simply going to enter into Christ's Kingdom on earth as mortals. Or, they may have thought they were going to see Jesus come back on earth, establish his Kingdom, and then render his saints immortal and sinless?

They may have thought that they would precede the departed saints in this, thinking they would enter the Kingdom 1st, the departed saints joining them later? Or they may actually have been expecting to be caught up to heaven? Ideas?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, I'll go out on a limb and share my latest thoughts about this. I have to think in some direction! Although I respect all of the voices here, and will keep these thoughts in mind, in the meantime I have some tentative opinions.

I think Paul in 1 Thes 4 was thinking that some Christians believed the Kingdom of God was literally coming to earth to reestablish a Christian State. Israel had fallen, and prophecy had indicated that Israel would be restored. And these Christians believed that only living Christians would be able to participate in this new Messianic State, leaving the departed saints in a nebulas place.

And so, Paul reassured these Christians that they would not enter the Kingdom of God without the participation of departed saints. Jesus would appear in the sky, returning his rule to earth in an eschatological form, and all believers, living and dead would appear with him in a new immortal form.

Whether or not the expectation of the Christians at the time were correct, we know that their belief that departed saints would be left out was wrong! It is our task to figure out if the expectation of Christ's Kingdom will be properly earthly or heavenly, and if Christ's Coming will be all the way to earth, or merely appearing to the earth from heaven?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, I'll go out on a limb and share my latest thoughts about this. I have to think in some direction! Although I respect all of the voices here, and will keep these thoughts in mind, in the meantime I have some tentative opinions.

I think Paul in 1 Thes 4 was thinking that some Christians believed the Kingdom of God was literally coming to earth to reestablish a Christian State. Israel had fallen, and prophecy had indicated that Israel would be restored. And these Christians believed that only living Christians would be able to participate in this new Messianic State, leaving the departed saints in a nebulas place.

And so, Paul reassured these Christians that they would not enter the Kingdom of God without the participation of departed saints. Jesus would appear in the sky, returning his rule to earth in an eschatological form, and all believers, living and dead would appear with him in a new immortal form.

Whether or not the expectation of the Christians at the time were correct, we know that their belief that departed saints would be left out was wrong! It is our task to figure out if the expectation of Christ's Kingdom will be properly earthly or heavenly, and if Christ's Coming will be all the way to earth, or merely appearing to the earth from heaven?

You already know what I think as an amillennialist about what is going to happen, so I'm not going to start an argument here about whether He will come all the way down to the earth's surface at that point or not.

But, I just wanted to comment on the last thing you said. It says we will meet Him "in the air", so I'm confused by you saying "appearing to the earth from heaven". Do you equate "the air" with heaven? I know scripture indicates that there are three heavens because it talks about paradise being "the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2-4). So, maybe you're talking about the first heaven when referencing "heaven" and equating that with "the air"? I tend to think that "the air" refers generally to the earth's atmosphere above the earth. It does talk about us being caught UP somewhere even though "the air" is not very specific. Anyway, I'm just curious as to what you meant exactly when you referenced Him "merely appearing to the earth from heaven".

 

[Randy Kluth]

You already know what I think as an amillennialist about what is going to happen, so I'm not going to start an argument here about whether He will come all the way down to the earth's surface at that point or not.

It never was my intention to get into the Amil vs Premil thing. I'm interested in what Paul intended to say about the Coming of Christ, and the experience of the Church. Whether or not you believe in a Millennial Kingdom, it remains a question: what did the Christians in Paul's day think? After all, they also expected, wrongly, that the Kingdom was imminent and about to appear. So it really doesn't matter what you believe about the Millennium. I should think Amils also believe in the coming of Christ's Kingdom? Don't non-Millennialists believe in a New Earth? I'm sure you do!

But, I just wanted to comment on the last thing you said. It says we will meet Him "in the air", so I'm confused by you saying "appearing to the earth from heaven". Do you equate "the air" with heaven? I know scripture indicates that there are three heavens because it talks about paradise being "the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2-4). So, maybe you're talking about the first heaven when referencing "heaven" and equating that with "the air"? I tend to think that "the air" refers generally to the earth's atmosphere above the earth. It does talk about us being caught UP somewhere even though "the air" is not very specific. Anyway, I'm just curious as to what you meant exactly when you referenced Him "merely appearing to the earth from heaven".

Yea, it's another of those questions. I was never sure what Paul meant by the "3rd heaven." My assumption is, right or wrong, that the Jews counted 3 heavens, 1) the air, 2) the stars, and 3) God's presence beyond.

My thought is that the "air" is the 1st heaven, where clouds form and people breath, below the 2nd heaven, or the place of the stars at night. When I say that one option is that Christ appears to the earth from heaven, I'm saying that Jesus said the sign of his Coming was more or less a *heavenly sign,* ie a sign up in the sky, among the clouds, visible from the earth below.

I don't really know what that means for all practical purposes. How can people on a round earth see, collectively, a sign in the clouds? Some would be on the opposite side of the earth!

Anyway, this is how I could see a sign in heaven, revealing something on earth. It would be some kind of revelation in the sky, seen all around the earth, visible to people on earth.

Or, the alternative would be Christ physically coming to the earth and landing on a piece of ground. Again, how could this affect people all around the earth, unless it initiates some kind of change in the heavens indicating God has set up a new administration, governing nations and enforcing tolerance for Christian political systems?

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I know where you stand on the Millennium. As I've said before, I was raised Amil, and many of my assumptions probably come from that theology. The friends that surrounded me and influenced me to give my whole life to the Lord were all Premils, which is probably why I adopted that system. But these questions really don't concern any of that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It never was my intention to get into the Amil vs Premil thing. I'm interested in what Paul intended to say about the Coming of Christ, and the experience of the Church. Whether or not you believe in a Millennial Kingdom, it remains a question: what did the Christians in Paul's day think?

You mean before they were taught what is contained in Paul's letters and in other NT scripture?

After all, they also expected, wrongly, that the Kingdom was imminent and about to appear.

So, it looks like that is what you meant. Yeah, they believed a lot of things wrongly before the Holy Spirit came to dwell in them and before the NT letters started circulating.

So it really doesn't matter what you believe about the Millennium. I should think Amils also believe in the coming of Christ's Kingdom?

No, we believe we are in it now and it is spiritual and heavenly in nature. It does not come with observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world (John 18:36), as Jesus Himself taught. We do believe in a coming of the kingdom of God in its fullness, though, with the future ushering in of the new heavens and new earth when Christ returns. We believe that Jesus will deliver His kingdom that we're in now to the Father when He comes at the end of the age (1 Cor 15:22-24, Matthew 13:40-43).

Don't non-Millennialists believe in a New Earth? I'm sure you do!

Yes, of course, but not that Christ's kingdom will be on it. The kingdom will be delivered to the Father at that point and they will reign together on the new earth with Christ being made subject to the Father at that point (1 Cor 15:28).

Yea, it's another of those questions. I was never sure what Paul meant by the "3rd heaven." My assumption is, right or wrong, that the Jews counted 3 heavens, 1) the air, 2) the stars, and 3) God's presence beyond.

My thought is that the "air" is the 1st heaven, where clouds form and people breath, below the 2nd heaven, or the place of the stars at night. When I say that one option is that Christ appears to the earth from heaven, I'm saying that Jesus said the sign of his Coming was more or less a *heavenly sign,* ie a sign up in the sky, among the clouds, visible from the earth below.

So, I was right that when you said "heaven" there you were equating that with "the air" and you see "the air" as a reference to the first heaven in the sense of that being "the sky, among the clouds, visible from the earth below". That's all I was wondering about.

I don't really know what that means for all practical purposes. How can people on a round earth see, collectively, a sign in the clouds? Some would be on the opposite side of the earth!

Yeah, I get that, but it says everyone will see Him so I think we should just trust that without feeling like we have to fully understand how that will work exactly.

Anyway, this is how I could see a sign in heaven, revealing something on earth. It would be some kind of revelation in the sky, seen all around the earth, visible to people on earth.

Or, the alternative would be Christ physically coming to the earth and landing on a piece of ground. Again, how could this affect people all around the earth, unless it initiates some kind of change in the heavens indicating God has set up a new administration, governing nations and enforcing tolerance for Christian political systems?

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I know where you stand on the Millennium. As I've said before, I was raised Amil, and many of my assumptions probably come from that theology. The friends that surrounded me and influenced me to give my whole life to the Lord were all Premils, which is probably why I adopted that system. But these questions really don't concern any of that.

No, they don't, which is why I will not attempt to turn this into another Premil vs. Amil debate since I know that is not what you are intending with this thread.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

It is our task to figure out if the expectation of Christ's Kingdom will be properly earthly or heavenly, and if Christ's Coming will be all the way to earth, or merely appearing to the earth from heaven?

I'm interested in what Paul intended to say about the Coming of Christ, and the experience of the Church. Whether or not you believe in a Millennial Kingdom, it remains a question: what did the Christians in Paul's day think?

Precious friend, this may or may not help: Two Different Contexts (earthly vs
heavenly) to examine?:

1) Prophecy/covenants/law for (earthly) Israel = The Second (Prophesied) Coming of

The Son of man (all the way) to the earth (Daniel, Matthew, Revelation), for salvation​

of Israel (after Great Trib), and (gathering them) for setting up the earthly kingdom​

for 1000 years...​

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)

2) The Revelation Of The (Heavenly) Mystery (Romans - Philemon) = The Coming

Of The Risen and Glorified "Head of The Body Of Christ" for gathering us​

"in the air" to take us to Heaven for judgment (before Great Trib)​

Further differences and distinctions of these Two Contexts are delineated here:

God's Great GRACE Departure!

I will pray and hope this is helpful. Amen.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Precious friend, this may or may not help: Two Different Contexts (earthly vs
heavenly) to examine?:

1) Prophecy/covenants/law for (earthly) Israel = The Second (Prophesied) Coming of

The Son of man (all the way) to the earth (Daniel, Matthew, Revelation), for salvation​

of Israel (after Great Trib), and (gathering them) for setting up the earthly kingdom​

for 1000 years...​

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)

2) The Revelation Of The (Heavenly) Mystery (Romans - Philemon) = The Coming

Of The Risen and Glorified "Head of The Body Of Christ" for gathering us​

"in the air" to take us to Heaven for judgment (before Great Trib)​

Further differences and distinctions of these Two Contexts are delineated here:

God's Great GRACE Departure!

I will pray and hope this is helpful. Amen.

That explains your typical Dispensational view. Who is coming "with" Christ, and which "Coming" is this associated with--the "gathering of Israel" or the "taking to Heaven?"

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.

 

[ewq1938]

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.

This is why i have argued that the dead in Christ resurrect in heaven, where Paul said teh new immortal body currently exists. Add the fact that he returns WITH them, and it all makes sense.

As I have long said:

The resurrected are not raptured.

The raptured are not resurrected.

 

[ewq1938]

Sure but Jesus said in those verses that the rewarding and the judgement day happens when He comes back but that is missing in chapter 19. This is one of the reasons why I don't believe chapter 19 isn't the second coming

It's missing from Rev 19 because judgment for the saints happens before Armageddon, and judgement for the unsaved happens over a thousand years later. Rev 19 is the second coming. You just have some beliefs that don't happen at the second coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is why i have argued that the dead in Christ resurrect in heaven, where Paul said teh new immortal body currently exists. Add the fact that he returns WITH them, and it all makes sense.

As I have long said:

The resurrected are not raptured.

The raptured are not resurrected.

Sure, Dispensationalism and the 2 Stage sense of Christ's Coming makes sense--no disputing that! However, I don't see any 2-step Coming in the various passages. That's the problem I have with it.

I only see one Coming of Christ in Matthew 24, one Coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4, and one Coming of Christ in Daniel 7. In all cases, Christ comes with the clouds, or "in the air." In all cases, Christ comes *with* his saints and *for* his saints. Being that we are speaking of a single Coming, how is the "with" and "for" explained? And is this "revelation from heaven" an actual touching down upon the earth?

If you're Premillennial and believe that Christ and his Church is actually touching down upon the earth, how does the glorified Church interact with the mortal world during the Millennium? Again, this question is only for those who believe Christ and his Church touch down upon the earth at his Coming.

However, if you wish to insert a 2-stage Coming in this, I can understand your logic. The 1st stage he comes for his Church, and the 2nd stage he comes with his Church. However, Jesus is portrayed as both coming with and for his Church at what you would see as the 1st stage, right? 1 Thes 4.

I agree the Rapture and the Resurrection are 2 separate things. But it is not established that they happen at separate events. It may be argued that the Resurrection immediately precedes the Rapture, right?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[ewq1938]

However, I don't see any 2-step Coming in the various passages.

Well, there the first step of reaching the clouds for a brief time then continuing down but my post had nothing to do with that or any other type of two stage return. I said teh dead are not raptured, because they resurrect in heaven and come with Christ...which you mentioned.

I only see one Coming of Christ in Matthew 24, one Coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4, and one Coming of Christ in Daniel 7. In all cases, Christ comes with the clouds, or "in the air." In all cases, Christ comes *with* his saints and *for* his saints. Being that we are speaking of a single Coming, how is the "with" and "for" explained? And is this "revelation from heaven" an actual touching down upon the earth?

Again, a heavenly resurrection for the dead is key to this.

If you're Premillennial and believe that Christ and his Church is actually touching down upon the earth, how does the glorified Church interact with the mortal world during the Millennium?

They go out like missionaries IMO because the unsaved will live all through the Earth, but the camp of the saints is next to Jerusalem. This means some traveling is involved.

However, if you wish to insert a 2-stage Coming in this, I can understand your logic. The 1st stage he comes for his Church, and the 2nd stage he comes with his Church.

No, he comes with part of his church, and meets with the rest of his church midway in the clouds.

I agree the Rapture and the Resurrection are 2 separate things. But it is not established that they happen at separate events. It may be argued that the Resurrection immediately precedes the Rapture, right?

Yes, the dead in Christ rise first, which means to resurrect/come back to life not to rise upward.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

Israel have not rejected Christ because Israel is not "the Jews" but Israel = Jews and Gentiles who are in Christ through faith in Christ. How can those who are in Christ have rejected Christ?

Jerusalem belongs to God and if Zechariah 14 has not happened yet, then it means that Christ is going to destroy the nations there because God has chosen to destroy the nations there, when they come against Jerusalem. Not anything to do with "the Jews" but everything to do with God's holy name.

Revelation 17
14 These (10 kings who are reigning with the beast) will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them. For He is Lord of lords and King of kings. And those with Him are the called and elect and faithful ones.

Revelation 19
16 And He has on His garment, and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
14 And the armies in Heaven followed Him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
8 And to her (the wife of Christ) was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. For the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.

Zechariah 14
5 And you shall flee to the valley of My mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. And the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with you.

In Revelation 21 the bride, the Lamb's wife is coming down from God out of heaven. Another reason why it's a fallacy to believe that the thousand years (though literal) and the NHNE do not commence at the same time.

It's only logical that they cannot come down before they were taken up.

Revelation 11
11 And after three days and a half, a spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet. And great fear fell on those seeing them.
12 And they heard a great voice from Heaven saying to them, Come up here. And they went up to Heaven in a cloud, and their enemies watched them.
13 And in that hour a great earthquake occurred, and the tenth part of the city fell. And seven thousand names of men were slain in the earthquake. And the rest were frightened and gave glory to the God of Heaven.

Zechariah 14
4 And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall divide from its middle, from the east and to the west, a very great valley. And half of the mountain shall move toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And you shall flee to the valley of My mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. And the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with you.

12 And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the peoples who have fought against Jerusalem. Their flesh shall rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes shall rot in their sockets. And their tongue shall rot in their mouth.

15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, the mule, the camel, and the ass, and of all the beasts which shall be in these tents, like this plague.

It's called a plague. The Revelation talks about the seven last plagues. This is the seventh plague:

Revelation 16
17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air. And a great voice came out of the temple of Heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done!
18 And voices and thunders and lightnings occurred. And there was a great earthquake, such as has not been since men were on the earth, so mighty and so great an earthquake.
19 And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give to her the cup of the wine of the anger of His wrath.
20 And every island fled away, and mountains were not found.
21 And a great hail, as the size of a talent, came down out of the heaven on men. And men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague of it was exceedingly great.

Zechariah 12
2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling to all the peoples all around, and it shall also be against Judah in the siege against Jerusalem.
3 And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples. All who lift it shall be slashed, and all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

9 And it shall be in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour on the house of David, and on the people of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of prayers. And they shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be bitter over Him, as the bitterness over the first-born.
11 In that day shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo.

Armageddon (Mount Meggido) comes to mind. The battle is not at the valley of Megiddo. The valley of Megiddo and Mount Megiddo (Har Megiddo or "Armageddon") is a symbol for the final battle, which is decisive, like the battle in the valley of Megiddo which brought about the mourning of Hadad-rimmon.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Israel have not rejected Christ because Israel is not "the Jews" but Israel = Jews and Gentiles who are in Christ through faith in Christ. How can those who are in Christ have rejected Christ?

Here is the problem I have with Replacement Theology. Let's just substitute the words "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" for the word "Israel" in the following passage...

Rom 9.1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of [Jews and Gentiles in Christ], my people, those of my own race, 4 the [Jews and Gentiles in Christ], the people of Israel. [The Jews and Gentiles in Christ]--theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Hopefully, you can see how ridiculous this reads, unless you drop "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" as a substitute for "Israel?"

I do understand Replacement Theology. The Church has always considered itself the heir of Israel, knowing that God didn't just make promises to a single nation, but really, to many nations. This was the Abrahamic Promise. And certainly the New Covenant has supplanted and fulfilled the Old Covenant of Jewish Law.

It's only logical that they cannot come down before they were taken up.

It does indeed seem logical. However, if I gave you bread to distribute to many, the fact I gave you bread and the fact you gave it out does not mean these have to be separate events, correct?

But thanks for your input. I'm sure there will be those who agree with you. It's not insensible to me.

 

[Zao is life]

Here is the problem I have with Replacement Theology. Let's just substitute the words "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" for the word "Israel" in the following passage...

Rom 9.1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of [Jews and Gentiles in Christ], my people, those of my own race, 4 the [Jews and Gentiles in Christ], the people of Israel. [The Jews and Gentiles in Christ]--theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Hopefully, you can see how ridiculous this reads, unless you drop "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" as a substitute for "Israel?"

I do understand Replacement Theology. The Church has always considered itself the heir of Israel, knowing that God didn't just make promises to a single nation, but really, to many nations. This was the Abrahamic Promise. And certainly the New Covenant has supplanted and fulfilled the Old Covenant of Jewish Law.

It does indeed seem logical. However, if I gave you bread to distribute to many, the fact I gave you bread and the fact you gave it out does not mean these have to be separate events, correct?

But thanks for your input. I'm sure there will be those who agree with you. It's not insensible to me.

Here's the problem I have with your Replacement Theology, which replaces Israel - the elect of God - with non-Israel, the non-elect:

You ignore how Paul is lamenting the fact that they have been broken off from Israel, his unbelieving fellow countrymen of whom he speaks. Further on in the same passage he speaks of the fact that God has had mercy upon the believing Jews and Gentiles, and he repeats this in Romans 11. In Romans 11 he also says that IF (conditional) they (the unbelieving part broken off from God's elect nation a.k.a Israel) will repent of their unbelief, they will be grafted in again.

They would not need to be "grafted in" again like the Gentiles have been grafted in, if they were still God's elect Israel.

Your Replacement Theology replaces God's elect nation with a non-elect.

 

[Timtofly]

Sure, Dispensationalism and the 2 Stage sense of Christ's Coming makes sense--no disputing that! However, I don't see any 2-step Coming in the various passages. That's the problem I have with it.

I only see one Coming of Christ in Matthew 24, one Coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4, and one Coming of Christ in Daniel 7. In all cases, Christ comes with the clouds, or "in the air." In all cases, Christ comes *with* his saints and *for* his saints. Being that we are speaking of a single Coming, how is the "with" and "for" explained? And is this "revelation from heaven" an actual touching down upon the earth?

If you're Premillennial and believe that Christ and his Church is actually touching down upon the earth, how does the glorified Church interact with the mortal world during the Millennium? Again, this question is only for those who believe Christ and his Church touch down upon the earth at his Coming.

However, if you wish to insert a 2-stage Coming in this, I can understand your logic. The 1st stage he comes for his Church, and the 2nd stage he comes with his Church. However, Jesus is portrayed as both coming with and for his Church at what you would see as the 1st stage, right? 1 Thes 4.

I agree the Rapture and the Resurrection are 2 separate things. But it is not established that they happen at separate events. It may be argued that the Resurrection immediately precedes the Rapture, right?

Thanks for your thoughts.

In 1 Corinthians 15, the order Paul gave never mentions a resurrection at the Second Coming.

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

Paul talks about the resurrection of Jesus. Later in verse 52, most assume Paul is talking about those physically dead:

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

Physical resurrection is not the point at all in this chapter. This chapter is about those spiritually dead made alive. The physical resurrection is just a byproduct of being made alive spiritually. So at the Second Coming the only dead made alive, ie resurrected are those alive on the earth at the time, and they are changed and caught up into the firmament.

This chapter is wrongly assumed as being only about a physical resurrection, when most of you all don't even think Adam physically died, the instant he disobeyed God. You are not being consistent in your application. If Adam did not physically die, in his act of disobedience, then no one is physically corruptible in sin.

You all seem to think, Adam would have physically died eventually even if he never ate once from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This whole chapter including a resurrection stipulates that Adam did indeed physically die at the point Adam disobeyed God. Thus all do need a physical resurrection. But at the Second Coming, only those still in Adam's dead corruptible flesh need that resurrection. No soul who has passed on into eternal life currently in Paradise need a resurrection. No dead body is going to be changed out of the ground. Physical death is shedding Adam's dead corruptible flesh. The soul immediately receives God's permanent incorruptible physical body. They have already been resurrected. Paul could not prevent all the OT saints from being resurrected at the Cross and given permanent incorruptible physical bodies. No one living in Adam's dead corruptible flesh could prevent that from happening.

Physical death is not tasting death for those in Christ. Physical death is tasting eternal life in a permanent incorruptible physical body. The soul changes bodies, not that the body is changed. "We shall be changed" is not the physical body. It is the soul changing body types from a body of death to a body of life. That is the theme of 1 Corinthians 15, not some future resurrection. The only dead at the Second Coming are those alive in Adam's dead flesh.

Jesus kept teaching over and over again that many would no longer taste death, but you all are still in an OT mindset where the redeemed still have to taste death, and therefore need a resurrection. No, they have been doing this in Paradise since the Cross:

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

The Lamb has been with them since Acts 1. Their numbers have been added to daily over the last 1993 years. Only those OT redeemed were resurrected out of Abraham's bosom, and they walked out of their graves in permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They were the firstfruits of the New Covenant. They have been in Paradise for 1993 years. We are the dead still in Adam's dead corruptible flesh who need to change bodies, not those gathered from the firmament in Paradise at the Second Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Israel have not rejected Christ because Israel is not "the Jews" but Israel = Jews and Gentiles who are in Christ through faith in Christ. How can those who are in Christ have rejected Christ?

Here is the problem I have with Replacement Theology. Let's just substitute the word "Israel" for "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" in the following passage...

Rom 9.1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of [Jews and Gentiles in Christ], my people, those of my own race, 4 the [Jews and Gentiles in Christ/, the people of Israel. [The Jews and Gentiles in Christ/--theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Hopefully, you can see how ridiculous this reads, unless you drop "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" as a substitute for "Israel?"

I do understand Replacement Theology. The Church has always considered itself the heir of Israel, knowing that God didn't just make promises to a single nation, but really, to many nations. This was the Abrahamic Promise. And certainly the New Covenant has supplanted and fulfilled the Old Covenant of Jewish Law.

Here's the problem I have with your Replacement Theology, which replaces Israel - the elect of God - with non-Israel, the non-elect:

I'm not name-calling when I use the term "Replacement Theology." That is just what it is called. I do understand that those who hold to that position sometimes are offended with the term, since it seems to imply a cavalier abuse of the term "Israel." One cannot lightly exchange the meaning of a single Jewish nation with another entirely-different meaning!

Nonetheless, the traditional understanding of "Replacement Theology" is the exchange of "Natural Israel" for "Spiritual Israel." I do not hold to any "Replacement Theology," as you suggest I do. This is a technical term, and I do not fill the bill.

Your Replacement Theology replaces God's elect nation with a non-elect.

You may character my beliefs as a form of "Replacement Theology," but that might confuse others. I do *not* hold to the technical definition of "Replacement Theology." You do.

Replacement Theology, or Supersessionism (from WIkipedia):
Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology,[1] is a Christian theology which describes the theological conviction that the Christian Church has superseded the Jews and the nation of Israel, assuming their role as God's covenanted people,[2] thus asserting that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded or replaced the Mosaic covenant exclusive to Jews. Supersessionist theology also holds that the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God.

 

[Marty fox]

There is no replacement theology there is only new covenant theology