This kind of got started here. So here we go with a thread to discuss this stuff.
For the sake of not retyping, here's my view:
I believe in Rapture of all dead and living Christians at the beginning of the tribulation. The tribulation will last 7 years at the end of which comes Armageddon. Then the 1000 year reign of Jesus on the earth which is followed up by the judgements and then eternity in heaven with God for Christians.
From what I'm reading of the different eschatologies, that would place me as a Dispensational Premillennialist.
I believe this because I believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally as much as possible and when it isn't clear, we should try to use other parts of the Bible to interpret itself.
I think a good article about the whole topic of Eschatologies is here.
To start this off we've got Matthew 24:37-41. It says that the world will be like in the days of Noah. So what was it like in the days of Noah? Genesis 6:1-8 shows us this, but most particularly verse 5
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
I don't think we're quite in the days of Noah yet, but we're getting there quick. So if we go back to what it says in Matthew, we see that the world has got to become quite wicked before Jesus comes back again. So how do we know he hasn't come back yet? Acts 1:6-12 says he will come again the same way he left. To the best of my knowledge Jesus hasn't come back on the clouds yet.
Hmm...this could take a while to get some proper proof texts for every part of the premillenial dispenstationalist view. Why don't we just start the discussion there. Feel free to add your thoughts on any part of the different views and we'll see where this goes.
Interpretation
I believe this because I believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally as much as possible and when it isn't clear, we should try to use other parts of the Bible to interpret itself.
I'm going to agree with the last part on that, that Scripture should interpret Scripture, but the first part I'd disagree with. Rather, I think we should ask, "How does that author invite us to read this?" I think this is especially important in this area because you have the book of Revelation which was written in the apocalyptic genre, a genre very common in John's day, and a genre that doesn't invite us to read it literally.
Thoughts?
Agreement maybe
No, I think we're really on the same page here, just that my skills in getting what's in my head out into written form are extremely lacking.
I had previously read that article you wrote and agree with you on that subject. I guess my mind just makes the transition from literal to figurative so easily, most of the time I don't even notice I did it. And then I go and usually assume others have read and inferred the same meanings that I did. Yet another of my downfalls.
So, I guess it would be better to say that I believe it should be taken literally unless its obvious that the author was speaking (for example) poetically. That's also not to say that you can read between the lines of a literal passage as well as match it with other scripture to infer other knowledge that isn't that obvious.
Blah, if I could just learn to express myself without the thought getting tied in knots between my brain and the outlet, I might actually be dangerous. ;)
More comments are coming, but I've got a full weekend this weekend so it might be a bit.
no problem
You know what, we all struggle at times to clearly express what's on the mind. That's why it's important to take time to actually discuss, clarify, and make sure we get where each other is really coming from.
Matthew 24
I had a feeling Matthew 24 would show up rather quickly. Here are some thoughts on not just 37-41, but all 51 verses.
The whole thing starts off with Jesus setting the stage by prophecying about the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. His disciples then go on to ask when this destruction will happen with the assumption that such an event is a sign of Christ's coming and the end of the age. Notice how all of this places the tribulation in a present context rather than something future.
Then Jesus goes on to say that there will be false teachers and natural disasters and nations battling it out as a setup to the end. Of course the New Testament which was written before the end of the 1st Century was already identifying false teachers (gnostics, Judaizers, etc.) and just a quick glance at history points to all kinds of natural disasters and wars going on. In other words, life from the cross on has been the tribulation.
To add to this, Jesus then tells the disciples that they we be persecuted and put to death because of Christ ... which happens to be what happened to all of the disciples with the exception of John. Moreover, because of general persecution to the Church, many will fall away from the faith but those who hold fast will be saved. Again, all of this is happening today and has been happening since the cross.
Then Jesus says something interesting ... that the Gospel will be proclaimed to all people and then the end will come. Note, he doesn't say rapture, he says end, meaning time as we know it will cease and a new age will begin. According to Jesus we don't look toward the rapture, we look towards the end.
Jesus goes on about the tribulation, largely in reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD and the scattering of the Church. Interestingly enough, the language Jesus uses is almost identical to the language that the Jewish and anti-Christian historian Josephus used when he witnessed the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Jesus goes on to say that what marks the end of this is the coming of the Son of Man (aka himself), not in secret (like the rapture suggests), but as one seen from East to West (we get this again in Acts 1:6-12).
So again, recapping, this is all happening from the cross until now and right on until Jesus comes back. There is no rapture before tribulation because we are in the tribulation now.
Then Jesus goes on with what happens after the tribulation ... his Second Coming which will be seen and recognized by all people. So that's what we know ... what we don't know is when because Jesus says that's something that hasn't been revealed.
Now, all of this sets up for the verse that we started with.
Starting at Matthew 24:37, Jesus goes on to say that his Second Coming will be just like the days of Noah. People are living along, doing their thing, and then wham, the heavens open and the flood comes down. Jesus explains it this way, "they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (I think that last verse say, when considering the days of Noah, we should look to the flood itself, not the sin of the people). Then he goes on to add verses 40-41 about one being taken and one being left.
Now, in the context of Noah's day, who was taken and who was left? In other words, when the flood was done, who was still alive? This verse can't possibly be a rapture reference because in context, the people left on the earth aren't the wicked ones, but the faithful. The same goes for all of Jesus parables, be it the "wheat and the chaff" or "the sheep and the goats" or any other end times parable. The wicked are always the onces taken away with the faithful being left behind (at least for the moment).
Jesus then closes it all with an admonition to be alert and ready and looking for the Second Coming because you never know when it's going to happen.
So there it is. We're in the tribulation now and should be looking for the Second Coming while we share the Gospel to the ends of the earth.
Thoughts?
My thoughts on Matthew 24.
I can understand what you're saying. It does kind of make sense when you try to fit different world events into the different Biblical even slots.
This is what I get out of Matthew 24. I think it's important to state that I'm pulling from the NKJV just so we're not discussing across versions.
It seems like Jesus has this split up into 3 different time periods (and not just becuase that's where the headings are on the linked site). Verses 1-8 show a time where things will gradually decline. If you look at the events spoken of in verses 4-7, you'll notice that they're all local types of events. We could say that they're the birthing pains like what was mentioned a few weeks ago this site in the article about the Myanmar event. Like it says in verse 8, these are the beginning of sorrows. They are certainly A tribulation, but I don't believe it's THE Tribulation yet for the fact that they're generally localized in nature.
Next, we take 9-14. This is where we start seeing things happening on a global scale. You see this as a general hatred of Christians by everyone. I think the nations of the earth are working toward this as we speak. If you think about the general outlook toward Christians from Christs death up until now, you'll see that it has been tolerant. Sure, there's been rough times where Christians were killed for their faith, but never on a Global scale. I think the reason for this is shown in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. Paul says the mystery of lawlessness is already at work until the one who restrains is taken away. The one who restrains refers to the Holy Spirit, and he's the only one keeping the entire world from hating our guts already.
The third part is in 15-28. Here, He is describing what I believe to be part of the Great Tribulation, some of which is described in Revelation chapters 8-11. The thing that shows the start of this is the abomination of desolation. This, we believe to be the point where the Antichrist sets himself up in the temple and demands to be worshipped as God. Seeing as how the temple in Jerusalem has been destroyed, it's a bit impossible for the Antichrist to have done this yet, thereby showing that we aren't in the Great Tribulation yet (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).
The rest after the Second Coming part, I think is just expanding on what He already said and the moral of the story.
I've got more I'd like to say, but I'll have to stop here for now. There's one thing I didn't understand, and that's how the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD fits into this beyond Josephus' and Jesus words being similar. Where do you get that Jesus is talking about the destruction of the temple?
A separate question that has me a little lost is, what was Jesus talking about when he said, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." I'm not so sure it was a literal generation he was speaking of, and if he wasn't, to what time period was he referring?
A few things
The passage on the destruction of the temple is Matthew 24:1-2 which says,
Here Jesus is talking about the destruction of the physical temple (the temple buildings his disciples were showing him).
There has been a lot of persecution against Christianity over the years. In the days of the early church it was quite bad. Worse than we can really imagine in many of the worlds cultures today. One thing to note is where it says, "you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake." This implies that Christ will be known to all nations and ties in with his command and mission to reach out to the whole world. The whole world must know us and the message in order to hate it.
What makes you think the great tribulation has not already happened or will happen in the future? I looked up a few commentaries on this and several referred to the Jewish Wars (recorded by Josephus). I note no time table given. Also, the kinds of things that were done to early Christians are far beyond anything we see today for persecution. The kinds of things that make what happened to Jesus in the Passion of the Christ look nice (since what was portrayed in that movie is a cleaned up version of the types of things that were actually done) compared to the kinds of things done to those early Christians.
Can you give some scriptural reference for your view of the second coming and walk through that part? Specifically what it looks like and how the verses show this. This is the part I'm more curious about.
"all these things"
Matt grabbed that first question and gave the same answer I would, and I'm going to start another comment line on the structure of Revelation (http://www.fshbwl.com/forums/general/general-discussion/end-times-stuff-...), but as for your second question that has you a little lost, you're not the only one.
Actually, the question I have, in addition to what is meant by a generation, is, "What does Jesus mean by, 'all these things'?" Given the context, he could be referring the the lesson of the fig tree, and therefore, we'd see all the issues that we expect to see with the tribulation within that generation. Of course, we could put more emphasis on all, which would bring us back to the beginning of Matthew 24. The problem here is that Jesus hasn't come being visible from the East to the West. In the end, it's something scholars have wrestled with for ages, and I don't think we'll ever find an easy answer.
Re: all these things
I think we can take that in the context of the whole chapter up until where he starts in on the parable. He remarks about how they took the sign of the fig tree getting it's leaves to know when summer was approaching. In the same way, I think we should take all the things that Jesus mentions in verses 1-31 as signs to know when the Second Coming is getting closer. So, when he says "all these things", I'm almost certain he means everything in the first 31 verses. The parable is just used to illustrate just exactly how close the Second Coming is whenever we see the things being fulfilled that he mentions in the first 31 verses. That, we would understand better if we knew the proximity of time between the fig tree getting it's leaves and the arrival of summer according to how they saw it 2000 years ago.
That still doesn't answer the generation question, but like you said, I don't think we'll find an easy answer. At least until we all get to heaven and can ask God ourselves. :)
did I miss him?
The biggest problem I see with all 31 verses is that it includes the Second Coming itself, moreover, it's not some secret Second Coming, but a coming on the clouds and gathering of the elect Second Coming. To that end, I'd say up to 28 is more likely ... and all of those things were seen before the generation that Jesus spoke to had passed away.
How Do We Read Revelation?
When it comes to the book of Revelation and the other revelations given to people in the bible how do we read them? I ask this because this has been a difference I've found among a number of people I've talked with about the end times. It was overlooked initially (taken for granted by me) but helped us understand where we were coming from.
My take is that Revelation and these other works (such as what we find in Matthew) were written to a Jewish audience who was very familiar with the Old Testament scriptures. So, when we interpret these things they need to be directly in light of the old testament.
For example, when the book of revelation talks about a hatlot (prostitute - see NASV for word lookup) what is it talking about? I've read a number of interpretations on this. The one that strikes me is well defined in Jeremiah 3 where it says the nation of Israel is the harlot. This same reference for the harlot is used in other old testament places. Is this the harlot referred to in Revelation?
There are other ways people try to interpret these writings. I'm curious what everyones view is here. This understanding is what has helped me understand others better in the past.
Original Audience
I think you nailed a huge point there Matt. I know there are a lot of groups out there who interpret John's Revelation with our world in mind. The basic assumption is that the original audience didn't understand anything that was going on in the book.
After spending an insane amount of time in the book, I'm inclined to agree with you, and to use the OT and the culture of the day as the key to interpreting the book. I also think that, since there is a lot of other literature written during that time period, that isn't all that different from Revelation, we can assume that the imagery being used was, at least on some level, common in that day.
The Structure of Revelation
Here's a brief outline on how I read the book of Revelation:
Chapter 1 is introduction.
Chapters 2-3 are letters to congregations in Asia Minor to correct their sin and also call them to hope in what is to come. This assured future is what the rest of the book will be about.
Chapters 4-5 are a vision of Jesus follow his ascension, which includes his coronation in heaven and him being given authority to complete his mission.
Chapters 6-16 all cover the same time period chronologically, but they look at the events from three different perspectives (what will be going on with the physical earth, what will happen to Christians, what will happen to non-Christians) with a couple of tangents that help supply some additional details.
Chapters 17-19 point to Christ's victory at the final battle that comes in a response to a last ditch "surge" on the part of Satan (a point where things get exponentially worse).
Chapter 20 becomes a summary of history from the crucifixion to the Second Coming, while 21-22 are a vision of eternity.
fracturedInfinity, I'm going to take a guess that this is a bit new to you. Any thoughts?
Break it down, Hammer time.
New in that I've never been in a real serious study of the book of Revelation. That's something I'd like to rectify rather soon.
I can't really comment on your outline until I've had a chance to refresh my memory and read through the Revelations again. All except chapter 20. To me, that chapter seems more like a "what happens next" after chapter 19 than a summary like you're saying. Maybe you could break it down for me so I can try to understand where you're coming from?
the tricky 20:1
You're right that 20:1 makes it look like it's a continuation of what's just happened, so how on earth can I call it a review? Well, there's two reasons.
The first one is theological. On the cross, Satan was bound and the amount of damage he's capable of doing in now, is seriously limited (of course, we still have fallen people and a broken world to deal with). I like the image of the chain there ... it's sort of like being put on a leash, which gives him some room to move, but not the full freedom. So, if we have something in chapter 20 about Satan being bound, the cross becomes our time marker.
The second one is a bit harder to notice, but it's textual and deals with John's writing style. Throughout Revelation, when John talks about things in temporal sequence, he says "after this" or meta tauta in Greek. There are example of this in 1:19, 4:1, 7:1, 7:9, 9:12, 15:5, 18:1, 19:1 and 20:3.
However, in 20:1, John just identifies the next thing that came up in his vision, using the word eidon in Greek. Given the way John writes, this is a solid indicator that he was moving onto a new image, but it isn't bound to the temporal sequence of what we had before.
So, jumping back to the theological point, 20:1 brings up back to the cross and reviews time from that point on.
Not so sure
I'm not so sure this is the case.
You're saying that Satan was chained and bound in the bottomless pit at the time of Jesus resurrection? I think there's evidence in the Bible that shows that isn't the case.
1 Thessalonians 2:18 says Satan prevented Paul from reaching Thessalonica,
The antichrist is part of the tribulation, right? Revelation 13:4 shows him alive and well in the tribulation.
James 4:7 says to resist the devil. No need to resist if he's bound and powerless, right?
Our adversary, the devil, walks about like a lion looking for someone to eat. Just check 1 Peter 5:8-9
The good news is that he (Satan) is powerless unless God allows him to do something (he was defeated for good when Jesus died on the cross). I found this as a real blessing to me as I was reading Revelation 12. As hard as the dragon (Satan) tries to destroy the woman, he is thwarted at every attempt. In essence, the devil is nothing more than a tool that God can use. He has no power in and of himself.
Not what he meant
I don't think he meant to say that Satan was chained up, like someone in a prison (or in some pit), where they can't effect the outside world. I think what he was saying is that Satan is on a sort of leash and can't do all that he is capable of doing. That he can effect things but it is limited when compared to his full potential and what he used to be able to do before Jesus death and resurrection.
In this situation we still have to resist the devil and he is still present and active.
Does this make sense?
My bad
Oops. Yes, I do believe I goofed.
However, I don't think Satan has been restricted any more than he already was. Just that the plan for defeating him was complete with Jesus death and resurrection. The whole chaining of Satan is part of being cast into the bottomless pit, which happens at the beginning of the 1000 year reign of Christ.
I'm beginning to think that we believe a lot of the same things, it's just our timelines of what happens when, don't match. Which isn't that big of a deal in the big picture. Whatever happens, God is in control and it's his plan we're just trying to figure out. The most important thing to remember is that the only thing that matters is that we've put our trust in God to save us and that we have faith in him to keep his promises.
limitations and more
Here's an example of how I see Satan being limited now. If you look at Job 1, Satan's actually hanging out before the throne of God and making all kinds of accusations and doing what he can to manipulate things so Job rejects God. However, in Revelation 12, we see the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus happening in verses 1-6. Then in verse 7 and following, Satan is given the boot from heaven and is bound to the earth (verses 10-12 are huge in there because they identify that Satan can no longer accuse people before God, but it certainly sucks for us who are living in the place where Satan is bound).
In the end, while I agree with you that what really matters is where we put our trust, I think smoothing out these theological issues can be really helpful in understanding just what God has done in Christ. For example, the base idea behind dispensations, is that God saves people in different ways at different times, so, for example, from Exodus 20 until the crucifixion, people were saved based on obeying the Law. Moreover, in that model, once the rapture happens, people are back to needing to earn their salvation. I can't see how this doesn't diminish the work of Christ, if nothing else, by suggesting that people actually are capable of being good enough to earn their place in eternity.
I see the birth, life, death
I see the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus in 1-5. There seems to be either a time gap between 5 and 6 or 6 is the time gap (in which we are now living) that brings us up to the Great Tribulation which starts right after Satan is cast out.
I think that if some of this has already happened, we would be able to match it up with world events. What kind of world events do you match up with the different parts of 13-17?
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding again, but salvation has never been and never will be something that was earnable through our works or by keeping the rules (I sense this is something we differ becuase of our core beliefs between Lutheran and Baptist, I'd be interested to hear the Lutheran side). The way I've been taught is that it is through faith. It's funny becuase I happened upon Galatians 3 this morning in my Bible reading. Verse 6 says "just as Abraham 'believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'" This is an example of how people are saved. We are saved through our faith in God that he will keep his promises and this is the same as the way it was for the Israelites after Exodus 20. If you read on in Galatians 3, it lays it all out for us:
NKJV
So you see, salvation is always because our faith is counted as righteousness to God. I think this will still be the case even after the Rapture (assuming when and if a Rapture does take place) and doesn't nullify what Christ did on the cross.
Time Gap?
What makes you think there is a time gap between verse 5 and 6 or during 6? What in the text (in its context) says that?
FYI, I know that Joe believes that no amount of works saves a person. He would say we are saved by grace through faith. Also, in reference to the Lutheran background and history, the whole saved by grace through faith was a key point of debate for Martin Luther with the Catholic church in that period. It was one of the founding points of Lutheranism because of how it differed from the areas theological status quo.
I'll hold off commenting on verses 13-17 until I have a few more minutes to dig into the specifics.
Did these happen?
Let's look at Revelation 17. The harlot/prostitute figure is an old testament scripture reference. It refers to the people of God who have turned away and is used to describe the nation of Israel (as a people).
Now, Take a look at verse 9 and just after where it talks about 7 kingdoms. Some postulate that the 5 that have fallen are Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, and the Empire of Alexander which all tried to wipe out worship of God out of the world. It even says in the verses that 5 of them have already fallen (as in past tense). So, they would need to be kingdoms that had fallen before the writer wrote what he wrote. Also, think of how Israel as the harlot/prostitute fits in with the description of these kingdoms.
And, look at Revelation 13 starting at verse 2 and how it relates to the beasts of Daniel 7 (note the leopard, bear, etc.). If you switch to the ESV version on Bible Gateway there are even references to Daniel.
Following Daniel and the 10 horned beast some call that the Roman Empire. Others have called this what came when Alexander the Greats empire split. From an old testament perspective this would tie what is written in Revelation with what is written in Daniel, too.
If you follow that it was after Alexander the Greats empire the small horn (from Daniel) could be Antiochus Epiphanes who conquered Jerusalem, said terrible things against God, and did deplorable things (int the eyes of the OT people) in the temple.
Now, don't tie this in as a Lutheran point. I just lined up some reading material to become better acquainted with this topic. I am in no way studied on Revelation (at this point) beyond some basics.
Same thoughts
That's what I'm getting out of all this too, based on reading material to help me understand it some. We've kind of been going over end times things in church a bit lately, mostly because we're studying 2 Thessalonians in Sundy School. We've been referencing back to the book of Ezekiel and Isaiah as well as Daniel. I don't know about you, but I never realized just how much there is in the Bible pointing toward end times prophesy until you actually start delving into it. It's all good stuff and if it wasn't for this job that pays my bills, I'd probably be spending a lot more time in the Word. I feel like I've wasted the last 20 or so years of being a Christian and wish I had it back again to do it properly.
It's nice to see the ESV is back up too. Normally I check that version, but for the last week or so it's been down with a message that they found something wrong with it on the Bible Gateway site. I wonder what that was all about?
Prophecy != End Times
I didn't realize that the ESV was down. I dug around trying to find a cause to what happened and there seems to be no information. I wonder if their database (mysql) was corrupt. They did have some database issues a week or so ago at one point. I saw the database error when I was trying to get to their site.
As for Daniel and passages like that, why should we think of them as end times prophecy and not stuff to happen after they said it that has already occurred? For instance, I was talking with someone about this, yesterday, who was under the impression that the Daniel prophecies of the beasts had already been fulfilled. She even walked through them but, I can't remember the details well enough to relate them.
not meant that way
I didn't mean to sound like I meant Daniel = end times prophecies. I don't doubt that there are things in the book of Daniel that haven't come to pass yet (which would make those things prophecies and possibly even end times prophecies), but I think it's pretty clear that a lot of what was written in Daniel has already happened, just like you said earlier about the 5 of the 7 kingdoms thing.
I found a Bible study on the end times according to Ezekiel. I'll be reading through it myself in it's entirety, but just reading the first half of the conclusion is enough to make a person think.
http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ikvot/the-end-times-according-to-ezekiel-p...
earning salvation
I agree that, at no point in history, can salvation be earned. However, that's what dispensational theology teaches, which is one of the reasons I disagree with it. I've actually seen pamphlets that are handed out to be held onto until after the rapture that tell people, "You need to be perfect now because you missed out on grace."
Revelation 12
Looking at Revelation 12 here's what I read:
1-2 - the crown of 12 stars links us back to the 12 tribes of Israel and is basically the promise of Jesus that runs from Genesis 3 up until his birth.
3-4 - this is just another sign, or another piece of the puzzle that isn't necessarily chronological, and it's the origins of Satan
5 - here is the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus summed up in a couple words ... Satan does his thing to destroy Jesus, but it just doesn't work
6 - the woman, who originally symbolized OT Israel, now takes on the role of NT Israel (the Church) and dwells in the wilderness
7-9 - Satan is barred from heaven and bound to the earth
10-12 - Heaven celebrates that Satan has no presence or manipulative influence there, while the earth mourns because he does have a presence and manipulative influence here
13-17 - the ongoing assaults that the Church faces from Satan but under God's protection
Replacement Theology
...is a new term I learned today. I'm guessing that is something you adhere to because of "NT Israel (the Church)".
This article seems to be a good explaination of the premillenial view that Israel is still Israel, even in the case of the woman of Revelation 12.
Also, Ezekiel 36:22-28, God says "you shall be My people, and I will be your God" when speaking to Israel. It's hard to take this passage as anything but literal because God was giving a word to an Israelite to speak to Israel. In addition, notice verse 24. I believe that that was fulfilled in 1948 when Israel was once again a nation. I think it's also important to mention, when talking about this, Romans 8:12-25. Romans was written specifically to Gentiles and so we can glean from this that we (the church) are not replacements for Israel, but rather adopted children of God into his existing people, Israel.
Not Replacing
I've never heard the term of "Replacement Theology", and after a quick glance, it's not really what I believe, so, rather than using that, I'd say Israel is not about ethnicity or a geographic space, rather it is now, and has always been, about a people who trust in the promises of God ... it's about faith (thus Hebrews 11 and Paul's conversations about not everyone in Israel being Israel).
Now, in the OT, where was this promise found? The nation (aka ethnic group) of Israel (although, even there, it extends beyond their ethnic bounds with the likes of Rehab and Ruth, both of whom show up in the Matthew 1 lineage of Jesus) and was intended for others (thus a place for Gentiles to worship even in the Jewish temple). However, the ethnic group even came to blur ethnicity with promise and thought that God was on their side simply because they were that people who lived in that land and ran things through that temple. However, in the NT, where is that promise found? In Christ and His Church.
My biggest issue with your interpretation of verse 24, is that it ignores 25-27 and what goes with that regathering. Does the people gathered in Israel lack filth? Do they lack idols? Do they have a new heart and spirit? Are they keeping his ways and his judgments? I'm thinking the answer is no.
Moreover, dispensational theology demands a rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of the sacrificial system ... what's the purpose of this? Doesn't Hebrews make it clear that Christ is the once and for all sacrifice and that the Aaronic priesthood has no purpose or value anymore because it's been fulfilled?
Thoughts?
About Israel
Ah, but Israel is about ethnicity. The people of Israel are physically the decendents of Abraham. Where we (the church) come in is where Paul talks about us being adopted. That doesn't change the fact that God made promises in the OT to the blood decendents of Abraham that haven't come to fruition yet.
Verse 24 doesn't ignore 25-27 if you put it into the perspective of the gathering of Israel back to their nation as a work in progress. In the future, Israel is going to see what has happened to them as something they did of their own power. At some point down the road, God is going to make a display that they will unmistakably see as the power of God and it's going to bring them back to Him. That is where the rebuilding of the temple comes in. The sacrifices are also reinstated becuase of a promise of God to Israel (the blood decendents of Abraham) spelled out in Ezekiel that hasn't come true yet.
To understand the purpose for the reinstatement of the sacrificing (other than it being something God said, so therefore it will happen), you have to understand the original reason for it, way back to the beginning.
It was never meant as an act that brings salvation. This explains it well. It was meant as an act of worship and sign of dedication by the people of Israel (blood) to God, and as a symbol of the coming of Christ's payment for all so that others could see and believe also. The salvation of Israel before Christ came from their faith in God and belief that he will keep his promises to them, much in the same way our salvation works today.
Now going back to verse 25-27, if we believe in the millenial reign of Christ, this is where this comes to fruition. 24, God put's Israel back together as a nation, but they think they did it. Throughout the Tribulation, they rebuild the temple and come back to God, including the gathering of the rest of Israel back to the land, but only in the physical act. 25-27 is in the beginning of the millenial reign of Christ where God restores Israel's heart for Him and they follow after God as he originally intended. This acts as an example for the unbelievers living in the 1000 years and helps bring even more people to Him.
If you have an hour or so and are interested, you should read through the 7 parts of this short Bible study on end times in Ezekiel. It'll explain some of this better than I did.
ethnicity
I'm not denying that we are adopted, but what are we adopted into? It's not the ethnicity, because even those who are ethnically Israel are not all part of Israel, rather it's adoption into the promise ... as Paul outlines in Romans 9:6-8.
Given the understanding of Israel as the people of promise, that provides a whole different view on Ezekiel and what that means.
False Hope?
A problem I see with taking it as anything but literal promises of God to the blood decendents of Jacob is that if it's all figurative (as in pointing to the church for fulfillment of the prophecies here), God would be giving a false hope to people that he promised would always be his people.
not false hope
But it's not false hope because it was never about the blood but about the promises. The greatest error that the people made in the OT was to think it was about the blood. If it had ever been about the blood there would never have been a Babylonian Exile. God declared the people to be "not my people" because they rejected the promises.
I don't recall
I don't recall hearing of anywhere in the Bible where God specifically states that the Israelites are no longer His people. Would you mind pointing me to that?
too skinny
This thread has gotten too skinny and I think that's a sign. I started a thread to discuss "who is israel?" at http://www.fshbwl.com/forums/general/general-discussion/who-is-israel
I think this is a central question and worth a little time for us to step back and look at.
agree
I was having the same thought and considered restarting this part of the thread as a reply to the original. I like your idea though, good call matt.
Revelations hang up
I think we would benefit more from spending our time and resources trying to tell more people about Jesus than worrying about his return. Jesus himself was pretty clear that you won't know - AND cannot know when the return will happen.
Mathew 24:36-41
Acts 1:7
I think when Jesus speaks incredibly clear about this, we probably ought to listen to him. I understand the arguement of "but we need to figure it out and be ready" but I still think the emphasis should be on telling people about Jesus, not worrying about when he's coming. I think it's interesting Jesus describes it like the time just before the flood:
Matthew 24:39
Good enough for me, I'm not going to know when, Jesus is just tasking me to make sure I'm ready. Maybe a more prudent discussion could be specifically - How do we get ready?
Interesting Link
I think your end comment on how we get ready really links into the discussion we've been having.
I know for your big dispensational pre-trib folks, a lot of what it takes to get ready involves protecting the nation of Israel. This really shines through whenever Pat Robertson talks about this stuff. He's really trying to figure out how we be faithful as Christians in the hear and now.
I tend to agree with you on not trying to read into signs and all that, rather, I say we're in the tribulation, have been in the tribulation for a couple thousand years, and will be in the tribulation until Christ returns. So, that's what we've been told, let's live faithfully where God has called us in the hear and now, holding onto the hope that Christ has promised to return.
Thoughts?