This Makes More Sense To Me Now

[stunnedbygrace]

There were 3 main festivals that every man had to attend - Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles.
Passover was at time of barley harvest.
Pentecost, wheat harvest.
Tabernacles, olives and grapes.

So “do not harm the oil (from olives) and the wine” (from grapes) makes some sense to me now.

The thing I disagree with in the man I was listening to when that clicked for me is regarding first fruits, main harvest and gleaning.
I think first fruits already happened, with Jesus and the many of their dead they saw walking around. Then the main harvest would be the gathering together and the gleaning would be…the 144,000 mid trib…I dunno, maybe. Makes sense to me anyway.

edit: ah no, it can’t work. It absolutely can’t. I just had to discard a pretrib rapture after 16 years. At least I cannot find a way to make it work. Oh my mind is in a fierce tangle!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Except that…there are 2 harvests in Rev…oh wait…yes, makes sense to me.

 

[Charlie24]

There were 3 main festivals that every man had to attend - Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles.
Passover was at time of barley harvest.
Pentecost, wheat harvest.
Tabernacles, olives and grapes.

So “do not harm the oil (from olives) and the wine” (from grapes) makes some sense to me now.

The thing I disagree with in the man I was listening to when that clicked for me is regarding first fruits, main harvest and gleaning.
I think first fruits already happened, with Jesus and the many of their dead they saw walking around. Then the main harvest would be the gathering together and the gleaning would be…the 144,000 mid trib…I dunno, maybe. Makes sense to me anyway.

Well, it's not easily explained, it covers much Scripture, many things to understand.

As you said, and also Paul said, Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead.

Then Paul said (1 Cor. 15) every man in his order, Christ the firstfruits, afterward they who are Christ's at His coming, then the end comes.

Here is where many of us separate on the resurrection. The timing of it all, the Rapture, no Rapture, a resurrection at the Second Coming, so on and so on.

The important thing to know is that the first resurrection of Rev. 20:5 has several stages that constitute one resurrection, which is the first resurrection. This is the only way it can all be explained. Everyone who takes part in the first resurrection are the born-again. Of course all of this also is hotly debated.

It's debatable as to whether those resurrected at the crucifixion were a part of the first resurrection. When any of this comes up it's nothing but arguments. It's just a mess and shouldn't be that way.

All of us have their way to explain it, but obviously someone is wrong! Every person has a different interpretation of how all of this takes place. So I just try to avoid it, everyone is an expert and it's just a mess.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I avoid arguing. I just look for what fits together. If anyone wants to argue that they understand it precisely I just sneak away.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

As you said, and also Paul said, Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead.

Ah, yes, very good, thank you.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Well, it's not easily explained, it covers much Scripture, many things to understand.

As you said, and also Paul said, Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead.

Then Paul said (1 Cor. 15) every man in his order, Christ the firstfruits, afterward they who are Christ's at His coming, then the end comes.

Here is where many of us separate on the resurrection. The timing of it all, the Rapture, no Rapture, a resurrection at the Second Coming, so on and so on.

The important thing to know is that the first resurrection of Rev. 20:5 has several stages that constitute one resurrection, which is the first resurrection. This is the only way it can all be explained. Everyone who takes part in the first resurrection are the born-again. Of course all of this also is hotly debated.

It's debatable as to whether those resurrected at the crucifixion were a part of the first resurrection. When any of this comes up it's nothing but arguments. It's just a mess and shouldn't be that way.

All of us have their way to explain it, but obviously someone is wrong! Every person has a different interpretation of how all of this takes place. So I just try to avoid it, everyone is an expert and it's just a mess.

I don’t see that the first resurrection has several stages…could you explain your thought more?

 

[Charlie24]

I don’t see that the first resurrection has several stages…could you explain your thought more?

The first resurrection is in phases, happening several times.

We know this because John tells us, "blessed and holy is who has part in the first resurrection, on such the second death has no power (Rev. 20:6). The second death is spiritual death, eternal separation from God.

The phases of the first resurrection are as you mentioned, the 144,000, also the two witnesses of Rev., The resurrection of Thess. that Paul told us, which many call the Rapture. That will be every saint of God from the beginning of time to that day.

The second resurrection that John speaks of is a one time resurrection of the unsaved, they are the doomed, who will be cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Zao is life]

There were 3 main festivals that every man had to attend - Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles.
Passover was at time of barley harvest.
Pentecost, wheat harvest.
Tabernacles, olives and grapes.

So “do not harm the oil (from olives) and the wine” (from grapes) makes some sense to me now.

The thing I disagree with in the man I was listening to when that clicked for me is regarding first fruits, main harvest and gleaning.
I think first fruits already happened, with Jesus and the many of their dead they saw walking around. Then the main harvest would be the gathering together and the gleaning would be…the 144,000 mid trib…I dunno, maybe. Makes sense to me anyway.

Thank you for sharing that. I don't agree with a pre-trib or mid-trib anything but the rest has switched on a light for me, especially the olives and grapes. How could we ever know what that means unless we associate it with what the 1st century Jews would understand it to be associated with?

Obviously, I still don't know or understand any details of exactly what that would mean, but this is a start - albeit for me just scratching the surface kind of start.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There were 3 main festivals that every man had to attend - Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles.
Passover was at time of barley harvest.
Pentecost, wheat harvest.
Tabernacles, olives and grapes.

So “do not harm the oil (from olives) and the wine” (from grapes) makes some sense to me now.

The thing I disagree with in the man I was listening to when that clicked for me is regarding first fruits, main harvest and gleaning.
I think first fruits already happened, with Jesus and the many of their dead they saw walking around. Then the main harvest would be the gathering together and the gleaning would be…the 144,000 mid trib…I dunno, maybe. Makes sense to me anyway.

Wow, that's good! I never saw that about the "oil and wine!" However, it would've been clearer if the passage simply said, "Keep Tabernacles alive!"

I don't get wrapped up in trying to find parallels for the Feasts, as so many of us have done down through the years. I used to do this a lot, and it just led to confusion for me.

Quite simply, Christ fulfilled, in his atonement, the *entire Law,* including the Feasts. All of the Feasts required fulfillment at the atonement of Christ, because all of them required the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the temple. All of these were fulfilled in Christ, who initiated a new priesthood, and became himself the new and true temple, and the final sacrifice for all sin.

However, there is this allusion to the harvest cycle that may somehow be applied to the ages of progressive ministry. There was an initial first fruits of the resurrection in Jesus, who was the 1st to be raised from the dead. The general resurrection of the Church follows at his 2nd Coming.

And there was a sort of "first fruits" of the harvesting of souls for the Church in the Early Church, when a small remnant of Israel accepted Jesus as Messiah, and when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity. Later, Christianity and its harvest spread throughout all Europe and the whole world.

So there is that. Perhaps the international Church will follow the same model as Israel presented in her history? Perhaps in the present Church we are seeing a progressive development of the Christian nations, along with their demise, just as Israel did?

As Jesus said at his 1st Coming, the time of harvest for Israel had arrived, but the laborers had fallen on hard times. So also, we've reached the latter stages of Christian evangelization history, and we're seeing a serious decline in actual belief and practice of Christianity.

If we compare these developments in Christian history to a harvest cycle, I suppose we could say we're at the Tabernacles phase, with a risk to the "oil and wine?" Makes sense to me!

 

[bbyrd009]

everyone is an expert

Do you know a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool

 

[Charlie24]

Do you know a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool

Well if that's the case, pray for me, I need all the help I can get.

 

[marks]

That word there, do not hurt the oil and wine, this is adikeo, which is to be unjust towards. Literally, "don't wrong the oil and the wine".

Much love!

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

It's debatable as to whether those resurrected at the crucifixion were a part of the first resurrection. When any of this comes up it's nothing but arguments. It's just a mess and shouldn't be that way.

In Matthew 27:52-53 the tombs broke open when Jesus died. How? The earthquake lodged some of the tombs, the tombs that were corked like Jesus' tomb but not people buried. There were tens of thousands of graves, outside the city. They did not all open. There was no resurrection of people at this time. The only logical explanation is that a people who died within a few days of this occurance were resusitated as Lazarus was, not resurrected. It was just another miracle surrounding Jesus death and resurrection. If it a phase of the first resurrection, than all the Israelites who lived by faith and died would have appeared. Just many is more than a few/pre day within a couple days. They First Resurrection is coming soon!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The second resurrection that John speaks of is a one time resurrection of the unsaved, they are the doomed, who will be cast into the lake of fire.

It says with the first resurrection that death no longer has any power over those. It does not specifically state that in the second resurrection every single of those will be cast into the lake.

If there are saints under the altar who came from the great tribulation, it’s possible they come to God from the words of the two witnesses spoken during that time. They would then also, along with the 144,000, be part of the gleaning.

IF you suspect, as some do, that the gathering will be sudden, without warning, and before Gods wrath, you would also have to suspect that the saints under the altar become that during the tribulation. And at the second resurrection, they would not be thrown in the lake.

I say “IF” because some people suspect all must be in the great tribulation and the pouring out of wrath. But IF you suspect that isn’t so by what you read, then you have to also think not all in the second resurrection go to the lake of fire.

 

[Charlie24]

In Matthew 27:52-53 the tombs broke open when Jesus died. How? The earthquake lodged some of the tombs, the tombs that were corked like Jesus' tomb but not people buried. There were tens of thousands of graves, outside the city. They did not all open. There was no resurrection of people at this time. The only logical explanation is that a people who died within a few days of this occurance were resusitated as Lazarus was, not resurrected. It was just another miracle surrounding Jesus death and resurrection. If it a phase of the first resurrection, than all the Israelites who lived by faith and died would have appeared. Just many is more than a few/pre day within a couple days. They First Resurrection is coming soon!

If I'm not mistaken only Matthew records this event with the graves opening at the Crucifixion. Which limits the information we need.

The way Matthew explains it there was definitely a resurrection that took place. I've heard a few explanations for this, the only one that comes close to fitting, in my opinion, is that when Paul told us that Christ went to the lower parts and set the captives free, there were some who came out of Paradise at His death on the cross and took up their bodies, and were seen in Jerusalem.

It is assumed that the soul and spirit of man could not enter into heaven because the sin debt of man had not been paid. This would be why the soul and spirit of man went to Paradise. If you remember in Luke 16, Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man died and was buried, and lift his eyes in the flames of Hell. Lazarus died and the angels carried him into Abraham's bosom, which was another name for Paradise.

Jesus explained that there was a great gulf between Hell and Paradise, in other words, the Old Testaments saints were beside Hell with a great gulf between them, until Christ released them sometime before His ascension, and they entered into heaven.

This is as close as I can come to an explanation that makes sense. Of course there are other explanations.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Well if that's the case, pray for me, I need all the help I can get.

I don’t think he meant that. He meant those who are so certain they know exactly how every detail will happen to the point they fight about it.

 

[Charlie24]

It says with the first resurrection that death no longer has any power over those. It does not specifically state that in the second resurrection every single of those will be cast into the lake.

If there are saints under the altar who came from the great tribulation, it’s possible they come to God from the words of the two witnesses spoken during that time. They would then also, along with the 144,000, be part of the gleaning.

IF you suspect, as some do, that the gathering will be sudden, without warning, and before Gods wrath, you would also have to suspect that the saints under the altar become that during the tribulation. And at the second resurrection, they would not be thrown in the lake.

I say “IF” because some people suspect all must be in the great tribulation and the pouring out of wrath. But IF you suspect that isn’t so by what you read, then you have to also think not all in the second resurrection go to the lake of fire.

The Scripture says that all who were not found written in the Book of Life were cast into the Lake of Fire.

These are of the second resurrection. All who were in the first resurrection, there names were found in the Book of Life.

 

[Charlie24]

The Scripture says that all who were not found written in the Book of Life were cast into the Lake of Fire.

These are of the second resurrection. All who were in the first resurrection, there names were found in the Book of Life.

If you notice in Rev. 20:11-15 all of these called up from the graves, the bodies lost at sea, etc. were all at the Great White Throne of Judgment. This is the second resurrection, and were cast into the Lake of Fire.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The Scripture says that all who were not found written in the Book of Life were cast into the Lake of Fire.

These are of the second resurrection. All who were in the first resurrection, there names were found in the Book of Life.

There are two books. AND, it does not specifically say that ALL in the second resurrection go to the lake. In fact, some of the long parables seem to suggest that some in the first resurrection will “welcome into their habitations” some of the second resurrection. They would be those who say, huh…? When did we ever see You thirsty and give You a drink…?

There is more to it than men’s systematic theologies propose.

 

[Charlie24]

There are two books. AND, it does not specifically say that ALL in the second resurrection go to the lake. In fact, some of the long parables seem to suggest that some in the first resurrection will “welcome into their habitations” some of the second resurrection. They would be those who say, huh…? When did we ever see You thirsty and give You a drink…?

There is more to it than men’s systematic theologies propose.

The 2 books are the Book of Life and the other, everything you did in your life, literally. Together, the proof is there for your Judgment.

I know this is confusing, but stick with me and I will explain.

The first phase of the first resurrection takes place as Paul told us in 1 Thes. 4:13-18. These are all the saved.

There is a separation of 1000 years between the first resurrection and the second resurrection in Rev. 20 at the Great Whit Throne.

Rev. 20:5, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the 1000 years were finished."

These are the dead, including those in hell who are raised up and stand before God, all unsaved and doomed.

Rev. 20:11-15
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Do you see the bold? "This is the second death." The second death is eternal separation from God.

All of these here are the second resurrection who have been given the second death, spiritual death, that means the Lake of Fire.