Why I'm Premil

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have stated your belief and I strongly disagree

You have removed a literal event through symbolic allegory in the literal, physical, (Two Witnesses), same as your 2,000+ year gap between your "Preterist" 66-70AD (Great Tribulation) and (Second Coming Of Jesus Christ) with a claim of its a 2,000 year gap in "Fulfilling Of The Gentiles" A Fairy Tale!

Buddy, you don't need to call my view "a fairy tale" just because you disagree with it. Have some respect for crying out loud. Do you know how immature you come across? How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you talk like this? Some people might say the same thing about your view of Revelation 20. How is it that you are able to discern that the thousand years are not literal but you insist that the two witnesses must be literal? You don't seem to be very consistent with your approach to interpreting the book.

Your belief and teaching is In the same fashion of pre-tribbers in their secret rapture and Millennialist in their Kingdom on earth, no different at bending and twisting scripture to suit ones teaching and belief

I'm done with you. I don't need your insults. I have better things to do then deal with children like you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Brother, a sword coming out of someone's mouth is obviously symbolic of the tongue speaking judgment, or something like that. It doesn't require explanation that it is symbolic since it is *self-evident.*

Is it really? I have seen a few people who think it's literal. So, you should not try to speak for everyone.

A thousand year Millennium is *not* self-evidently symbolic! I think that's the point being made? Self-evident symbolism is also a form of explicit symbolism.

It doesn't need to be. Is the following "self-evidently symbolic" when it references "a thousand generations"? No, it isn't. And, yet, it is symbolic. If it was literal then that would mean God's promises have a limited duration, which we all know is not true.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, brother, you clearly missed *my point!* I was disagreeing with you. A person doesn't commit adultery accidentally. A person does not interpret something *dogmatically* accidentally. You have to be pretty sure of yourself to make an eschatological belief *dogmatic.*

Now, if you're just saying, "it's my opinion that the Millennium is symbolic," then that's leaving a place for God to decide whether we're crossing the line or not. But if you're *sure* that the Millennium is symbolic, then you're not accidentally forming an opinion--you're making a matter of creed.

This is the biggest problem I've had with this subject. People are selling their houses, their cars, and their family as a bet on Amil.
Ok, that was a "slight" exaggeration!

How much confidence we have in our views has NOTHING to do with what Revelation 22:19 is talking about. That is the point. So, you are missing my point as well. Looks like we're just talking past each other instead of to each other and I don't know what we can do about that. I just think very differently from you and most of the other Premils on here, so it's difficult for us to understand each other sometimes. So be it. Let's just agree to disagree on this and move on.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My mind is settled for the moment. It is tentative. I'm not so arrogant as to think I have all of the same information God has. The reason I continue to believe in the literal interpretation of Rev 20 is, as I said, due to the warning about tampering with the words. It has not been proven to me that the "thousand years" is necessarily symbolic. When you do that, I'm open to change my mind.

I believe people like WPM and myself have done that, but you're not seeing it. So be it.

If you already know everything, and don't like me to tell you things you already know, why do you ask? I don't get it.

I don't get why you said this in response to what I said. I read what I said again and I truly have no idea how in the world it could possibly lead to this kind of response from you. What I said had nothing to do with supposedly knowing everything and I didn't even ask you anything.

[quote You bring up some points, and I explain that those points can looked at equally in opposite ways, while at the same time agreeing on the same Scriptures. I found that interesting. You find that provocative????[/quote]I don't know what you're saying here. I can't figure out why you are responding like this to my post. I'm starting to wonder if maybe this is all a complete waste of time since I don't even know why you're saying what you're saying.

Obviously, the above Scripture is a known type of saying. What's fit for something small can be used to express the same in much larger terms. "I know the script" means "I know the whole story." And "I know the way it works" means "I'm not surprised by how things will turn out." It's a saying.

Rev 20 is *not* a saying. If God said, "I have your number" I would not conclude that He has our phone number. It means He understands everything about us. But if He says, "the reign of my Son will last exactly 1000 years," who am I to doubt Him?

Again, it's because of what other scripture teaches that I interpret Revelation 20 the way I do. It seems that you think you can interpret any given passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, but we should interpret scripture with scripture and interpret a given passage in such a way that doesn't contradict any other scripture.

Good at you. It's much more fun to discuss things, even disagree over things, with someone who is respectful and tries to maintain our commonality in Christ at the same time. That's also what I'm trying to do.

I guess we're failing then because this forum has insults being hurled around constantly. I actually like that there isn't as much moderation here as some other forums where you have to walk on eggshells with every post, but maybe there isn't enough.

None of us has this virtue apart from Christ, and we all have equal access to him. Sorry this is obvious, but that's because we all know the truth.

We all know the basics, I suppose. But, beyond that it seems like few can agree on anything.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I believe people like WPM and myself have done that, but you're not seeing it. So be it.

I don't get why you said this in response to what I said. I read what I said again and I truly have no idea how in the world it could possibly lead to this kind of response from you. What I said had nothing to do with supposedly knowing everything and I didn't even ask you anything.

Post #76 Randy, I already knew all of that. Why exactly did you think you needed to tell me these things as if I didn't already know what you believe?

Again, it's because of what other scripture teaches that I interpret Revelation 20 the way I do. It seems that you think you can interpret any given passage in isolation from the rest of scripture, but we should interpret scripture with scripture and interpret a given passage in such a way that doesn't contradict any other scripture.

You have to begin with what you're reading before you can introduce other Scriptures. You have to know what is being talked about before fitting it with other passages. So yes, to understand the passage in question, you must begin with how words are being used there first.

You have to decide when you read the "thousand years" in Rev 20 if it is referring to something symbolic or not, if it refers back to a related prophecy or not. If you begin with the idea that it is symbolic, you are inserting that into an otherwise literal meaning.

In the case of the 144,000, I do take that as a symbolic number because I see it as a reference back to a symbolic vision in Eze 40-48. So yes, it's difficult.

I guess we're failing then because this forum has insults being hurled around constantly. I actually like that there isn't as much moderation here as some other forums where you have to walk on eggshells with every post, but maybe there isn't enough.

We all know the basics, I suppose. But, beyond that it seems like few can agree on anything.

Sometimes these forums get enough "hits" that many others read the responses for reference. You may be helping people you never even see as members. That's what my interest is. The guests may far outnumber the members. We are serving them by anticipating many of their questions. Then they can make up their own minds.

I agree on less moderation. I began for 10 years on a forum that had no moderation at all. But it was a mixed Christian-nonChristian forum. On a Christian forum like this one, we should make an effort to show Christian love and unity even as we make our emotional appeals.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Is it really? I have seen a few people who think it's literal. So, you should not try to speak for everyone.

We should never judge a matter by the outlying opinions. There are always extremes, and we should discard them. A sword coming out of a mouth is either a sword-swallower or something symbolic. It isn't difficult.

It doesn't need to be. Is the following "self-evidently symbolic" when it references "a thousand generations"? No, it isn't. And, yet, it is symbolic. If it was literal then that would mean God's promises have a limited duration, which we all know is not true.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

Yes, it is self-evidently a manner of speaking, which in this case doesn't matter of it's literal or not. It means God has an unchanging nature. One can easily tell a "manner of speaking," a "saying," or the use of symbolism. The thousand years in Rev 20 is none of these, and so I take it literally. What you're doing is taking Deut 7.9 and importing it into Rev 20 when there is no obvious connection between them other than the use of the number "thousand."

 

[Truth7t7]

Buddy, you don't need to call my view "a fairy tale" just because you disagree with it. Have some respect for crying out loud. Do you know how immature you come across? How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you talk like this? Some people might say the same thing about your view of Revelation 20. How is it that you are able to discern that the thousand years are not literal but you insist that the two witnesses must be literal? You don't seem to be very consistent with your approach to interpreting the book.

I'm done with you. I don't need your insults. I have better things to do then deal with children like you.

Your teaching and belief regarding the (Two Witnesses) is major error, in total disregard of the literal interpretation seen below

The (Two Witnesses) Will Have Literal Physical Bodies That Die, And Will Lay In A Literal Street In This Literal World, As A Literal World Watches In Celebration Of Their Death

Jesus Is The Lord

Revelation 11:7-12KJV
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There were 14 tribes and 14 disciples, but how does that make the #12 suspicious of being literal. There is a perfectly normal explanation why there are 14 disciples and 14 tribes. Yet God's Will is still 12 acknowledged tribes and disciples.

I take the 144,000 symbolic because it is similar to Eze 40-48, which has to do with a symbolic vision, a temple that was never built. It was used as a visual illustration of what Israel should've been doing, and nothing they would ever do.

Also, the 144,000 involved 12 tribes that were no longer territorial tribal allotments. As such, they are purely symbolic of all Israel in the future, when they will receive their full inheritance.

 

[Truth7t7]

What you're doing is taking Deut 7.9 and importing it into Rev 20 when there is no obvious connection between them other than the use of the number "thousand."

You mean like Millennialist taking the words (Thousand Years) in Revelation 20, then jumping into various old testament scriptures, and falsely claiming it's a Millennial Kingdom on this earth, when there is no connection whatsoever, smiles!

 

[Timtofly]

I take the 144,000 symbolic because it is similar to Eze 40-48, which has to do with a symbolic vision, a temple that was never built. It was used as a visual illustration of what Israel should've been doing, and nothing they would ever do.

Also, the 144,000 involved 12 tribes that were no longer territorial tribal allotments. As such, they are purely symbolic of all Israel in the future, when they will receive their full inheritance.

So there is a remnant but 144k is too many, not enough? What then?

Israel will be restored at the Second Coming unless you don't take the Second Coming and Millennium literal? Just symbolism for change, that will suddenly happen, and then life goes on as normal?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So there is a remnant but 144k is too many, not enough? What then?

Israel will be restored at the Second Coming unless you don't take the Second Coming and Millennium literal? Just symbolism for change, that will suddenly happen, and then life goes on as normal?

My policy is to interpret as symbolic what is obviously symbolic. The 144,000 follows the pattern set forth in Eze 40-48, in which Israel's Hope is clearly portrayed using OT terminology. That terminology is the same being used in Rev 7-11, in which a remnant of 144,000 Israelites are mentioned, using tribes that are in the current era no longer in existence and in which a temple that no longer exits is measured for worshipers.

On the other hand, the Millennium is not found in Eze 40-48, and does not use outmoded elements. And so, I take it literally, just as Eze 40-48 projects a literal Jewish Hope at the end of the age. Without a period of time in which Israel can be historically fulfilled, I don't think OT prophecy on behalf of Israel makes sense.

The 144,000 is divided equally into 12 groups, suggesting, quite simply, that the promise to the 12 tribes are equally fulfilled in the Jewish People. I think the territorial boundaries are an OT foreshadowing of the non-tribal Jewish People in the Millennium. Since the 12 tribes can no longer be reconstituted into 12 different groups directly descended from the original 12 tribes, we must see this as symbolic of their inheritance through the Jewish People, when there are no longer any divisions in Israel, as prophesied.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have to begin with what you're reading before you can introduce other Scriptures. You have to know what is being talked about before fitting it with other passages. So yes, to understand the passage in question, you must begin with how words are being used there first.

This illustrates the major difference in our approaches. We can't possibly ever agree when our approaches to interpreting scripture are so different.

You have to decide when you read the "thousand years" in Rev 20 if it is referring to something symbolic or not, if it refers back to a related prophecy or not. If you begin with the idea that it is symbolic, you are inserting that into an otherwise literal meaning.

I did not begin with the idea that it is symbolic. When I first began studying this particular issue (the timing and meaning of the thousand years) I went it to it objectively without assuming it was either literal or symbolic. Based on what I see taught in the rest of scripture, I conclude that it must be symbolic. As I've explained several times now.

In the case of the 144,000, I do take that as a symbolic number because I see it as a reference back to a symbolic vision in Eze 40-48. So yes, it's difficult.

You can discern that the 144,000 number is symbolic but not the thousand years. That just makes no sense to me.

Sometimes these forums get enough "hits" that many others read the responses for reference. You may be helping people you never even see as members. That's what my interest is.

Yes, I understand that.

The guests may far outnumber the members. We are serving them by anticipating many of their questions. Then they can make up their own minds.

Sure. It's easy to forget this sometimes, but I agree that there are likely far more guests than active posters here.

I agree on less moderation. I began for 10 years on a forum that had no moderation at all. But it was a mixed Christian-nonChristian forum. On a Christian forum like this one, we should make an effort to show Christian love and unity even as we make our emotional appeals.

Yes, we should.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, it is self-evidently a manner of speaking, which in this case doesn't matter of it's literal or not.

LOL. That is very convenient for you to conclude that the "thousand generations" is somehow self-evidently figurative, but the "thousand years" is not. Goodness gracious. This is just amazing. I'm sorry, but I believe you are saying this because of doctrinal bias and no other reason. The thousand generations is not anymore clearly literal or symbolic than the thousand years. I don't buy what you're saying here whatsoever.

It means God has an unchanging nature. One can easily tell a "manner of speaking," a "saying," or the use of symbolism.

Says you. Judging by this forum, that is clearly not true. If it was so easy then why is there so much disagreement over what is literal and what is symbolic?

The thousand years in Rev 20 is none of these, and so I take it literally. What you're doing is taking Deut 7.9 and importing it into Rev 20 when there is no obvious connection between them other than the use of the number "thousand."

Are you being serious here? Clearly, I was not implying that there is a direct connection between Deuteronomy 7:9 and Revelation 20. That should be obvious. I was simply giving another example where the word "thousand" was used in a way that isn't "self-evidently" literal or symbolic.

Yet, by taking into account other scripture regarding God's character, we can discern that it is indeed symbolic.

Similarly, we can look at other scripture regarding Christ reigning, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment, believers being priests and such and conclude that Revelation 20 is talking about something that has been an ongoing reality since the resurrection of Christ (some would say since the beginning of His ministry or since His ascension - around that time, anyway).

 

[Marilyn C]

Why don't I join two sets of 3.5 years together to form 7 years? It's because of the way I interpret what the Bible says. The Holy Spirit has given us the Bible, and He knows how to communicate with us reliably.

What I've discovered is that truth is given sort of in layers. A foundation, a 2nd floor, a 3rd floor--all are based on the same foundation. Dan 7 became the foundation for the doctrine of Antichrist and it was determined to be strictly a 3.5 year period. Not 7 years. The Week is imported by others from Dan 9, which had to do with the earthly ministry of Christ and with the fall of Jerusalem at that time.

So a Week is out. The 7 years is out. There is no other basis for a 7 years of Antichristian rule. If Dan 7 is the foundation for NT theology on the Antichrist, then we are left with strictly a 3.5 years period of time. This is not the "Great Tribulation." Rather, this is the Reign of Antichrist, which is a very short period of time, comparable to the time of Antiochus 4's reign of terror.

So when we read of the 3.5 years in the book of Revelation, it all focuses back on Dan 7, and on the 3.5 years of Antichrist's reign. The time period is given in 3 different ways, as 3.5 years, as 42 months, and as 1260 days. The 1260 days is contrasting with the 1290 days of Antiochus 4, so that we don't get confused. The 42 months is given for whatever reason, perhaps for the same reason it is given as days, as well. This is a period that is intense month by month and day by day.

Hi Randy,

So, regarding Dan. 9: 24 where do you see the fulfillment of the details -

`Seventy-weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to make -
- an end the transgression, (What trangression did Israel do?)
- to make an end of sins, (What sins did Israel commit?)
- to make reconciliation for iniquity, (What iniquity did they do?)
- to bring in everlasting righteousness, (Where is Israel ruling righteously?)
- to seal up vision and prophecy, (Have all the visions and prophecies for Israel been fulfilled?)
- and to anoint the Most Holy.` (Is the third temple built and the Most Holy place anointed?)

regards, Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

I don't know what you mean?

Remember you ticked this diagram of mine. It shows all rulership coming under the Lord Jesus Christ. (Eph. 1: 8 - 10, 3: 11)

 

[Marilyn C]

Where does Peter say anything about a millennium after Christ's return? He doesn't. You are adding that to the text.

The text talks about the heavens and earth being burned up as a result of the day of the Lord coming unexpectedly like a thief in the night. So, when do you believe the heavens and earth will be burned up? At what point exactly do you think the day of the Lord comes unexpectedly like a thief in the night? You can't call a long period of time something that comes unexpectedly like a thief in the night. That makes no sense.

Also, in 2 Peter 3:13, Peter indicated that we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming. If the new heavens and new earth weren't ushered in until 1000+ years after His second coming, then how would 2 Peter 3:13 make any sense?

The word day in Greek is a specific day, (when the Lord returns, Rev. 6: 17) and also a time period, (1 Thess. 5: 2, and in the OT).

The Day of the Lord time period will start when the northern army comes against Israel. (Joel 2: 1)

2 Peter 3: 13 refers to our eternal inheritance - future promise, not the Lord`s return.

 

[Marilyn C]

Sorry, but that timeline is very misleading.

Apostle Paul placed the "day of Christ" to be Christ's future "thousand years" reign that begins at His future return on the last day of this present world (see Philippians 1:10; Philippians 2:16; and 2 Thessalonians 2:2).

The first day of Christ's future reign is the first day of the "day of the Lord" and starts on the last day of this present world, because that "day of Christ" is meant as that 'day' of a thousand years per 2 Peter 3:8, which is meant literally.

The 3.5 years of Daniel 7:25 (or "time and times and the dividing of time"), is equal to the 42 months of the dragon's reign of Revelation 13, and the period the Gentiles tread the holy city per Revelation 11, which all those times are for the coming period of "great tribulation" at the end of this present world.

The only time difference to note with that is what we are told in Revelation 11 & 13, because the 42 months is based on a Lunar timing, but the 1360 days God's two witnesses are to prophesy is given according Solar timing. A solar year is just a little bit longer than a lunar year, some say by about 10 or 11 days.

Here is the timeline for the end that I get from God's Word:

1. the "one week" of Daniel 9:27 is the final 'week' in the Daniel 9 seventy weeks prophecy. It is the 70th week, and is for the very end of this world. It is equal to period of 7 years, just like the previous symbolic 'weeks' in the prophecy are.

2. That final "one week" is divided into 2 parts per that Daniel 9:27 verse. That means 2 periods of 3.5 years each.

3. The 1st 3.5 years period involves the coming of the false Messiah and the Jews in Jerusalem building their 3rd temple, and the old covenant worship started up again, with sacrifices. This must... occur to fulfill the prophecy of the false Messiah later ending those sacrifices and instead placing the "abomination of desolation" in Jerusalem.

4. In the middle of the "one week", the false Messiah will end sacrifices in Jerusalem, and instead place the "abomination of desolation" idol in demanding that all worship him in place of God, or all that is called God, or even all things that are worshiped (this per 2 Thessalonians 2). This period is the latter 3.5 years of the symbolic "one week", and will end with Christ's future return on the last day of this present world.

The Day of Christ is for the believers. (Phil. 1: 10)
The Day of the Lord (God Almighty is for judgment. (Rev. 15: 7)

I agree with you about the lunar and solar years.
I agree with you about Dan. 9: 27.

I believe God`s word says the third temple will be built in the millennium. The Jews already have a temple that they worship in. It is that one where you can see the holy place and the A/C and his image. If it was the third temple there would be a veil covering the holy place.

The Lord still has His purpose for Israel to rule righteously over the nations. That is the purpose of the 1,000 years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2 Peter 3: 13 refers to our eternal inheritance - future promise, not the Lord`s return.

I wonder how closely you have studied 2 Peter 3? I tend to think not very. What is "His promise" that Peter said the new heavens and new earth will fulfill? Let's take a look at the text and find out.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Can you see here that Peter talked about scoffers in the last days scoffing at the idea of Christ's second coming by asking sarcastically "Where is the promise of his coming"? Peter indicates that they will not get away with their scoffing unscathed because he indicated, in relation to Christ's second coming, that just as in Noah's day "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished", at Christ's second coming "the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire".

Then Peter continued and said this:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So, Peter points out that the Lord is not being slow to fulfill the promise of His second coming as some imagine. From His perspective, He is not being slow at all because a day and a thousand years are no different to Him. Which makes sense since He created time. Time has no affect on Him. So, He is not being slow in fulfilling the promise of His second coming.

Then Peter said this:

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

He describes the day of the Lord as coming unexpectedly like a thief in the night, just as Jesus said about the day He returns (Matt 24:42-44, Rev 16:15). And he indicates that it will be accompanied by the burning up of the heavens and the earth.

Then Peter said this:

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

So, he was saying here that despite the global destruction that will occur upon the arrival of the day of the Lord (the day Christ returns), we, in accordance with (in fulfillment of) his promise of coming again, are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth where righteousness will dwell.

So, Peter describes the new heavens and new earth as being something directly associated with the fulfillment of "his promise", which as we see from 2 Peter 3:4 is a reference to the promise of His second coming. That places the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth at His second coming and not 1000+ years later.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hi Randy,

So, regarding Dan. 9: 24 where do you see the fulfillment of the details -

`Seventy-weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to make -
- an end the transgression, (What trangression did Israel do?)
- to make an end of sins, (What sins did Israel commit?)
- to make reconciliation for iniquity, (What iniquity did they do?)
- to bring in everlasting righteousness, (Where is Israel ruling righteously?)
- to seal up vision and prophecy, (Have all the visions and prophecies for Israel been fulfilled?)
- and to anoint the Most Holy.` (Is the third temple built and the Most Holy place anointed?)

regards, Marilyn.

It's sad when people don't recognize that only Jesus could fulfill all of those things. And He did. He is the Most Holy who was anointed long ago. He is the One who brought in everlasting righteousness by way of His death and resurrection. He is the One who made reconciliation for iniquity by sacrificing Himself for the sins of the people of Israel (and for the world as well, of course). He is the One who came to take way the sins of the people of Israel and even the entire world (John 1:29, 1 John 3:5).

 

[Marilyn C]

It's sad when people don't recognize that only Jesus could fulfill all of those things. And He did. He is the Most Holy who was anointed long ago. He is the One who brought in everlasting righteousness by way of His death and resurrection. He is the One who made reconciliation for iniquity by sacrificing Himself for the sins of the people of Israel (and for the world as well, of course). He is the One who came to take way the sins of the people of Israel and even the entire world (John 1:29, 1 John 3:5).

But that is not just concerning `your people and for your city. ` (Dan. 9: 27)