On the Interpretation of Revelation

Topcat, we've basically reached the point of arguing in circles.

It's not the circles that bother me so much as having to repeatedly correct your inaccurate rendering of my views.

Where we find ourselves is that among the futurists in this thread there is a presupposition of extreme literalism that I do not believe is warranted in Scripture. Based on that presupposition you point to a verse and, because any interpretation that does not fit with your literalist model is immediately suspect, we find ourselves constantly at an impasse.

You could point to a prophecy regarding the temple, say Ezekiel 40-48, and ask for my interpretation. I would go to the New Testament and adequately, at least by my reasoning, demonstrate how it is a picture of Christ's work on our behalf. For example, how Jesus' words in John 4:13-15 is a direct fulfillment of the imagery in Ezekiel 47:1ff. Or how the sacrifice of Jesus is pictured in the sacrifices in Ezekiel 44.

But I suspect you would not be satisfied with that interpretation because it does not fit with your preconception of how the prophecies ought to be interpreted.

On the other hand, what you are insisting with me is that all these things must still be future because you have not witnessed them literally fulfilled at any time in the past. But what argument is there against your position other than to point out that such an interpretation is not required by the New Testament, nor did Jesus or His disciples paint those prophecies in literal terms? Rather they went to great lengths to show how Jesus -- not Israel or Jerusalem or the Temple -- were the focal point of the prophecies.

So there we have it. I could offer papers and commentaries to support my views (like the commentaries of John Calvin), but you would reject them for "spiritualizing", "allegorizing" or any other -izing you can think of. You may even argue that Calvin wasn't thinking like a Hebrew. Perhaps you might even think the same of Alfred Edershiem and his similar views.

The problem with building a futurist model, as opposed to a model of future things, is that I think you've decided what the furniture should look like before the foundation is laid.

Hey, that's what the browser View -> Text Size feature is for.

I forgot to mention the rules to that contest were 500 words or less.

So if I understand this definition correctly (esp. the Torah-observant part), the world knows of nothing remotely similar to a "functioning Jewish state in Israel" today.

Reflexive denial of the obvious is not an argument. Saying, "Is not!" (the essence of your closing paragraph) is not an argument either. The Jews are back in Israel, exactly as God said they would be by His grace. You're just going to have to live with that fact.

You still don't get it.

No, I get it well. It is you who don't get it, and I'm just trying to figure out if you are simply being obtuse or if you are being deliberately selective about what you quote. Nobody denies a Jewish believing remnant in the Church. However, having acknowledged that remnant, Sha'ul goes on to write:

What then? Israel has not obtained that which it seeks, but the election obtained it , and the rest were hardened even as it is written, "God gave to them a spirit of slumber, eyes not seeing, and ears not hearing" until this day. And David said, "Let their table become for a snare and a trap and a stumbling block and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and their back always bowing."
--Rom. 11:7-10

So, while acknowledging the remnant, Sha'ul goes on to show that Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation, has not received its promises, being hardened against doing so by God's will. Now, you might argue that the nation as a whole has been cut out of God's promises, but Sha'ul anticipates this:

I say then, Did they not stumble that they fall? Let it not be! But by their slipping away came salvation to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy. But if their slipping away is the riches of the world, and their default is the riches of the nations, how much more their fullness?
For I speak to you, the nations; since I am the apostle of the nations, I glorify my ministry; if by any means I may provoke those who are my flesh to jealousy, and might save some of them. For if their casting away is the reconciling of the world, what is the reception except life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy ; and if the root is holy, also the branches.
--vv. 11-16

Notice what he's saying here. Israel's blinding was so that the Gentiles might be saved. But this is not the fulfillment of the promise to Israel. No, Sha'ul writes, the richness that has come to the nations now is nothing compared to what glory awaits when Israel as a whole accepts the Messiah. Indeed, he compares this event to the Resurrection of the dead!

We might be tempted to identify the remnant that he spoke of before as what he here compares to the firstfruits of the wheat and the root of the tree, which would put the Church (which at first was comprised solely of Jews) in the position of originating true Israel. But as we see in the next passage, just the opposite is true!

And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree with them, do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, it is not you that bears the root, but the root bears you.
You will say then, The branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either!
Behold then the kindness, and the severity of God; on those having fallen, severity; but on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the natural wild olive tree , and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree ; how much more these being according to nature will be grafted into their own olive-tree?
--vv. 17-24

What is the tree? One might argue the Messiah, but Sha'ul never here identifies Him as such. Since the whole of his argument is about the state of Israel, I would argue that the tree is what we might term Israel or God's household. The broken branches, then, are those broken off for disbelief in the Messiah. But not forever. He is clear that it is God's intention to graft those branches back into their proper tree.

Notice what else he says: If God could cut the natural branches out of the tree forever, He can certainly do so for the grafted branches too! The Calvinist here faces a terrible dilemma. Either there is no Preserverence of the Saints, or else there is Preserverence of the Jewish People!

So then, don't glory over the natural branches. In case you've any doubts about who those are, they're the Jews; those who by birth and culture were raised Jews and who are therefore in their natural place in the kingdom of the Jewish Messiah-King. The Messianic Jews are those who have either never been cut from the tree or who have been regrafted in by faith in the Messiah. It is not the Jews that need to adopt Gentile Christian customs, as if our customs support them, but we who need to be supported by the Jewish Root.

I've put this in terms of simply understanding the Scriptures from the cultural POV of the nation that produced them for us, so you know what I'm referring to. As Sha'ul wrote earlier in this letter, "Then what is the superiority of the Jew? Or what is the profit of circumcision? Much, by every way! Chiefly, indeed, because they were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:1-2), and as Yeshua told His disciples, "Therefore every scribe (that is, a Torah-teacher) who is instructed to the kingdom of Heaven is like a man who is a householder, who brings out things new and old out of his treasure" (Mt. 13:52). By denying the value of the Torah and Jewish perspectives on it, by even forbidding Jews to remain Jewish and Torah-observant if they were to enter our fellowships as believers in Jesus Christ, we have spurned the treasure that God gave them to share with us.

Now, you might argue that the Jews who have and continue to enter the Church are or will be the fulfillment of God's promise. To this, first let us refer back to Sha'ul's earlier arguments: Yes, there was a remnant even in his own day, but they did not represent the nation as a whole, or else the remainder of this chapter is gobledygook. Secondly, Sha'ul dismisses this idea in his concluding paragraph:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations has comes in. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, "There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is My covenant with them, when I have taken away their sins." Indeed as regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the free gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
--vv. 25-29

Unless you want to propose that the Church is it's own enemy for the sake of the Gospel, you are left with no other conclusion than that "all Israel will be saved" means, "all Israel, the nation and not some mysical code-word for the Church, will be saved."

Now, I've gone over this chapter several times now, and at least one other time on this thread, albeit in not as much detail. You have yet to mount a successful refutation. For you to continue to throw out an out-of-context quote that you've already been refuted on is not doing you much good in the credibility department.

"What an unimaginative God it would be if God only put one meaning in any verse of Scripture," he said"

"It's time that we re-familiarize ourselves with our sacred text, so that we can interpret it for the world,"

"In "Through the Looking Glass," Lewis Carroll's companion book to "Alice in Wonderland," Humpty Dumpty harumphs to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

If you look at the above quotes, it appears that they summarize the hermeneutic used by Calvin to write his commentary on Isaiah 2. Words like mountain, altar, law, Israel, house, last days, he will teach all have a different meaning than the people of Judah would have understood at the time it was prophesied. How could they have possibly received any encouragement from this prophecy if Isaiah was talking about a community that nooned had any idea about? He interprets the "law" as the whole doctrine of God and especially the saving doctrine and when he gets to the New Testament and in his Institutes it becomes a narrow interpretation of "law" that was fulfilled. Altar becomes a code word for worship, and "he will teach" becomes a formula for teaching and preaching in the church.

I don't see how he can say that "And when the prophets say that waters will spring out of the temple to water the whole world, (Ezekiel 47:1,) they express metaphorically what Isaiah lays down in plain language; namely, that the source of saving doctrine will be from that place; for out of it the apostles and other teachers spread the gospel through the whole world." Where in commentary is there any plain language? The words of Isaiah "means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

It appears that Calvin has read his theology into his interpretation of Isaiah. If he can do it then why can't the Bishop of New Hampshire do it like he did at the Planned Parenthood annual meeting:

"It's time that we re-familiarize ourselves with our sacred text, so that we can interpret it for the world, and not let the only voice that Americans hear from a Christian standpoint be those wildly conservative voices.
As a gay man, I find stories in both Hebrew and Christian scripture that have literally called me out. For instance, in the Passover story, I know what it's like to leave Egypt, or leave the closet. The ancient Israelites, instead of finding the Promised Land immediately, wandered the desert, and I know, too, that life doesn't immediately get better for you. At the same time, as a whole community, we're getting closer to the Promised Land all the time."

I am not degrading or devaluing all that that godly man Calvin has done or means to our faith, but the danger I see in his commentary is that you can spiritualist anything to come out just the way you want. It's like interpreting dreams and visions. If you are good at reading people you can interpret their dreams to come close to what will happen to them. You can interpret any scripture to coincide with your theology system. I do it all the time.

.

Where we find ourselves is that among the futurists in this thread there is a presupposition of extreme literalism that I do not believe is warranted in Scripture.

So . . . Ezekiel describes a Temple in great physical detail, and describes the worship taking place there, Jeremiah backs him up by stating that the Levites will have priests before God forever, we accept this . . . and to do so is "extreme" literalism to you. Gotcha.

I posed these questions earlier: Was Messiah literally born of a virgin? Was He literally born in Bethlehem? Did He literally flee to literal Egypt and return again? Was He literally of the line of David? Did He literally minister in Galilee of the Gentiles? Was He literally the Son of God? Did He do literal miracles? Did He literally ride on the back of a donkey into Jerusalem to proclaim His kingship? Did He come a literal 69 weeks of years after the order was given to rebuild Jerusalem? Was He literally betrayed? Was He literally tried unjustly? Was He literally beaten with the rods of men? Were his hands and feet literally pierced? Did He literally die as a literal sin offering? Was He literally buried in a rich man's tomb? Did He literally rise again? Did the Spirit literally come to His followers to write the Torah on their inmost beings? Is everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord literally saved?

If your answer to all of the above is "yes," then it seems that the Bible itself supports an "extremely" literal interpretation of prophecy by your own admission. If it is "no," then you are no longer even close to orthodox in your Christianity.

That being the case, it is up to you to prove your presumption of extreme allegorization, not up to us to prove that Biblical prophecy should be taken seriously.

Secondly, you can't even (apparently) propose an "allegorical" solution for the Jer. 33 problem that you can back up by Scripture, so all your carping about "extreme literalism" is just a dodge.

And with all respect, your attempt to link Ezk. 40-48 and Jn. 4 is about the least convincing argument I've ever seen on the subject. Yeshua never claims it to be a fulfillment of prophecy, no Apostolic writer ever links the two, and it fails to explain the rest of the prophet's vision. I do believe that the "living water" flowing from beneath the Temple is emblematic of the living water of the Spirit flowing from us, but that no more makes Ezekiel's Temple a fiction than the acknowledgement that the Tabernacle of Moses represented Heaven means that the Tabernacle was fictional.

The presence of a symbol does not belie the literal existence of that symbol.

"It seems to me, Mr. Buggman, that you have missed a very fundamental precept. In trying to explain prophecy you have neglected to study the prophets, and because of that, your book will never make sense to anyone."

With this single post, Mr. Pistolero Azul, you have assured that few here will ever take anything you post hereafter seriously.

What a remarkable accomplishment.

See #826

For the life of me, I cannot understand why folks feel they MUST decide between Doors A,B,C,D when talking of future things.

Sure, have your favorite answer, but why does it not make sense to help advance any of the viable answers?

The Jews are back in Israel, exactly as God said they would be by His grace. You're just going to have to live with that fact.

But according to your own definition this is not, nor is it anywhere near, the "functioning Jewish state in Israel" you presented. I'm wondering who's being reflexive here.

What is the tree? One might argue the Messiah, but Sha'ul never here identifies Him as such. Since the whole of his argument is about the state of Israel, I would argue that the tree is what we might term Israel or God's household.

Well then, this is quite a concession. If the "tree" is Israel, then the natural branches are Jewish believers, and wild branches are gentile beleivers. Am I correct? So then the wild branches have been grafted into Israel, does that not indicate that Israel is not an ethnic entity, but rather an entity based in a spiritual relationship to father Abraham through Jesus Christ. Is this not then spiritual Israel? Are not not then gentiles a part of spiritual Israel?

The Calvinist here faces a terrible dilemma. Either there is no Preserverence of the Saints, or else there is Preserverence of the Jewish People!

I'm not following your logic. There is perseverance for all who trust in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or gentile. Obviouly many Jews have lived and died without knowing Jesus Christ. Is that what you mean by perseverance of the Jewish people?

It is not the Jews that need to adopt Gentile Christian customs, as if our customs support them, but we who need to be supported by the Jewish Root.

I'm not sure what you mean. Should gentiles go about wearing certain clothes or wearing our beard a certain way, or eating certain foods, or listening to music in a minor key, or does being a child of Abraham mean something else in the new covenant?

It seems the question of what is the root become critical. If it is Christ then Jews and gentile do not need to adopt any custom other than what is commanded in the Bible as appropriate for Christian believers. If the root is Israel as in Jewish customs, etc, then we have the problem of the Judaizers in modern garb.

By denying the value of the Torah and Jewish perspectives on it, by even forbidding Jews to remain Jewish and Torah-observant if they were to enter our fellowships as believers in Jesus Christ, we have spurned the treasure that God gave them to share with us.

It think you are confusing the Word of God (the Torah, of which Jesus Christ is the supreme and final expression, Heb. 1:1,2) with the rabbis. Jesus is our Torah. Jesus is the oracle that truly save. The problem for the Jews is they were, and still are, trusting in the own merit, their own way to God. It is by their righteousness that they seek entrance into the Kingdom. This is what the Christianity of the Jewish apostles opposes, namely, righteousness apart from faith in the redeemer, Jesus Christ.

There are no first century Jews living today. As much as messianic Judaism (for real Jews) would like to get back to their roots, it is impossible. Biblical Judaism no longer exists. Or, rather, I should say biblical Judaism exists only in the Christian church, the "royal priesthood and holy nation". The body made up of Jews and gentiles united in the faith of Abraham through Jesus Christ. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Like it or not it's impossible for a Jewish Christian to remain "Torah-observant" today in the old covenant sense. The best they can do is observe the traditions of the rabbinic Jews who have adapted Torah (without divine sanction) to an era with no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrifices. They can pretend to be Torah-observant, but that's all they can do.

Real Torah-observant behavior involves following the true Torah, Jesus Christ. It is not found in resurrecting the laws of ancient earthly Israel that decayed and passed away 2000 years ago. It is only in the Living Word of God that we observe, that we follow, that we bless, that we "put on". You don't need to follow "messianic Judaism" in order to be truly Torah-observant.

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

As far as refuting your interpretation of Rom. 11, I would simply point out (again) that there is no mention of a "nation" of Israel anywhere in Romans. Israel means Jews, often individual Jews. Those whom God has chosen to eternal life from among the natural branches will be saved, thus "all Israel". Nor does it say anything about what happens after the fullness of the gentiles. That is where you run into speculation.

But, what if you put up your views and some of us tried to help you make them fit?

I'm still unsure what your view is. I used to think they were preterist until sometime yesterday.

Ah, you've struck on an important distinction, that being between the Olivet Discourse and the sermon reported in Luke 21:
[Q]uite apart from differences that could be explained as simply different perspectives on the same event—e.g. “the Abomination that causes Desolation standing in the Holy Place” vs. “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” as the sign that should lead the faithful to flee to the mountains—there are a number of details that demonstrate that while certainly intended as parallels, these are actually two separate speeches given at separate times with slightly different subjects. They were given in different places, the Olivet Discourse being given on the Mount of Olives for which it is named, while Luke’s version was apparently given in the Temple a few days earlier. They are given at different times, with the Olivet Discourse in Mark and Matthew being given after Yeshua had departed the Temple for the final time while in Luke, Yeshua continued preaching in the Temple afterwards for several days.

This would appear to be one of the most important prophetic keys to be gleaned from the gospels.

FOLKS...please stop pinging me to this thread.

I'm not being snippy (yet). But I'm not following the thread (although I'm sure it's a good one). But I'd prefer not to be pinged here.

And the only reason is that it's cluttering up my post page. It looks nice there...it just takes up a lot of room.

Thanks kindly.

Corin, it's my fault. I started it (I think) earlier when I pinged you to a post that I WANTED YOU TO SEE. I specifically thought about you in terms of that post and not in terms of the overall thread.

It seems that folks then sort of pick up the pings everyone else is using. I don't know how that developed around here, but it has.

But according to your own definition this is not, nor is it anywhere near, the "functioning Jewish state in Israel" you presented. I'm wondering who's being reflexive here.

You are apparently reading something into my post that I never intended. Israel is a functional state; it is independant, has its own governing body and military, etc. It's also Jewish. Ergo . . .

Really, your efforts to get around this by all sorts of hedging and hawing aren't even reaching the level of contributing to an honest discussion anymore.

If the "tree" is Israel, then the natural branches are Jewish believers, and wild branches are gentile beleivers. Am I correct? So then the wild branches have been grafted into Israel, does that not indicate that Israel is not an ethnic entity, but rather an entity based in a spiritual relationship to father Abraham through Jesus Christ. Is this not then spiritual Israel? Are not not then gentiles a part of spiritual Israel?

Yes, no, and not in the sense you are thinking, in that order. But yes, this is one area in which I depart from many of my Dispensational brethren.

Yes, you are correct in that the natural branches are the Jewish believers, and the wild branches are the Gentiles.

No, that does not make Israel less than an "ethnic" entity. Ethnicity is defined as a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. What is Israel's racial heritage? It is descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Ya'akov. What is it's national heritage? The Promised Land. What is it's religious heritage? The worship of YHVH in the manner that He Himself prescribed in Torah and in the person of Yeshua the Messiah. Does Israel have a language? Yep, and it ain't Koine Greek. Does it have a cultural heritage? Yes, one defined by the Torah and which was verified by the Messiah in all of its particulars and then further illuminated.

In answer to your third question, not in the sense that you are thinking. As I've gone into great detail before, you are not a replacement "Jew," but a child adopted into God's family. But Sha'ul makes it clear that while some branches were temporarily broken off so that you and I might be grafted in, they are not broken off forever. God has made a unique covenant with Israel that He has not made with any other nation, that "all Israel will be saved." "All Israel" in this sense does not mean every last person, but the nation as a whole.

Now, as the adopted children, we obviously don't need the racial heritage to be part of God's family--though we should certainly respect the natural children and not disdain them the way so many theologians have over the centuries. I would argue on the basis of the exact wording of the Gen. 15 covenant with Abraham that the physical land of Israel is to be inherited by the physical seed of Israel. No prob there as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think that there's any doubt on either of our parts that we've received the religious heritage of Israel. However, we do have significant differences in how we view that heritage. You believe that God decided to toss out the Torah and replace it instead with a new Hellenized religion. I believe that the Torah remains God's standard and His instruction-book for worship on the basis of Yeshua's own words and the example of the Apostles.

On the issue of language, we've inherited Hebrew as the original language of the Tanakh.

On culture, you deny that the culture that God established and carefully cultivated for 1500 years has any relevance to "Spiritual Israel." To me, that's neither logical nor Biblical. While I agree that that culture was not to be imposed as a standard for fellowship on Gentile believers (Ac. 15, etc.), neither was it to be stripped away by force by the adopted children from the natural ones.

Having said all that, note most of all that the NT makes a consistant distinction between Israel and the Church, as indeed Sha'ul does in the passage in question. The Church, the Assembly of the Messiah, is the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom has been temporarily taken away from Israel and given to another (Mt. 21:43), but not forever. The Apostles always understood that it would be restored. Consider their question at the ascension: "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" and note that our Lord's answer was not to tell them that it would not be, but to say that the time was not theirs to know and they had a job to do (Ac. 1:6-8). Sha'ul likewise speaks of that time here in Romans 11, though his illustration is more of Israel (the natural branches) being restored to the Kingdom of God than the Kingdom being restored to Israel.

Therefore, no, the Church is not "Spiritual Israel" in the sense you are trying to claim. Rather, we have been given a space of time in which we are given grace to enter God's Kingdom, or rather, His Dominion, while it is not centered in Israel. However, it will be centered in a distinctly, ethnically Jewish Israel again when the Messiah returns to rule from Jerusalem.

"Calvin wrote commentaries in the same way that Stephen King writes novels."

Oh pleazzzzze! If you think Calvin's writings are difficult try reading Augustine. Yet Augustine and Calvin has been around for hundreds of years. Apparently many others have been able to read the material. I'm reading Calvin now and it's not any more difficult than reading Henry, Clark, Pink or Wesley. (In fact I would say it's a great deal easier than Wesley since it makes sense.)

Perhaps the problem isn't the prose of Calvin and Augustine; rather that there is no "paraphrase" version. However, I don't expect to see John Calvin's Commentaries coming out in "The Message" or "The Living Bible" paraphrase version anytime soon.

You are apparently reading something into my post that I never intended. Israel is a functional state; it is independant, has its own governing body and military, etc. It's also Jewish. Ergo . . .

If you are going to equivocate with words from one message to the next it's going to be very difficult to dialog, as we have already discovered.

I realize this is uncomfortable for you because it strikes at the heart of your theology, but the fact remains that modern Israel does not fit the definition you gave for a "functioning Jewish state in Israel". In particular I note that they are not "Torah-observant".

Which brings us to the progress of the gospel. A Torah-observant Jew in the 1st century, just prior to the fuller initiation of the Kingdom with the coming of Jesus Christ, was a person obedient to the limited revelation found in the old covenant. Torah-observant meant keeping the festivals with their animal sacrifices, going to temple to worship God through the sacrifice of animals, keeping the lawful commands of the Jewish religious leaders. It meant keeping all the (limited) information God had given until that time. Many of these commandment were of a temporary nature and about to "fade away" (Heb. 8:13).

However, we no longer live in that world. Jesus and His apostles taught us that Torah-observant now means recognizing Jesus Christ as Messiah of Israel, King of kings and Lord of lords. It means trusting in His sacrifice, the blood shed once for all, and following His teachings, the true Torah of God. When believing Jews and gentiles came together in the Church, and observed all the apostles teachings (Acts 2:42), they were truly being Torah-observant.

Membership in Israel has always been by covenant not by "ethnicity", otherwise Ishmael and his descendants would be a member of "Israel". Under the old covenant the sign of the covenant was circumcision. Anyone, normally a Jew but also a gentile, could receive the sign of the covenant and become part of Israel and partake of the ordinances (cf. Exodus 12:44), whether they were physically descended from Abraham (ehtnically Jewish).

Once Jesus Christ came, they method of identification with Israel changed. It was no longer according to the bloody rituals of the old covenant, the cutting of the foreskin and sacrificing of animals. It was by the new covenant sign of identification, baptism, and the blood of the true Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. We no longer participate in the bloody sacrifice that pointed forward to Christ, but we have fellowship in Christ with fellow believers around the Lord's Supper of bread and wine. "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'"

BTW, an adopted son, which we all are, has full rights and privileges of the father, including right to the "family name". If I as a gentile have been adopted into Israel, which you admit, then I can claim the right of the name Israel just as the natural sons. A gentile is not a second class member in the family of God. Otherwise your definition of adoption is stunted and hardly fits the biblical model.

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Gal. 4)

But, what if you put up your views and some of us tried to help you make them fit?

Make them fit with what? The Bible? What makes you think they don't fit already? :-)

I'm still unsure what your view is. I used to think they were preterist until sometime yesterday.

Preterist, but not hyper-preterist. I do not believe that everything, including the second coming, happened in AD70. Just those things related to the destruction of the temple and the removal of the kingdom of Israel after the flesh. E.g., I take Matt. 24:4-34 as primarily referring to AD70 and vv. 36 and following as relating to the second coming. The key is verse 34, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." There is no reason to change the meaning of the phrase "this generation" in this one verse from the way Jesus uses it every place else in the gospels, i.e., His contemporary fellow Jews in the 1st century.

God's actions in AD70 completed the establishment of the Church, the Jewish and gentile believers in Jesus Christ, as the new covenant people of God by once and for all eliminating the old covenant types/symbols of redemption, the human-made temple and human priesthood.

I still believe in a future, bodily second coming of Christ, a physical resurrection/translation of all people at his appearing, a general judgment of the "sheep and goats" with the unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire and the elect believers, the new Jerusalem, brought into the new heavens and new earth.

I also believe in the progress of the gospel, that as time goes on we will see more and more people converted to Christ, both Jews and gentiles, so that just prior to His appearing there will be a vast multitude of believers living on the earth. This groundswell of conversions at the end of this age is what Paul was referencing as the "full number of the gentiles" and the "all Israel" that will come to Christ.

Hope that helps. I think I've been fairly consistent in outlining my position.

In his book The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000) O. Palmer Robertson provides the following propositions. I believe they generally articulate my views on the subject. By way of full disclosure, Dr. Robertson was my pastor many years ago.

Twelve Propositions on Israel.

Proposition #1: The church of Jesus Christ, embracing the elect of God from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds, is a part of the messianic kingdom of Christ, even though the church does not exhaust the dimensions of Christ’s kingdom.

Proposition #2: The modern Jewish state is not a part of the messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ. Even though it may be affirmed that this particular civil government came into being under the sovereignty of the God of the Bible, it would be a denial of Jesus’ affirmation that his kingdom is “not of this world order” (John 18:36) to assert that this government is a part of his messianic kingdom.

Proposition #3: It cannot be established from Scripture that the birth of the modern state of Israel is a prophetic precursor to the mass conversion of Jewish people.

Proposition #4: The land of the Bible served in a typological role as a model of the consummate realization of the purposes of God for his redeemed people that encompasses the whole of the cosmos. Because of the inherently limited scope of the land of the Bible, it is not to be regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than its function as a teaching model.

Proposition #5: Rather than understanding predictions about the “return” of “Israel” to the “land” in terms of a geopolitical reestablishment of the state of Israel, these prophecies are more properly interpreted as finding consummate fulfillment at the “restoration of all things” that will accompany the resurrection of believers at the return of Christ (Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:22—23).

Proposition #6: No reestablished priesthood and no reinstituted sacrificial system ever will be introduced that would serve to provide a proper supplement to the currently established priesthood of Jesus Christ and his final sacrifice.

Proposition #7: No worship practices that place Jewish believers in a category different from Gentile believers can be a legitimate worshipform among the redeemed people of God.

Proposition #8: The future messianic kingdom shall include as citizens on an equal basis both Jewish and Gentile believers, even as they are incorporated equally into the present manifestation of Christ’s kingdom.

Proposition #9: The future manifestation of the messianic kingdom of Christ cannot include a distinctively Jewish aspect that would distinguish the peoples and practices of Jewish believers from their Gentile counterparts.

Proposition #10: The future messianic kingdom will embrace equally the whole of the newly created cosmos, and will not experience a special manifestation of any sort in the region of the “promised land.”

Proposition #11: Gentile believers should diligently seek a unified ecclesiastical fellowship with Jewish believers, rejoicing when Jewish believers are regrafted into Christ and consequently bring immeasurable blessing to the world.

Proposition #12: Jewish believers should diligently seek a unified ecclesiastical fellowship with Gentile believers, rejoicing in God’s purpose of bringing additional Jews to faith in Jesus as their Messiah by moving them to jealousy through the blessing of Gentile believers.

Those are all good points. A recurring theme that comes across is that the doctrine of election carries from the Jews to the Gentiles. There is no greater Biblical evidence of God choosing one people over another than the Biblical history of the Jews.

Mr. Bugg asserts that it is not necessary to know OT prophecy in order to interpret the book of Revelation. That is why no one can take anything that he posts seriously.