These articles always strengthen my faith and make me appreciate our God more and more.
To be candid about reality and the elect's place in it is sure to cause some hatred from the nonbelievers. I can see how we could and will become public enemy number 1
This was great. I hope you write more on this subject.
I agree with annihilation. Over and over, scripture tells us that eternal life is a gift from Christ for His Church. But isn’t the idea of Hell also eternal life, just a hot, bad one? The wages of sin are death, right? Not (bad) eternal life.
I rarely admit this belief to other Christians though. 🤫😔
I've read your books, very sincere. But honestly, it isn't obvious to me that there is a Millenial reign as such. It's a word for now and forever. A symbolic number like so many others. Just as “Israel” means the church. It also is less speculative and more simple.
If 1,000 years is a symbolic number meaning eternity, how do you account for the Second Resurrection that only happens after it? And how do you account for the release of Satan from the bottomless pit and subsequent war of Gog and Magog?
Not sure, but the first resurrection could simply be being born again. I've never understood Gog and Magog. It's possible that the language of releasing Satan is that it's not so much a place, but a lessening of restraint in time before Christ returns. A physical Millenium holds many contradictions and even my first encounter with the mention of it, I even assumed it meant "forever." Forever is also a fitting way of closing the Word. After all, the "two witnesses" are obviously the OT and the NT...I think a lot of the Bible is really emphasizing the Glory of Christ and our wonderful future to be in His embrace forever.
What are the "many contradictions" of a physical millennium? The Gog and Magog battle is very straightforward if you just read Revelation, they are led by Satan (who is freshly released AFTER the literal 1,000 years) and this army surrounds the city where Jesus rules from, and then God destroys them all. Where did these nations suddenly come from? From the Second Resurrection, which is clearly said to happen after the 1,000 years.
There is no way that the Millennial Kingdom could be metaphorical because there are clear, important, negative, world-changing events that happen only after it. You sound well-intentioned and open minded, so I hope you'll reassess those assumptions. (I also assumed it wasn't a literal 1,000 years until I did a deep study for myself.)
Isn't the 144,000 number obviously a symbolic 12x12x1000...communicating All for Eternity? Why refer to Israel as a separate unit after the Resurrection?
Well no, it doesn’t say 12 × 12 × 1000 (and even if it did, that doesn’t make it “obviously a symbolic” number for eternity) but it says 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes, and lists each of the tribes by name. So as a metaphor, it’s very strange. And eternity without Gentiles? And this is not the Resurrection, it’s in the middle of God’s warning cataclysms and plagues. The angels literally are told to pause their destruction in order to protect this tiny group.
Also, you seem to be totally ignoring that it says this group is (1) explicitly said to be entirely MALE, and (2) they will all be sexually abstinent. But we know there will be female, Gentile, and sexually active (married) men in the Kingdom. So actually, none of this supports the idea of being a generic metaphor for believers, and all of it supports a linear timeline of specific world events.
Honestly, all the language you are referring to makes sense to me spiritually. "Israel" is the elect all together. The tribes of Israel do not have to be literal at all. Virgins can mean unblemished, made righteous. It's like a way of talking about complete fulfillment, as if in a song. I think there is poetry in Revelation and very little literal interpretation. I think its very important that the NT is a new covenant. It also, ultimately, is a simple message, a consistent and beautiful one.
But again, it feels like you didn't actually read it. It doesn't just say virgin, it literally says "they have not defiled themselves with women". That's an explicitly sexual meaning, not a broad metaphor.
The Bible rarely talks about not defining yourself with women. It just doesn't make sense ro have ascetic prudish "Isrealites" ...and not very many...flying around for no discernable reason. Spiritually, "women" could easily be false gospels. I've read it. I'm older than you. Doesn't the idea that all who are saved never fell for a false gospel and thus the plan is complete and eternal, fulfilling all prophesy and worthy of a new creation made total sense? Furthermore, why would God be obsessed with physical Jerusalem when the gospel is for the whole world? It's a den of false religion now. I mean Zionist Christianity is a serious error.
(Romans 11) I ask then, did they stumble to fall beyond recovery? Certainly not! However, because of their trespasses, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous. But if their trespass means riches for the world, and their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
I am speaking to you Gentiles: inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in the hope that I may provoke my own people to jealousy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Paul literally says that Gentile salvation serves to make Israel jealous, and that when they finally accept Christ it will be the First Resurrection. You can ignore as much of the Bible as you want in order to make your doctrine work, but the proof is all right there. Prophecy has a linear sequence and then this world will be destroyed, Judgment Day will take place, and there will be a New Creation.
And is not the point of faith that it is not obviously "seen"...Paul is preaching. He is making a case for why the Messiah is now for all people, changing the covenant. If a Jew can recognize the covenant has been changed, they still are in it. Are you saying that a specific amount of "jealous" future virginal (so I guess only men) super Jews will be rewarded for having fomo after Christ returns in obvious power? That my friend, is not the same Gospel as before Christ returns. So they are saved by jealousy, not repentance? See, these are the contradictions. Can you explain how salvation would make sense through jealousy after Christ returns and why only men? How is that more glorious than being a Gospel for both Jew and Gentile, which is clearly stated? Please explain WHY it would happen....
some of them. They are not excluded from the plan of salvation...Gentiles should not put them in a reprobate category. There is a remnant. He says nothing about a salvation plan after Christ returns. In Hebrews, especially both Jew and Gentiles are addressed. The term "All Israel" is a mix of Jew and Gentile. Maybe this word "jealousy" should be explored but All Israel being saved us the fullness of salvation, Jew and Gentile. I'm sorry, but it does work. If Paul had not said that, an assumption might have been made that there was exclusion. I'm sorry but what you offer are not "proofs" on its face. It does not refer to a time after Christ returns. It simply includes. Does this passage refer to after Christ returns?
When dealing with spiritual things, what is a "battle?"...I think the victory on the cross means Christ reigns now. Satan remains active in this world but always loses. Christ himself and Paul never made these references, so that's a problem too. I have an open mind but cannot say that I understand it based on the language. I do think that the history of the world and the "church" are in Revelation but am not sure why there would be a millennium or an extra chapter. Let's put it this way, God could destroy Satan at any time. Why have an extra timeline beyond this one? It seems right that Christ's return is a time ending event. My mind is open, but its enough to experience Gospel truth, beyond that feels very speculative.
It is speculative, and you're right that it's not necessary to believe for salvation or anything. My own research led me to get into the weeds and create a hypothesis that I'm confident in. I looked at OT prophecies and saw that many were yet to be fulfilled, that Jesus was promised to come back "in the same way" that he went up by the angel who stood with the disciples, and other things that require a major period of literal fulfillment on earth. I get the views that try to explain it away, but I no longer find them convincing.
These articles always strengthen my faith and make me appreciate our God more and more.
To be candid about reality and the elect's place in it is sure to cause some hatred from the nonbelievers. I can see how we could and will become public enemy number 1
Puts into context the old saying "There but for the grace of God go I."
This was great. I hope you write more on this subject.
I agree with annihilation. Over and over, scripture tells us that eternal life is a gift from Christ for His Church. But isn’t the idea of Hell also eternal life, just a hot, bad one? The wages of sin are death, right? Not (bad) eternal life.
I rarely admit this belief to other Christians though. 🤫😔
I've read your books, very sincere. But honestly, it isn't obvious to me that there is a Millenial reign as such. It's a word for now and forever. A symbolic number like so many others. Just as “Israel” means the church. It also is less speculative and more simple.
If 1,000 years is a symbolic number meaning eternity, how do you account for the Second Resurrection that only happens after it? And how do you account for the release of Satan from the bottomless pit and subsequent war of Gog and Magog?
Not sure, but the first resurrection could simply be being born again. I've never understood Gog and Magog. It's possible that the language of releasing Satan is that it's not so much a place, but a lessening of restraint in time before Christ returns. A physical Millenium holds many contradictions and even my first encounter with the mention of it, I even assumed it meant "forever." Forever is also a fitting way of closing the Word. After all, the "two witnesses" are obviously the OT and the NT...I think a lot of the Bible is really emphasizing the Glory of Christ and our wonderful future to be in His embrace forever.
What are the "many contradictions" of a physical millennium? The Gog and Magog battle is very straightforward if you just read Revelation, they are led by Satan (who is freshly released AFTER the literal 1,000 years) and this army surrounds the city where Jesus rules from, and then God destroys them all. Where did these nations suddenly come from? From the Second Resurrection, which is clearly said to happen after the 1,000 years.
There is no way that the Millennial Kingdom could be metaphorical because there are clear, important, negative, world-changing events that happen only after it. You sound well-intentioned and open minded, so I hope you'll reassess those assumptions. (I also assumed it wasn't a literal 1,000 years until I did a deep study for myself.)
Isn't the 144,000 number obviously a symbolic 12x12x1000...communicating All for Eternity? Why refer to Israel as a separate unit after the Resurrection?
Well no, it doesn’t say 12 × 12 × 1000 (and even if it did, that doesn’t make it “obviously a symbolic” number for eternity) but it says 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes, and lists each of the tribes by name. So as a metaphor, it’s very strange. And eternity without Gentiles? And this is not the Resurrection, it’s in the middle of God’s warning cataclysms and plagues. The angels literally are told to pause their destruction in order to protect this tiny group.
Also, you seem to be totally ignoring that it says this group is (1) explicitly said to be entirely MALE, and (2) they will all be sexually abstinent. But we know there will be female, Gentile, and sexually active (married) men in the Kingdom. So actually, none of this supports the idea of being a generic metaphor for believers, and all of it supports a linear timeline of specific world events.
Honestly, all the language you are referring to makes sense to me spiritually. "Israel" is the elect all together. The tribes of Israel do not have to be literal at all. Virgins can mean unblemished, made righteous. It's like a way of talking about complete fulfillment, as if in a song. I think there is poetry in Revelation and very little literal interpretation. I think its very important that the NT is a new covenant. It also, ultimately, is a simple message, a consistent and beautiful one.
But again, it feels like you didn't actually read it. It doesn't just say virgin, it literally says "they have not defiled themselves with women". That's an explicitly sexual meaning, not a broad metaphor.
The Bible rarely talks about not defining yourself with women. It just doesn't make sense ro have ascetic prudish "Isrealites" ...and not very many...flying around for no discernable reason. Spiritually, "women" could easily be false gospels. I've read it. I'm older than you. Doesn't the idea that all who are saved never fell for a false gospel and thus the plan is complete and eternal, fulfilling all prophesy and worthy of a new creation made total sense? Furthermore, why would God be obsessed with physical Jerusalem when the gospel is for the whole world? It's a den of false religion now. I mean Zionist Christianity is a serious error.
(Romans 11) I ask then, did they stumble to fall beyond recovery? Certainly not! However, because of their trespasses, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous. But if their trespass means riches for the world, and their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
I am speaking to you Gentiles: inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in the hope that I may provoke my own people to jealousy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Paul literally says that Gentile salvation serves to make Israel jealous, and that when they finally accept Christ it will be the First Resurrection. You can ignore as much of the Bible as you want in order to make your doctrine work, but the proof is all right there. Prophecy has a linear sequence and then this world will be destroyed, Judgment Day will take place, and there will be a New Creation.
And is not the point of faith that it is not obviously "seen"...Paul is preaching. He is making a case for why the Messiah is now for all people, changing the covenant. If a Jew can recognize the covenant has been changed, they still are in it. Are you saying that a specific amount of "jealous" future virginal (so I guess only men) super Jews will be rewarded for having fomo after Christ returns in obvious power? That my friend, is not the same Gospel as before Christ returns. So they are saved by jealousy, not repentance? See, these are the contradictions. Can you explain how salvation would make sense through jealousy after Christ returns and why only men? How is that more glorious than being a Gospel for both Jew and Gentile, which is clearly stated? Please explain WHY it would happen....
some of them. They are not excluded from the plan of salvation...Gentiles should not put them in a reprobate category. There is a remnant. He says nothing about a salvation plan after Christ returns. In Hebrews, especially both Jew and Gentiles are addressed. The term "All Israel" is a mix of Jew and Gentile. Maybe this word "jealousy" should be explored but All Israel being saved us the fullness of salvation, Jew and Gentile. I'm sorry, but it does work. If Paul had not said that, an assumption might have been made that there was exclusion. I'm sorry but what you offer are not "proofs" on its face. It does not refer to a time after Christ returns. It simply includes. Does this passage refer to after Christ returns?
When dealing with spiritual things, what is a "battle?"...I think the victory on the cross means Christ reigns now. Satan remains active in this world but always loses. Christ himself and Paul never made these references, so that's a problem too. I have an open mind but cannot say that I understand it based on the language. I do think that the history of the world and the "church" are in Revelation but am not sure why there would be a millennium or an extra chapter. Let's put it this way, God could destroy Satan at any time. Why have an extra timeline beyond this one? It seems right that Christ's return is a time ending event. My mind is open, but its enough to experience Gospel truth, beyond that feels very speculative.
It is speculative, and you're right that it's not necessary to believe for salvation or anything. My own research led me to get into the weeds and create a hypothesis that I'm confident in. I looked at OT prophecies and saw that many were yet to be fulfilled, that Jesus was promised to come back "in the same way" that he went up by the angel who stood with the disciples, and other things that require a major period of literal fulfillment on earth. I get the views that try to explain it away, but I no longer find them convincing.
Thanks - I tend to be guided by ideas such as, would I teach this to my kids...for now, instinctively, I could not.