Some things never change in the Church of God, in spite of the chance all of the splinter groups had when they started. Instead of creating a new emphasis, they have all chosen to remain stuck in bondage instead of reveling in freedom.
Rick Shabi writes:
Last night on my home office Zoom Bible study, we covered Isaiah chapter 43. As we progress through the book of Isaiah, we see that it really is a book for our time. In this section of Isaiah, we are learning about the mercy and love of God in detail, since this prophecy is set at the time of Christ’s return, the establishment of His Kingdom and the return of physical Israel to the land God promised them.
These are encouraging and exciting sections of Scripture because we see God mercifully lead and guide His people. He skillfully teaches that He alone is God and that He is the Protector and Provider of His people. As His people are brought back from captivity to the Promised Land, God reminds them of the miracles He has performed for them and the wonders of the future that He will perform.
It would be a miracle to see COG leaders pay homage to Galatians, Romans, and other New Covenant books which should be their actual books "for our time". Instead, they constantly look backward to the leeks and onions that made them happy and comfortable for years. Plus, these books play well into the doom and gloom narratives they search for in Old Testament literature as they try and compare it to the worsening end times that they need and want to happen. When it does they will finally feel vindicated.
Shabi also says this:
God emphatically states that He is God and there is no other, and besides Him there is no savior (Isaiah 43:10-11). He reminds us of His willingness to demonstrate His mercy, love and patience for His people.
What a tremendous, loving, merciful, all-powerful Father we serve—along with His Son Jesus Christ, who is always with us, gently leading us, guiding us and preparing us for His everlasting Kingdom. I hope that every day we thank Him and are dedicating our lives to becoming more like Him and doing His will.
When Jesus is always an afterthought and a by-product of a kingdom message, I doubt very much appreciation will be in store for those pretending they are imitating him.
48 comments:
The ACOG's have a long history with the book of Isaiah. One of their favorite passages has always been:
"Cry aloud; do not hold back;
lift up your voice like a trumpet;
declare to my people their transgression,
to the house of Jacob their sins." -- Isaiah 58:1, ESV
Of course, they don't understand that they're NOT Isaiah, and the English-speaking folks of the earth aren't the House of Jacob!
They use this passage to justify their "warning message" to those English-speaking folks and to ignore the commission which Christ gave to HIS disciples (Matthew 28:18-20).
Leeks and onions —— great comment! I continue to be amazed at how the gospel message is still missed. Yes, Israel will be restored, but THAT is not the good news Jesus brought …. You know, that Spirit and Truth thing.
""Cry aloud; do not hold back;
lift up your voice like a trumpet;
declare to my people their transgression,
to the house of Jacob their sins." -- Isaiah 58:1, ESV"
There is not one single COG out there, including Herbert Armstrong and his "strong hand from someplace" who never cried aloud about anything. Sure they may write an article whining about something but you never see them stand on a street corner or n a public location and call out the sins of the people. They are cowards, every single one of them, including Bob Thiel who is the biggest wimp of all. It's just a bunch of emasculated men trying to bluster and thump their chests thinking they are deceiving us with their mighty power. Living in their nice homes, secure in their jobs, is more important than ever "crying aloud." The Incontinent Church of God would be a better presentation for them all.
This is what happens when these church groups have an old covenant approach to things. I mean it’s laughable. They’re desire is the millennium not the kingdom. They don’t have the power of God? They live too comfortable for that.
Agreed, 10:23. The Shabmeister is filtering the New Testament/Covenant through the old, when the correct procedure should be the opposite. What is described as being the "better" covenant takes precedence. Of course, to the Armstrongite, the two covenants are the same, except the New has a saving Messiah.
What bondage are they stuck in? Thou shalt not kill? Thou shalt not steal? Didn't Jesus say to keep the commandments?
Yep, 11:48 and to corroborate from the first comment on this thread, the disciples/apostles had only the Great Commission. Now are any of these armstrongites apostles or do they have the signs of apostles? NO
As you said they are trying to do the works of the old and new covenants. They're so special.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The NT is off limits to the COG ministry. It's more important to be Kings and Priests rather than servants and helpers of anyone's joy. Giving as one is able is also off limits as only something said in the NT in an off moment. The OT has the formula for financial success and the only acceptable way to give even if you are not able.
Isaiah 43 is a part of the book that is attributed to the author known as Deutero-Isaiah or the Second Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah lived in exile in Babylon and his prophecies were given to the Babylonian exiles. In chapter 49, he seems to have been living in Israel once again – no longer in exile. His prophecies in Isaiah 40 through 49 are hopeful and predict the restoration of Zion.
The issue is can Armstrongists place this scenario on their legendary prophetic landscape where this all refers to Israel returning to the homeland of Palestine after being in captivity to the Beast Power, the soon-coming United States of Europe, for three and a half years. This is the unmentioned context of this preacher’s viewpoint. And that is a very specific exegesis that seems to hinge on nothing more than the arbitrarily applied hermeneutic of type-antitype – and kind of interpretation popular among some Millerite-derived denominations historically.
I find the language of Deutero-Isaiah to be exalting and beautiful. I see many references to the Messiah in it. But I see it in a different context than the supposedly impending end-time events of Armstrongists. Jesus said he was the fulfillment not only of the Law but of the Prophets. Explicitly, we find the fulfillment of Isaiah in Jesus Christ. Isaiah is not about God and Israel in the end times with Jesus as a sideshow. Isaiah is a book that culminates entirely in Jesus Christ. In fact, the inline text of Deutero-Isaiah refers to this (Isaiah 42, from the Jewish Study Bible):
This is my servant, whom I uphold,
My chosen one, in whom I delight,
I have put my spirit upon him,
He shall teach the true way to the nations…
He shall bring forth the true way.
The "true way" Jesus brought forth is the New Covenant. For this reason, we may expect the writing of Deutero-Isaiah to have a spiritual rendition instead of a geopolitical meaning. We may find in it a hymn to redemption and salvation in Christ in its New Covenant rendering. To see the writing of Deutero-Isaiah as a prognostication of a mélange of dubious “end-time” world events is to regrettably miss its significance.
Scout
Correct Scout,
“The "true way" Jesus brought forth is the New Covenant. For this reason, we may expect the writing of Deutero-Isaiah to have a spiritual rendition instead of a geopolitical meaning. We may find in it a hymn to redemption and salvation in Christ in its New Covenant rendering. To see the writing of Deutero-Isaiah as a prognostication of a mélange of dubious “end-time” world events is to regrettably miss its significance.”
_______________________________________________________
This correlates to what the apostles understood. It’s a spiritual rendition instead of a geopolitical meaning. Even Peter, who was a Jew understood this.
1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. (This is beyond BI, because this is the New Covenant)
And it's that mercy through the blood of Christ.
The law abrogated, done away with, removed, disannulled, now obsolete, is those laws that were added, that came with, given under, given based on, received by the people at the setting up of....the Levitical Priesthood - Hebrews 7:11. Those laws included various physical ordinances - Heb 9:10, tithing laws, any law associated with the Levitical Priesthood and the support of Levites (listed first in the so-called Herbert perverted "third tithe" verses in Deuteronomy which do not mention a third tithe at all), laws not listed in Exodus 20-23.
Agreed, Isaiah is a beautiful piece of literature, relating to past times, future times such as when the "second exodus" takes place - Isa 43:5-6.
It would be great if UCG rolled out the New Testament part of its "Bible Reading Program." The one Tom Kirkpatrick said in 2006 was "largely written."
Instead, members (and former members who committed to the program) have been waiting for around 20 years.
The UCG higher-ups know they need to bring it out. They've said so - like the membership has been asking for it like that widow in the parable. So why the delay?
HWA didn't know anything about Noahide law.
Anonymous 9:28
The idea that the sacrifices were added 430 years after Sinai is a fiction. It was the entire Law of Moses that was added 430 years after the promises made to Abraham. This is really easy to understand. Read two scriptures in Galatians together because they belong together. They are Galatians 3:16-17 and they say:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
How Hoeh could have exegeted this to say that the sacrifices were added 430 years after the Torah, I don't know. Clearly, Paul is writing of the Abrhamic Promises and The Law. Further, the Jews record that Leviticus was contiguous with the prior Exodus and the following Numbers. And the giving of Leviticus began on Nisan 1 in the first year following the Exodus. And so the entire book of Leviticus was given over the course of one month in that timeframe not 430 years later. (See The Jewish Study Bible, 2d ed., p. 194).
Look, you can page through the Pentateuch and see that there is no neat block of text containing a description of the Priestly functions separate from the Five. There is no textual evidence that anything was appended 430 years later. There is no language that indicates that. When Paul spoke of the added Law that would be in force "till the seed should come to whom the promise was made", Paul was writing about the Torah which included the sacrifices.
Scout
Isaiah is 2500 years out of date and Romans is 2000 years out of date. I guess 500 years is a big improvement for some people. Go forward another 500 years and you get to Muhammad.
It's almost as if these armstrongist have a more favorable attitude towards Old testament (Old Covenant application) of scripture than they do Paul's writings. Paul even had to tell the Hebrew converts, that they should have been teachers by that time (Heb. 5:12). No continuing city, no physical sacrifices, tablets in heart. See some of their minds were still in the Old covenant.
Scout
I'm anon 9:28. Sacrifices were not mentioned. Abel gave a sacrificial offering - Heb 11:4 - long before Noah, Abraham, Moses. Here is my present understanding (not set in stone): Promises to Abraham were given when he was in Mesopotamia - Acts 7:2; He left Haran 30 years later; the exodus occurred 400 years later. The law was indeed given 430 years after the promises.
But: Paul was talking about added laws, added because of transgressions of other laws, other laws not removed, such as those referred to in Gen 26:5, such as the weekly sabbath, a law from creation. Laws based on the Levitical Priesthood can be construed as being added because of transgressions: that's another subject.
NO2HWA and co such outrageous two faced hypocrites and two faced FRAUDS.
Christians ? New covenant ? You don't know the meaning of the word honesty. Frauds.
2Timothy 3:15 "And from a child thou has known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in faith in Jesus Christ."
The only scriptures available to Timothy were the old Testament, so all this talk of only the NT being relevant is misplaced.
The law was added to the promise.
Gal 3:21a Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid:
Context:
Dt 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of holy ones: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
Ac 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Ac 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,
Gal 3:19c and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator [Moses].
Gal 3:19b till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;
Second Temple exegesis
Ge 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Ge 13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
Ge 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Ge 13:15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [zera‘] forever. (NIV).
"Here, "offspring is the Hebrew word zera', which is more literally rendered "seed." The word is singular in form but can be either be singular or plural in meaning - a linguistic phenomenon often referred to as a "collective noun" (common in English examples including "sheep" and "fish"). What is clear is that, in the context of the promises in Genesis, zera' has an undeniable plural meaning. Indeed, that is the very point of the promises, not that Abraham will have one offspring, but that there will be too many to count! Even though zera' is a singular form, it clearly as a plural meaning in Genesis...
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
"Paul's rendering of "seed" as singular in meaning because it is singular in form is a deliberate exegetical decision on his part.
"... Paul's handling of the OT promises betrays an exegetical approach that would be deemed inappropriate by contemporary contentions, but hardly so for ancient, Second Temple standards. The fact that zera' clearly means multiple, innumerable offspring in Genesis is not Paul's point of departure...
"What is "proper" exegesis for Paul is determined by his time, not ours, and this recognition must factor into any contemporary discussion of how we explain the NT use of the OT (and subsequently how we are to be faithful to an apostolic model). The fact that such an exegetical manoeuver would not be persuasive today ... should not dissuade us from making the necessary observation that Paul's handling of Scripture here in Galatians 3:15-29 is a function of his Second Temple context. Our first task is to be understood what Paul is doing..." (Peter Enns, Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, pp.181-85).
Rick Shabi wrote: "...As we progress through the book of Isaiah, we see that it really is a book for our time. In this section of Isaiah, we are learning about the mercy and love of God in detail, since this prophecy is set at the time of Christ’s return, the establishment of His Kingdom and the return of physical Israel to the land God promised them..."
******
And yes, "...this prophecy is set at the time of Christ’s return, the establishment of His Kingdom and the return of physical Israel to the land God promised them..."
However, does Rick Shabi, like Doug Winnail of the "living" group, believe as HWA thought, that Christ's return to reign on earth is imminent "for our time," like "in 3-5 years (pick other dates if one wishes to do so from 1975 forward!)?"
Or, might their timing of events be way off base?
Psalm 110:1 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
1 Peter 3:22 "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
Or, to be more specific, will Rick Shabi, and Doug Winnail, along with many other hirelings who fled the former WCG of Pasadena, later, eventually learn that the "establishment of Christ's Kingdom and the return of physical Israel to the land God promised them," as covered from Isaiah 40 to the end of the Book of Isaiah, will not happen until after Satan exits the pit to again mess up Jerusalem and the entire world, and is then killed by God the Father?
Time will tell...
John
7:21
I believe the case you are making is that you agree with the timeline in which God gave Israel the Law of Moses at Sinai 430 years after the promises to Abraham. But that dispensation did not include the sacrifices. So, God added the sacrifices, in the same timeframe, to the commandments, judgements and statutes. And this addition was what Paul was talking about in Galatians. It is as if God gave Israel an essential charter but then added to it an appendix containing sacrifices with the understanding that the appendix is temporary and at some point in the future can be vacated but the essential charter would remain. I think this is what you meant.
There are a couple of reasons why this view does not fly. First, what you assert is not really an “addition” at all. The sacrifices are an integrated part of the Siniatic dispensation in the Pentateuch. There is no indication that they have a separate status. Some sacrifices are even mentioned before the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood – so they are scattered throughout. The sacrifices are not confined to an appended text block somewhere in the OT.
Second, you are making a distinction that Paul did not. He says the law was added. He does not say the appendix to the Torah (which does not exist) that includes the Levitical Priesthood and sacrifices was added. If the law is compartmentalized into two pieces, the base law and the sacrifices, then Paul would have created enormous confusion by using the generic term law in his writing. Absent any qualification, Paul here meant The Law of Moses when he wrote the term “law”. It was the entire Mosaic legislation.
The idea that Hoeh innovated to create an artificial compartmentalization of the Torah pivots on the term “transgression.” He asserts that the transgressions Paul refers to had to be transgressions of the Law of Moses in its putative original form without sacrifices. Then because of these transgressions the sacrifices were added. It is as if the only way sin could happen is if the Law of Moses had been dispensed to Israel and then transgressed. But there was law before Moses. Herbert W. Armstrong wrote an article titled, “Were the Ten Commandments in Force Before Moses?” His conclusion was that they were. And this undermines Hoeh’s neat compartmentalization of the Torah. HWA’s conclusion places Hoeh in conflict with Paul in the New Covenant over the use of the term “transgression”. Hoeh is also in conflict with Jesus when Jesus makes a statement in Matthew which implies that the law and prophets were a whole down to the jot and tittle. Paul and Jesus did not make the distinction that you and Hoeh are making.
Scout
John
I'm guessing this has been asked before: what on earth do you do with Rev 20:7: And when the 1000 years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison... A 1000 years is a millenium, will "play out" before Satan is loosed. It is this millenium in which "they ...reigned with Christ"....verse 4.
Anon, Friday, July 21, 2023 at 10:49:00 AM PDT, said:
"...John
I'm guessing this has been asked before: what on earth do you do with Rev 20:7: And when the 1000 years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison... A 1000 years is a millenium, will "play out" before Satan is loosed. It is this millennium in which "they ...reigned with Christ"....verse 4.
******
Rev 20:4, which is a different time event from that of Rev 5:10, says nothing about reigning on earth; Jesus Christ is at the Father's right hand, where He has been reigning for the past approximately 2,000 years, especially regarding God's Church as the Father has been drawing/dragging one Firstfruit to be sealed after another until the Church/Bride has been completed. They're busy,
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18: Hebrews 4:3, etc.
Rev 20:7 Satan exits the pit and becomes the 7th head of the Beast: Gog.
Ezekiel 38, and elsewhere, gives lots of details regarding Gog; Jesus Christ will not be on earth to stop Satan from what he will do as the 7th head, Gog.
But you asked about Rev 20:7, which states: "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,"
It says what it means and means what it says.
John
10.49
You are right, John has been asked that question and similar umpteen times about his millennium. It's an attack on the benefits of the feast of tabernacles. He has also repeatedly condemned self love. I've come to the conclusion that his motives are wicked.
Tonto and annon 220
You are right on!
2Tim 3:14-17 is devastating to those critics advocating the OT is obsolete!
10:49
Caveat: The Book of Revelations, I have been told, is very difficult to translate. Moreover it's place in the canon is iffy. At the time that Athanasius was compiling the canon only about half the churches believed it was actually scripture. Elaine Pagels has a very interesting discussion of the politics surrounding the Book of Revelations in her book titled "Revelations", pp. 159-170. It is interesting that a book of the Bible that resides at the margin is so central to Armstrongism.
Rev 20:7-10 leads to the inevitable conclusion that belief and disbelief co-reside during the Millenium. Why this is has something to do with how Jesus will engage the nations during this time. His reign at this stage will not be absolute. My guess. He will follow a path of persuasion instead of pre-emption. The Millenium is not the "be all and end all". It is an intermediate step. In the eschaton, Jesus will resolve all issues.
Scout
7:54 wrote, "It's an attack on the benefits of the feast of tabernacles."
It should be pointed out that there is no explicit statement connecting the FoT with the Millennium. Such a connection is just as much absent in the Bible as the word "trinity". In the Torah, the FoT is connected to the Exodus from Egypt. And I can see how it may symbolize coming out of sin in the New Covenant. So the FoT looks backward on the Exodus and forward on redemption in Jesus.
Hank Hanegraaff points out that the use of the term 1,000 years in Revelation is a hyperbole in the Greek of the day. It is like if we were to say that Jesus will reign a "gazillion" years. The connection of the FoT to the Millennium seems to be a uniquely Armstrongist non-Biblical interpretation.
The FoT does have harvest connotations. But these meanings can be also associated with redemption in Jesus without resorting to an arcane scripture in Revelation. If evil is still active during the Millennium, then HWA's philosphy of the FoT does not map neatly to the Millennium.
Scout
BP8 5:58
I don't feel devastated at all. I believe in the scriptures cited by Tonto and Anonymous 2:20 and I also believe that the Law of Moses is obsolete. I experience no cognitive dissonance over this and can explain my position in detail. I think you are dueling with strawmen of your own device.
Scout
John
Those who reign - Rev 20:4 - are not those who reign on the earth - Rev 5:10? What do the Rev 20:4 "reigners" reign over? Aliens in far away galaxies? Rocks on Mars? Away from earth in the heavens God's will is already being done. It's the earth that needs Godly kings and priests.
Scout says "I can explain my position in detail".
Sounds good to me. That's why we are here, we want to learn!
If you can't do it on this thread, submit a new post to No2hwa to run.
11:55
Here is a good start:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-meditation-on-god-law-and.html
Scout
Scout writes:
“The connection of the FoT to the Millennium seems to be a uniquely Armstrongist non-Biblical interpretation.”
Below is from The Bible Believers Commentary by William McDonald, a Plymouth Brethren theologian and prolific author:
H. The Feast of Tabernacles (23:33-44)
The Feast of Tabernacles (Heb., Sukkôth, "booths") began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. For seven days the Israelites dwelt in booths (v. 42). It pictured the final rest and final harvest, when Israel will be dwelling securely in the land during the Millennium. This feast is also called the Feast of Ingathering (Exo 23:16). It was associated with harvesting. In fact several of the feasts mentioned in this chapter have to do with harvesting. The two Sabbaths may picture the Millennium and the Eternal Rest. Moishe and Ceil Rosen describe the tradition:
The Jewish people built booth-like structures and lived in them during this feast as a reminder of the temporary dwellings the Israelites had in the wilderness. Even today many Jewish people build open-roofed, three-sided huts for this festival. They decorate them with tree boughs and autumn fruits to remind them of harvest.
Everyone who was able came up to Jerusalem for this harvest festival every year. The Temple worship for the holiday included the ritual pouring of water from the Pool of Siloam, symbolic of the prayers for the winter rains. It was at this time that Jesus cried out, ". . . If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink" (John 7:37-38).
After Israel's final day of atonement, the Feast of Booths will be celebrated again in Jerusalem (Zec 14:16).
One of the things the Lord sought to teach His people through the feasts was the close association between the spiritual and the physical aspects of life. Times of bounty and blessing were to be times of rejoicing before the LORD. The Lord was portrayed to them as the One who abundantly provided for their daily needs. Their response as a nation to His goodness found expression in the festivals connected with the harvest.
Notice the repetition of the commandment that the Israelites were to do no servile or customary work on these solemn occasions (vv. 3, 7, 8, 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36).
A definite chronological progression can be traced in the Feasts of Jehovah. The Sabbath takes us back to God's rest after creation. The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread speak to us of Calvary. Next comes the Feast of Firstfruits, pointing to the resurrection of Christ. The Feast of Pentecost typifies the coming of the Holy Spirit. Then looking to the future, the Feast of Trumpets pictures the regathering of Israel. The Day of Atonement foreshadows the time when a remnant of Israel will repent and acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. Finally the Feast of Tabernacles sees Israel enjoying the millennial reign of Christ.
As aside:
“Refusing to accept royalties for his books, he established a fund for translating the commentary into foreign languages. Many of his books are also available as eBooks.”
2:53
Interesting references. I am wondering how MacDonald developed these ideas. One wonders how MacDonald and HWA made the same error. I may do a little research on this.
Scout
Anon, Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:28:00 AM PDT, said:
"...What do the Rev 20:4 "reigners" reign over? Aliens in far away galaxies? Rocks on Mars? Away from earth in the heavens God's will is already being done. It's the earth that needs Godly kings and priests."
******
You asked: "...What do the Rev 20:4 "reigners" reign over?..."
Do you disbelieve the words of Rev 20:4? Do you think God lied when He inspired John to write those words about reigning? Incidentally, the event of Rev 5:10 occurs over a 1,000 years beyond another event mentioned in Rev 20:4.
Jesus Christ has been reigning for the past 2,000 years since His murder and resurrection. What do you think He has been doing? "Aliens in far away galaxies? Rocks on Mars? Away from earth in the heavens God's will is already being done. It's the earth that needs Godly kings and priests."
Where did you get those ideas? You should know that this earth does not need Godly kings and priests today, because that isn't part of God's Plan, which allows for ungodly leaders to exist today.
Surely, in light of Eph 6:12, you would not want to wrestle with flesh and blood; would you?
There is sufficient evil daily, as you know, and the primary cause is those principalities, or do you not believe it, or do you think God lied to Paul?
The Godly leaders will exist on earth later (Rev 5:10) after they are trained, taught, educated, during the time Satan is in the pit for 1,000 years. Why do you think God's Plan requires Satan be isolated in a pit for 1,000 years? Study your Bible and learn what Satan and his angels have been doing the past 6,000 years to every human being who has lived (one hint: I John 3:8, 12), and that may lead you to the answer, but it will have nothing to do with Aliens in far away galaxies or Rocks on Mars.
And don't think there is going to be a Mickey Mouse kingdom set up on earth for 1,000 years where you assist Jesus by magically beating people into submission, into happiness.
If you can't believe Rev 20:4, then how could you believe Rev 15 where it states:
Rev 15:1 "And I saw another sign in heaven..."
2 "And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God."
3 "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb..."
Did you notice who is standing on that sea of glass? You don't believe it? What about Rev 14:1-4? Do you believe those words? Did God lie to us?
If you came out of the former WCG, then you may have learned that certain ones were to meet Jesus in the clouds, but then where do they go? The Bride follows the Lamb. Just jump on some train and return to earth? Some of us were taught that. Well, that would be stupid, wouldn't it? But it was believed by many. Where did Jesus then go? All of the enemies will not have been subdued by the time of the first resurrection.
Rev 15 shows who is on that sea of glass and the 7 Vials hadn't even been poured out yet.
We were taught a counterfeit plan of salvation, but you can believe what you want. You may ridicule as others like to do; that's fine, but God moves on with His plan (Acts 15:18; Heb 4:3). And Satan moves on with his various counterfeits of all that God plans to accomplish, because it is a fact that the entire world has been, and is, deceived. How much? It's just a matter of degree.
So, will there be some that live and reign "with Christ a thousand years?"
Time will tell...
John
Scout wrote concerning the Book of Revelation that “it's place in the canon is iffy.”
The ‘High’ Christology of Revelation suggests otherwise.
Below is the observations of George Beasley-Murray, on this topic:
“The Christology of the Revelation, when compared with that of other writings of the New Testament, is ‘advanced’. Constantly the attributes of God are described to Christ, as in the opening vision of the first chapter, which is significantly a vision of Christ and not of God. The lineaments of the risen Lord are those of the Ancient of Days and of his angel in the book of Daniel (chs. 7 and 10). Christ is confessed as Alpha and Omega (22:13), as God is also (1:8). The implications of the claim are drawn out in the book as a whole, wherein Christ is presented as the mediator of creation (3:14), as he is of redemption (ch.5) and of the final kingdom (19:11ff.). Strangely enough it is in the context of the parousia that the Christ is called ‘the Word of God’ (19:13). If the term calls attention to the function of the Christ to be the bearer of the revelation of God in his person and action, there is nevertheless a fitness in its application to him who in his parousia fulfils the purpose of creation imitated through him. More central is the concept of the Christ as the Lamb of God, which reflects a highly original insight into the relation of Jewish Christian interpretation of the Messiah. Here the prophet has taken a typical apocalyptic representation of the Messiah as the young Warrior-Lamb, raised from the midst of God’s flock to be its leader and champion, and transformed it by conjoining with it the Christian conception of the crucified Christ, who has wrought the world’s redemption by the sacrifice of himself - God’s paschal lamb, through whom the greater exodus is wrought (ch.5). The kingdom which is to come is ‘the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ’ (11:15). In the closing vision of the city of God, therefore, God and the Lamb are united as Lord of the kingdom and source of its blessedness. It is especially noteworthy that John depicts the throne of God and the Lamb as the source of the river of water of life in the city, thereby conveying the notion of a single throne, a single rule, and as single source of life. He adds, ‘his servants shall worship him; they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads’ (22:3f). In the context it is difficult to interpret the pronoun ‘his’ as meaning anything other than ‘God and the Lamb’ as a unity (see exposition). The Lamb remains the mediator of judgment and redemption, yet he is inseparable from the God who enacts his works of judgment and redemption through him.
“This illustrates the inseparability of Christology from eschatology. In the Revelation the redemptive action of God through Christ is not an adjunct to the expectation of a future kingdom, but controls the understanding of the kingdom in the book. It results in the expectation of the future kingdom quite different from that in the Old Testament prophets and Jewish apocalypses. The future which is awaited in the revelation of that sovereignty which has its decisive beginning in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. The fulcrum of this book is not the parousia and the descent of the city of God, described in its closing visions, but the vision of God and the Lamb in chapters 4-5. This vision is in two parts, first of God exalted in his transcendent majesty, reigning in heaven untroubled by the storms of history, and then of the Lamb through whom God makes his saving sovereignty effective in the universe. By delaying the vision of the Lamb to the second part, greater prominence is given to his action and to its universal consequences. The slain and risen Lamb has accomplished redemption, he has ascended the throne of God and commenced his reign with the Father. The turn of the ages, therefor, lies in the past.
Part 2
The exaltation of the Christ has taken place, and the acclamation of his sovereignty has been rendered by the hosts of heaven. Its acknowledgement by the whole creation, describes at the conclusion of chapter 5, alone lies in the future. The succeeding chapters of the Revelation show that a special exercise of the divine sovereignty must take place before earth’s rebellion is subdued and the universe acclaims its Lord; but this is the outworking of the central action of the vision. The remarkable feature of the vision in chapter 5 is its unitary nature. The process of redemption and the establishment of the sovereignty of God is an indivisible whole, so the divine intervention from the incarnation to the parousia is presented as a single act. This unheard-of concentration of the action of God in Christ is a different way of presenting the ‘now’ and the ‘not yet’ of the kingdom from that which is seen in other writers of the New Testament.
“The clear statement of this viewpoint is the crucial vision of the Revelation suggests that it holds the key to the eschatology of whole work. This is confirmed as we observe that the remaining visions flow from that of chapter 5 and develop its content. The Christ who takes from God the book of destiny in virtue of his achieved redemption, sets in motion the messianic judgments as he looses the seals one by one, and these lead to the coming of the kingdom... This principle of the Christ leading on the judgment of history to their goal in the kingdom of God is assumed in the remaining parallel series, and they in turn give way to the revelation of the city of God at the end... There is no analogy to the eschatological doctrine of Revelation chapter 5 in all Jewish apocalyptic, and that for a simple reason: it is the exposition of the gospel of the crucified ad risen Christ, such as only a Christian prophet can give.
“From the forgoing it will be apparent that the doctrine of God in the Revelation cannot be taken by itself, but must be viewed in the light of the Christology, soteriology, and eschatology of the book. The central vision of chapters 4-5 does not present us with the figure of Redeemer alone. The conjunction of the two chapters shows us the God of creation as the God of redemption, accomplishing his sovereign and gracious will through the crucified and risen Christ. If Paul presents us with the gospel that God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself (2 C. 5:19). John yields a gospel of God in Christ deeming the world for himself. It is God in Christ who delivers mankind, and God in Christ who judges mankind. This inevitably leads to a belief that God is revealed in the acts of Christ, and that Christ is the revelation of the Father (in the Revelation the concept of God as Father is exclusively reserved for his relation to Christ). As is the Christ, so is the Father; as the Father, so the Christ.
“But where does the accent lie? In judgment, or in salvation? A just answer perhaps would be in the conjunction of both, though John would almost certainly view the latter as ultimate. This is illustrated if we ask why the Revelation was written. It was not written in order to hold threats of damnation before sinners, but to encourage saints to press on, despite all opposition, and to win the inheritance. The Revelation was written that men might enter the city of God, and the vision of the city is the true climax of the book - its goal, not simply its finis” (George Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, pp.24-26).
I can't believe how stupid you people are on many subjects, prophecy, the law, revelations, doctrines, etc.
No wonder the Lord has scattered us all and left us up to deceiving, bitter and hardened spirits.
You're relying on yourselves brethren, you're relying on yourselves, and you're too proud to take correction. I see this everyday in the world so when I see it with you I'm not surprised.
Be ready for a wallop.
7:10
Beasley-Murray makes the argument that there is a logical flow of the NT into which the Book of Revelation fits. While that is supportive to the presence of Revelation in the canon it is not determinative. There were ministers who preached from the Pulpit in Big Sandy that HWA's co-worker letters would one day be incorporated into the book of Acts. It seemed logical. The sound bite was, "The Book of Acts is still being written!" Right. Logical flows can be authored like any other kind of interpretation.
The Book of Revelation has a controversial history. Elaine Pagels writes:
“Had it not been for Athanasius, would Revelation be in the Bible? … when Bishops and Christian leaders composed their lists of “canonical books,” all others whose lists survive left out John’s Book of Revelation – and often only this book … Cyril (bishop of Jerusalem) named all of the books now in the New Testament except Revelation. When he finished his list, Cyril warned, ‘and whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read them, even by yourself’ … Later, when he (Eusebius) lists the books he calls ‘illegitimate,’ including the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Gospel to the Hebrews – none of which are now in the New Testament – Eusebius includes John’s Book of Revelation as well … Dionysius (Bishop of Alexandria) reports how he personally had debated with Egyptian Christians he regarded as literal-minded, since they read John’s book as prophesying that Christ would reign for a thousand years on earth – a view that Justin and Irenaeus both shared. Dionysius dismisses the view as naïve, and repeats what earlier critics had said: that the Book of Revelation was “unintelligible, irrational, and the title false – that it is not John’s, and is not a revelation at all.” (Excerpted from Pagels’ book titled “Revelation”, pp. 160 – 163.)
I side with these early Christian brothers. I believe that the Book of Revelation is a marginal book and may possibly not belong in the canon. On the other hand, it has been carried forward and is in our present Bibles. And incumbency argues for something. And I think some of its passages are quite beautiful. On the other hand, it seems to encourage a certain kind of idiosyncrasy in those who have a weakness for prophecy – like some of the denominations derived from the Millerite movement.
In the Armstrongist menagerie there is a cage labelled “prophecy weenies.” I used to be a prophecy weenie and I knew other prophecy weenies – that is predictive prophecy. And I came to conclude that being a prophecy weenie was actually a diversion from Christianity. It is something that people with Aspergic proclivities can get hung up on. While the really Aspergic types were few, I think overall in Armstrongism there is a heightened and injurious concern with prophecy. If we were to assign quantitative weights to the importance of the book of the Bible, I think Armstrongists, unlike Christians, would rate the Book of Revelation right alongside the Gospels.
In simple terms, what I am saying is that nobody knows what The Book of Revelation incontrovertibly means and those that genuinely think they do are almost always somewhere on the spectrum.
Scout
Bullinger Companion Bible, Appendixes #3 is titled "Genesis Finds Its Complement in the Apocalypse" and lists 30 points for comparison. Its either a fluke or the book of Revelation is the real deal! I choose the latter.
Also Scout, I read your thesis and for rebuttal I refer you to the post:
Sabbath Theories
Comment #34-35
Anon 7/21 8:13
Ezekiel and John parallels
Part 1
Jos 6:13a And seven priests bearing seven trumpets [salpigx, LXX] of rams' horns BEFORE THE ARK OF THE LORD
Rev 8:2And I saw the seven angels which stood BEFORE GOD; and to them were given seven trumpets [salpigx]
"Jericho ... was the key to the conquest of the whole land, the possession of which would open the way to the whole, as it were, into their hands...
"Through this arrangement, that the walls of Jericho were not to fall till after they had been marched round for seven days, and not till after this had been repeated seven times on the seventh day, and then amidst the blast of the jubilee trumpets and the war-cry of the soldiers of the people of God, the destruction of this town, the key to Canaan, was intended by God to become a type of the final destruction at the last day of the power of this world, which exalted itself against the kingdom of God. In this way He not only showed to His congregation that it would not be all at once, but only after long-continued conflict, and at the end of the world, that the worldly power by which it was opposed would be overthrown, but also proved to the enemies of His kingdom, that however long their power may sustain itself in opposition to the kingdom of God, it would at last be destroyed in a moment...
"Thus the fall of Jericho became the symbol and type of the overthrow of every worldly power before the Lord, when he should come to lead His people into Canaan and establish the kingdom upon the earth... [and he] ... destroys one worldly power after another, and thus maintains and extends His kingdom upon earth" (C.F. Keil, Commentary on the Book of Joshua, KD, pp.50-52.
I would suggest that one can be on the higher end of the spectrum if one notes (1) the typology of Joshua’s - son of Nun - campaign against Jericho and Joshua’s - Son of God - campaign against Jerusalem. Joshua’s seven year conquest of Canaan pictures Jesus’ three and a half year conquest of the earth; and (2) the contributions of Daniel and Ezekiel. For the latter examples below:
(This is taken from “Ezekiel's Temple in the Plan of God - Order out of Chaos - from Genesis to Revelation” which includes mostly the parallel descriptions of God’s earthly dwelling places -Eden-Garden of Eden as Temple (i.e., they parallel the Most Holy Place/Holy Place), Moses’ Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, Ezekiel’s Temple and Revelation’s New Jerusalem).
Eze 40:2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Eze 40:5b The length of the measuring rod in the man's hand was six long cubits...
Rev 21:15a The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold...
Eze 40:5a I saw a wall completely surrounding the temple area...
Rev 21:12a It had a great, high wall...
Eze 40:5c He measured the wall; it was one measuring rod thick and one rod high.
Rev 21:17a He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits thick...
Eze 42:20b It had a wall around it ... to separate the holy from the common. (NIV).
Rev 21:27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. (NIV).
Eze 43:2a And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east
Eze 43:2b ... and the earth shined with his glory. (AV).
Rev 21:10b ... and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.
Rev 21:11b ... It shone with the glory of God. (NIV).
Part 2
Eze 41:4 And he measured the length of the inner sanctuary; it was twenty cubits, and its width was twenty cubits across the end of the outer sanctuary. He said to me, "This is the Most Holy Place." (NIV).
Rev 21:16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. (NIV).
Eze 43:6b I heard someone speaking to me from inside the temple.
Rev 21:3a And I heard a loud voice from the throne
Eze 43:7a He said... this is the place of my throne (NIV).
Rev 22:3b The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city... (NIV).
Eze 37:27a My dwelling place will be with them;
Eze 43:7 He said... This is where I will live mong the Israelites forever. (NIV).
Rev 21:3b saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. (NIV).
Eze 37:c and they will be my people
Rev 21:3c They will be his people
Eze 37:27b I will be their God,
Rev 21:3d and God himself will be with them and be their God
Eze 47:1a The man brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and I saw water coming out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east...
Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
Ezek 47:1b The water was coming down from under the south side of the temple, south of the altar.
Rev 22:2a down the middle of the great street of the city. (NIV).
Eze 47:12a Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail., because the water from the sanctuary flows to them.
Rev 22:2b On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit
Rev 47:12b Every month they will bear...
Rev 22:2c yielding its fruit every month.
Rev 47:12c Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing. (NIV).
Rev 22:2d And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. (NIV).
In the above that parallels are between the Ezekielian Temple, that looked like a city, and the city of the New Jerusalem in Revelation.
In the Messianic Age, the Temple will be some distance from the City, depending on the what unit of measurement that fulfill the ellipse (cp. Eze 45:1) and the placing of the Temple in the teruma, hence the separate parallel:
Eze 48:31 And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel:
Eze 48:31b three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi.
Eze 48:32 And at the east side ... one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.
Eze 48:33 And at the south side ... three gates; one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun.
Eze 48:34 At the west side ... three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali.
Rev 21:12b and had twelve gates ... and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
Rev 21:13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
Eze 48:35b the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.
Rev 2:13 I know where you live - where Satan's throne is... your city where Satan lives. (NB).
Jesus Christ will not literally dwell and rule in Millennial Jerusalem during the Messianic Age; just as Satan did not dwell and reign in Pergamos during the time John was writing.
BP8
I am not making an argument that the Book of Revelation should be discarded - only that it has a clouded history and should not have the same status as the other books of the NT. In practical terms, I do not think any denomination should exegete a doctrine solely based on the Book of Revelation. I had a look at Bullinger's Appendix 3 and it has merit. But one must not overlook the fact that John of Patmos had access to the books of Genesis, Ezekiel and Daniel when he wrote Revelation.
I would suggest that you not stop at Appendix 3. There is much more to consider. There are other examples of apocalyptic literature from the time period of Revelation. Apocalyptic Literature is a genre unto itself. One theologian, Stephen L. Harris, stated in reference to 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras and the Apocalypse of Peter:
"These three apocalyptic books are noteworthy not only because they employ the same kind of imagery used in Revelation but also because their portrayals of the spirit world and the fate of souls after death have been extraordinarily influential on Christian thought."
Another issue is that I believe that Revelation is mostly written about events that have already happened. We get a picture that is clearly future near the end of the writing. For these reasons, I would argue that the Book of Revelation should not form the centerpiece of belief for any denomination.
Scout
BP8
I am not making an argument that the Book of Revelation should be discarded - only that it has a clouded history and should not have the same status as the other books of the NT. In practical terms, I do not think any denomination should exegete a doctrine solely based on the Book of Revelation. I had a look at Bullinger's Appendix 3 and it has merit. But one must not overlook the fact that John of Patmos had access to the books of Genesis, Ezekiel and Daniel when he wrote Revelation.
I would suggest that you not stop at Appendix 3. There is much more to consider. There are other examples of apocalyptic literature from the time period of Revelation. Apocalyptic Literature is a genre unto itself. One theologian, Stephen L. Harris, stated in reference to 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras and the Apocalypse of Peter:
"These three apocalyptic books are noteworthy not only because they employ the same kind of imagery used in Revelation but also because their portrayals of the spirit world and the fate of souls after death have been extraordinarily influential on Christian thought."
Another issue is that I believe that Revelation is mostly written about events that have already happened. We get a picture that is clearly future near the end of the writing. For these reasons, I would argue that the Book of Revelation should not form the centerpiece of belief for any denomination.
Scout
My take: Revelation is comment/prophecies for/of the spirit world which makes the book seem "different". For example, the two witnesses are spirit beings, not human beings. Too many try to apply a physical interpretation to a spirit event.
Scout says,
The book of Revelation should not form the centerpiece of belief for any denomination.
I'm not sure who does that but I do believe like Bullinger that Revelation is not only the perfect compliment to Genesis, but the perfect ending to the Bible!
Every book has a beginning and an ending. If Revelation is not it, the Bible has no logical ending. The book parallels Matthew 24, concerning the END of the age, and also presents the perfect conclusion to the plan of God for the earth, mankind, and his redemption.
Also, if you are suggesting John sat down with old testament scrolls and formulated out of his own mind apart from the holy spirit this complicated book, then that would be a feat far greater than the Beatles supposedly writing, recording, and producing "Rubber Soul" in 30 days, which includes putting it in the stores, which has been shown by experts to be literally impossible! Both John of Patmos and Lennon were good, but not that good!
Annon 922 believes the 2 witnesses to be spirit beings?
You are free to interpret it anyway you want, but I believe the context says otherwise.
In verse 10 of Revelation 11, the 2W are called "prophets", which fits their calling and message. Another interesting point is verse 5:
" if man man will hurt them".
Why would anyone want to do that? The same reason Jesus Christ was hated (see John 7:7) and any whistleblower of worth must be silenced! They are doing their job!
Their role cannot be underestimated in the prophecy. Their demise is actually the springboard to the rise of the Beast's claim to be God!
Post a Comment