I have this debate every once and a while, and this back & forth e-mail discussion is an example of it. It starts off with a polite question about a prophecy which is yet for the future involving "Tabernacles" implying that we should still be under the laws and customs which the Old Testament "tabernacles" (I believe he was thinking of Temples) were under. I'm glad the gentleman gave me permission to print it, because, it let's me handle the question of whether or not we are still under the Law of Moses; and if we are not under the whole law, how much are we to observe? The discussion is also an example of the politeness one should have in any kind of debate. But, the discussion doesn't end there, it briefly hits on other topics: the Next Covenant, the modern identity of the 12 tribes of Israel, the antichrist and more.
He writes:
I was reading your statement of faith. You say that the law of the old testament isn't binding except as reinstituted by the apostles, but I must remind you that Zech 14 (and other places) tells us that Tabernacles will be instituted in the whole world during the reign of Yahshua. This would seem to indicate (along with many other passages) that the law must be reistituted (with the exception of sacrifices). If it is to come, why isn't it to be observed by the elect. I find no place that it has been annulled, with the exception of the sacrificial system.
Jackson Snyder
Hello, Mr. Snyder.
Thanks for writing. Good question. And I thank you for the polite and decent way with which you presented it.
For fear of God, I would never teach something regarding His Word that I wasn't 100% sure of, as I know that I am responsible for it. I can only give you the reasons why I have come to conclude what I have on the Old Covenant Laws issue. Weigh for yourself whether my reasons hold water.
First, I reread Zech 14 and I see it is speaking of the "feast of tabernacles" which is a holy celebration of seven days, like a national holiday, only this time it's on an international scale for the Kingdom of God. Yahweh instructed Moses to teach Israel to celebrate and rejoice for seven days after they have gathered in the corn & the wine (Deut 16:13-15). "Tabernacles" in this text are tents or straw huts into which they gathered these supplies. "Temples" are not implied here. That's not to say there won't be Temples at that time.
By the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with
observing "Jewish" holidays, in fact, I see it as a positive thing.
My wife & children are Jewish, and I enjoy the Passover immensely. I want
to observe the feast of tabernacles too. Sounds like fun and a great thanksgiving
celebration.
The thing to remember is the period or the dispensation of the times.
For example, there is an Old Covenant and there is New Covenant
(Jer 31:31-34, Luke 22:20, Heb 8:6-13). Right now we are in the New Covenant
times. However, there will yet again be a change in dispensation!
And this is what Zechariah was speaking of by the holy spirit; and this is also
what Paul spoke of by the holy spirit:
Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together
in one all things in Messiah, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;
even in him.
Whereas the first feast of tabernacles were a foreshadow of greater things to come, the feast of tabernacles after the gathering together, during the 1,000 years of peace period, will take on a much broader meaning. The first celebrated the in-gathering of the corn & the wine, but, the one that must be followed by ALL nations (not just Israel) in the 1,000 years of peace period (after Messiah returns to earth) will celebrate the in-gathering of the elect of God on earth under Messiah's rule. Interestingly enough, this gathering has been likened to a ready harvest many times in the Gospels by Messiah himself in his parables, which draws a parallel with the meaning of the feast of tabernacles!
Not to belabor the point about the differences between dispensation of times, let me just briefly point out a couple of things: The only observances to specific rules or laws given to the new Church to follow were spelled out in a letter sent to the gentile believers by the hands of Apostles, and they did not include: holy day observances of any kind, nor tithing, nor a whole host of laws that many believers today think we have to follow (Acts 15:22-32). Is it bad to follow laws and ordinances of Old Covenant times? Not most of them. It is just bad to impose them on others as a way to salvation. Certainly, sacrificing animals are no longer necessary, as Messiah Yeshua sacrificed himself once and for all.
Paul had this dispute with many who were teaching in his day that we are subject to do the whole letter of the law still. This outraged Paul, as I'm sure you know, and I could show you countless Scripture verses to show that. But, let me just quote this one for now:
Galatians 4:9-13
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn
ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be
in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of
you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Brethren, I beseech you,
be as I am; for I am as ye are...
See also Gal 2:4.
Thanks for writing. Let me know if you think I answered you fully enough.
Peace!
Charlie
Thanks for your answer. Complete and well thought out. Just a couple of comments below.
I understand that he is speaking to primarily Gentile converts in Galatia as well as Jews. I understand the "beggarly elements" as their ingrained religious holidays carried over from paganism, not the moral law of Yahweh. Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you, but now I think that when he speaks of "rudiments of the world," "beggarly elements," etc. he simply CAN'T be speaking of the Word of Yahweh. Perhaps it would be good to check the meaning of "beggarly" (which I will). Today the Christian church, in which I am a pastor, continues to revert to the beggarly elements in pagan worship practices of Easter, etc. I believe this is the kind of syncretism that Paul is talking about rather than speaking of the law, a good thing, as beggarly.
Further, in regard to Acts 15, I think that certain holy practices were taken for granted and didn't need to be spelled out. "Except for fornication" refers primarily to the fornication of pagan religious practices of the Hellenistic / Roman culture. I think such practices that are taken for granted in the edict of Jerusalem include Sabbath and certainly Tabernacles. They don't need to be spelled out, because these Gentiles are still attending synagogue.
Thanks again for your response. I appreciate it, and will study what you have further. Jackson
Hi.
You made good points. Believe it or not, I thought you might answer as you did. I have had this discussion a few other times before.
I didn't feel the need to address the pagan/Gentile nature that the Galatians nor the Gentiles of Acts 15 were previously a part of, because I also quoted from the book addressed to the Hebrews, which essentially speaks to the same problem that the Gentiles had, namely, reverting back on laws for salvation rather than grace.
The question becomes: where do you draw the line? If it was without saying that the Gentile converts were to observe certain Jewish holidays, is it also without saying that they must observe every Jewish holiday? Think about it, There are many. And if they must follow every Jewish holiday, it should follow that they must also follow every Jewish law. This, as I will show, not even the Apostles did, much less did they expect the Gentiles to do. So, who is to say where to draw the line? Who is to say how much or how little we are to follow the laws and ordinances handed down through Moses? Who? The Apostles. Who else? Didn't Messiah send them? Didn't Yahweh send Messiah?
I beg you to see the danger in this popular doctrine. Where do you draw the line? Moses had the Israelites stone a man to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day. Are we then supposed to go around killing everybody that works on Saturday? Are we saved by doing all the ritual washings and sacrifices ever time someone has a wet dream or has a rash? Where do you draw the line?
Isn't the entire book of Hebrews directed to this very question? Also, as it states in Ephesians, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Messiah. So, Galatians is written to us as well.
Gal 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he
was to be blamed.
He began acting self-righteously in front of his "doers of the law" Jewish friends and snubbed the so called "Gentile believers" treating them like second class citizens! Read on:
Verse 12
For before that certain [Jewish believers] came from James, he did eat with
the Gentiles [unlawful]: but when they [Jewish believers] were come, he withdrew
and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Let me jump in again: Circumcision is symbolic of the law itself and throughout the New Testament we are taught that one does not have to be circumcised in the flesh to be save, but of the heart only, through faith.
Verses 13-16
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also
was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel [New Covenant], I said unto Peter
before them all, If you, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and
not as the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We
who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man
is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua Messiah,
even we have believed in Yeshua Messiah, that we might be justified by the faith
of Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law SHALL
NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED!
The danger is to become self-righteous like Peter, Barnabas and their friends did. The pride of life is an abomination to Yahweh, God of Israel. And He desires mercy and not sacrifice. There is a "law" for us in this New Covenant age: the law of liberty (James 1:9)
So, where do we draw the line? We draw it here:
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the
fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from
the world.
Please, with all humility I beg you: Rethink this issue.
Peace!
Charlie
PS: I have no idea what the Next Covenant will be like. But, it will probably be effective during the 1,000 years of peace only, and keeping the feast of tabernacles will obviously be a part of it. Beyond that, I don't even care to speculate on it right now. We are in the New Covenant age with troubles of its own and a work cut out for us to concentrate on right now. Let's focus on that.
OK, so I'm trying to learn where to draw the line and you've been patient in your answers. You've gone beyond the call of duty. However, just a couple more comments below:
Hi.
You made good points. Believe it or not, I thought you might answer as you did. I have had this discussion a few other times before.
I didn't feel the need to address the pagan/Gentile nature that the Galatians nor the Gentiles of Acts 15 were previously a part of, because I also quoted from the book addressed to the Hebrews, which essentially speaks to the same problem that the Gentiles had, namely, reverting back on laws for salvation rather than grace.
Hebrews is of course written to the Hebrews and seems to me to explain the significance of the sacrificial system and other such doctrines in the light of the New Covenant rather than rebuking anyone for keeping Sabbath, etc. It actually reinforces Sabbath keeping. IN fact, the way I read it, "is there still a Sabbath?" and the answer is, "Today." However, I will restudy the book.
The question becomes: where do you draw the line? If it was without saying that the Gentile converts were to observe certain Jewish holidays, is it also without saying that they must observe every Jewish holiday? Think about it, There are many. And if they must follow every Jewish holiday, it should follow that they must also follow every Jewish law. This, as I will show, not even the Apostles did, much less did they expect the Gentiles to do. So, who is to say where to draw the line? Who is to say how much or how little we are to follow the laws and ordinances handed down through Moses? Who? The Apostles. Who else? Didn't Messiah send them? Didn't Yahweh send Messiah?
I'm not thinking of Jewish holidays; rather, the feasts instituted by Yahweh. Of course, the sacrificial element is not to be observed, but each of the major feasts of Leviticus 23 commemorates important acts of Yahweh in the history of Israel. We also must remember that the Apostles were Jews and preached in synagogues. How would they get in the door. I don't know where to draw the line, but I'm trying to learn. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Being the pastor of a denominational church all these years has taught me that Christians really draw no lines at all.
I beg you to see the danger in this popular doctrine. Where do you draw the line? Moses had the Israelites stone a man to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day. Are we then supposed to go around killing everybody that works on Saturday? Are we saved by doing all the ritual washings and sacrifices ever time someone has a wet dream or has a rash? Where do you draw the line?
I asked Yahweh about this very thing in prayer last week. I got this answer: that such judgments were the fullest extent of the law's ability to touch a situation. Messiah came to show mercy and self-sacrifice. He said, "Judge!" But with righteous (equitable) justice. I think the time will come when you and I will have the opportunity to judge with righteous judgment. I want to be prepared to do this because signs of the times show pretty definitely that you and I will soon be doing that.
Isn't the entire book of Hebrews directed to this very question? Also, as it states in Ephesians, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Messiah. So, Galatians is written to us as well.
Gal 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.He began acting self-righteously in front of his "doers of the law" Jewish friends and snubbed the so called "Gentile believers" treating them like second class citizens! Read on:
Verse 12
For before that certain [Jewish believers] came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles [unlawful]: but when they [Jewish believers] were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.Let me jump in again: Circumcision is symbolic of the law itself and throughout the New Testament we are taught that one does not have to be circumcised in the flesh to be save, but of the heart only, through faith.
Verses 13-16
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel [New Covenant], I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua Messiah, even we have believed in Yeshua Messiah, that we might be justified by the faith of Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED!I just want to mention the "Works of the Law" as discovered in the MMT fragment of the Qumran library. This piece really made news about 10 years ago. Some are even calling this text "Works of the Law" now and it details some of these extra-biblical Jewish practices of those days esteemed by the assembly at Jerusalem. The Nazarene, Essene and Christian quarter of the city were all the same location. Many scrolls scholars as I believe that Paul is speaking of this document of the corpus of the Essenes rather than the Penteteuch. Just blowing a little smoke.
The danger is to become self-righteous like Peter, Barnabas and their friends did. The pride of life is an abomination to Yahweh, God of Israel. And He desires mercy and not sacrifice. There is a "law" for us in this New Covenant age: the law of liberty (James 1:9)
So, where do we draw the line? We draw it here:
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.James was the leader of the Jerusalem pack that sent the Jews up there to visit Paul, wasn't he?
Please, with all humility I beg you: Rethink this issue.
Peace!
CharliePS: I have no idea what the Next Covenant will be like. But, it will probably be effective during the 1,000 years of peace only, and keeping the feast of tabernacles will obviously be a part of it. Beyond that, I don't even care to speculate on it right now. We are in the New Covenant age with troubles of its own and a work cut out for us to concentrate on right now. Let's focus on that.
Yes, let's do, Charlie. Nice to hear from you. What 'group' are you with?
[See Common Questions in menu as to what 'group' I'm with]
Hebrews is of course written to the Hebrews and seems to me to explain the significance of the sacrificial system and other such doctrines in the light of the New Covenant rather than rebuking anyone for keeping Sabbath, etc. It actually reinforces Sabbath keeping. IN fact, the way I read it, "is there still a Sabbath?" and the answer is, "Today." However, I will restudy the book.
Obviously, the Apostles have us follow some of the OT laws. That is how we draw line, by following their instructions. You can keep every OT law if you want, no one's rebuking you. Just make sure you don't rebuke others for not following every OT law. As you even said, even you don't know where to draw the line. I myself see the virtue in Sabbath keeping, but that's just me.
I'm not thinking of Jewish holidays; rather, the feasts instituted by Yahweh. Of course, the sacrificial element is not to be observed, but each of the major feasts of Leviticus 23 commemorates important acts of Yahweh in the history of Israel. We also must remember that the Apostles were Jews and preached in synagogues. How would they get in the door. I don't know where to draw the line, but I'm trying to learn. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Being the pastor of a denominational church all these years has taught me that Christians really draw no lines at all.
Again, the point is: Are we damned if we don't? Of course not! We are saved by grace, lest any man boast (Eph 2:8-9). Is it healthy to observe those feasts? Absolutely. Do I observe them all? No, but I'd like to eventually learn how. Am I in big trouble? No, to me it's not a sin; as Paul said, whatever is sin to a man, it becomes a sin. If someone has greater faith then someone else that eating meat offered to idols means nothing, he still shouldn't eat it in front of his brother who has weaker faith by thinking it is a sin.
I asked Yahweh about this very thing in prayer last week. I got this answer: that such judgments were the fullest extent of the law's ability to touch a situation. Messiah came to show mercy and self-sacrifice. He said, "Judge!" But with righteous (equitable) justice. I think the time will come when you and I will have the opportunity to judge with righteous judgment. I want to be prepared to do this because signs of the times show pretty definitely that you and I will soon be doing that.
I agree with you there. I think we agree on a lot of things. I don't know what to expect in respect to what capacity that I will be worthy to serve after the gathering together of the elect. I'm aware of those promises that you cited, I just don't want to take anything for granted. That's why, for fear of Yahweh, I try to keep myself as unspotted as possible and allow my works to prove my faith, knowing that I am saved by grace through faith, but, that my works better show my faith! Know what I mean?
I just want to mention the "Works of the Law" as discovered in the MMT fragment of the Qumran library. This piece really made news about 10 years ago. Some are even calling this text "Works of the Law" now and it details some of these extra-biblical Jewish practices of those days esteemed by the assembly at Jerusalem. The Nazarene, Essene and Christian quarter of the city were all the same location. Many scrolls scholars as I believe that Paul is speaking of this document of the corpus of the Essenes rather than the Pentateuch. Just blowing a little smoke.
With all due respect, that kind of an answer to the complete, simple, to the point, air tight Scripture that I quoted, just doesn't hold water. The epistles that were written to us were meant to be complete, so that we are without excuse. Mitigating circumstances or not, they were all inspired by the Holy Spirit and are profitable for doctrine, reproof & correction as it says in 2 Tim 3:16, and don't say that verse speaks of the OT alone for Peter categorized Paul's writings along with the other Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). And Paul also said, "Be followers of me." The Mormons are very esoteric like that. They quote from every ancient document ever written, even Egyptian! But, they don't stick to the Old & New Testaments alone. Rather, they tap dance around every air tight Scripture verse by quoting all kinds of dubious writings from ever source they can find. They truly are today's Gnostics, they even admit it and are proud to follow in the traditions of the early Gnostics! With all respect, you are starting to sound like them.
James was the leader of the Jerusalem pack that sent the Jews up there to visit Paul, wasn't he?
Just because James sent them, doesn't mean he would
have condoned what Paul called "not walking uprightly according to the
truth of the gospel." He wasn't there and didn't even see what they did.
Yes, let's do, Charlie. Nice to hear from you. What 'group' are you with?
It is always a pleasure, and I enjoy our talks.
Hey, would you mind if I print these discussions on my web site? I could leave
your name off if you prefer. It would be great for any readers, and they can
decide for themselves. I'll print every rebuttal you send faithfully and make
sure I am fair to your side. It's up to you. You can say no.
Peace!
Of course you can print them and use my name:
Jackson Snyder, M. Div.
my site is http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc
I have a mirror on geocities: http://www.oocities.org/klakster
I will have to pay more attention to what I'm writing then. One thing certainly came clear to me -- I'm REALLY looking to the scriptures for the NEXT (millennial) covenant. This would make a good idea for a message or paper. There are lots of places that tell us what that's going to look like.
By the way, did you hear about the plan to mobilize against Iraq? Up to 250,000 ground soldiers for early next year. Just came out in the NY Times today.
Great! Thanks.
By the way, excellent site! I have to digest it a little at a time. I probably will borrow some teachings from it since you encourage it. And I will always give credit where credit is due. We have a lot more in common beliefs-wise than I thought! I'm glad I met you. I already put a link to your site in my "Links of Light" page.
I like the background image, like old parchment paper. That's kind of the look that I wanted. But, I'm still new at this web designing stuff, I assume (God willing) my site will grow and get better.
Anyway, I knew Bush was looking all along to get Saddam before he gets us, but I didn't here what you just pointed out. Great news (I think)! This is why I think he was telling Israel to pull out, with a nudge and a wink. He and his whole cabinet as well as the majority in the House & Senate support Israel, he just had to quell the flames sort of speak because he had bigger fish to fry and he needed at least a little support from some of the Arab nations. So, with smooth words he spoke about the conflict, because he wanted to pacify all parties concerned so that he can move on and do the more important thing: GET SADDAM!
My one concern is that this Iraq thing could easily
blow up into a real devastation upon all of mankind! But, if we do nothing,
it could be just as bad or worse. It's a real catch 22. Damned if we do, damned
if we don't. Scary stuff. I might have to move far away from New York. I live
on Long Island, and I had another one of those war dreams last night, where
I was escaping to Utah or something. In the dream, I was running across green
mountain tops. In reality, I'll never move though, I'm staying right here --
level headed, calm, cool & collected.
GET ME OUTTA HERE!!! Just kidding.
Peace, my friend.
Charlie
Like you, I learned site building on my own. Put my first one up in 1998 for Y2K, but have tried to improve my skills while still keeping it simple. Since mine is a text archive, why should I use a bunch of eyepopping effects.
I'm working on refurbishing this one right now http://jacksonsnyder.com/sss
You might find it interesting.
I think you are right about Saddam. I had a guy over here last week who is an underwater weapons expert with the Air Force. His father was CIA for 30 years and now works intelligence for NASA. I was trying to get him to tell a few secrets. He only really divulged one thing, that a massive ground war was imminent with Iraq AND Iran. He said that he was not speculating, watch the news. Sure enough, a week later the NY Times came out with at least the bare bones of a plan. Sent you the article.Consider the possibility that Rev 20:5 is a scribal addition. If it was, would it change your timeline?
No, because verses 11-15 go into it in greater detail, with verse 13 in particular reiterating verse 5. Also, it's not just Revelation from where the End of Timeline is solely derived, but Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Gospels, the letters of Paul (particularly 1& 2 Thessalonians) & Peter...
Also, we all must be extremely careful not to assume too much that something was added in, when it is printed already, or that something was mistranslated in the book of Revelation in particular, as there is a severe warning at the end of it to those who would add or delete any of its words. I believe it implies the whole Bible, but, Revelation in particular. I questioned having Manasseh included in the twelve tribes of Israel in the beginning of the book (Rev 7:4-8) when Dan was excluded and it already mentioned the tribe of Joseph (Ephriam & Manasseh), which, is redundant. Perhaps it was "Dan", but the scribes thought it looked like "Man" as if it might be short for "Manasseh," ...but, I sure won't try to change it! God forbid if I were wrong! I do have an English translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta called the Lamsa Bible, and it is virtually the same, including your verse 5 and that inclusion of Manasseh instead of Dan.
Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading the rest. Conservative Christian Male is right on.It appears to me in the passage below that the elect are resurrected upon the appearance of Yahshua to rule the earth while the unrighteous return later. I teach that verse 5 is spurious. However, I will look at the Greek and see exactly what that verse says.
I also can't remember any passage in the OT with the exception of Daniel and, to a lesser degree, Ezekiel, that mentions the resurrection of the dead specifically, especially as it would fit into a 'resurrection at the end of 1000 years' scheme. Can you show me where the prophets talk specifically about this?
1 Then I saw (1) an angel coming down from heaven, holding the (2) key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold of the (3) dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and (4) bound him for a thousand years;
3 and he threw him into the (5) abyss, and shut it and (6) sealed it over him, so that he would (7) not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
4 Then I saw (8) thrones, and (9) they sat on them, and (10) judgment was given to them. And I saw (11) the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their (12) testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not (13) worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the (14) mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they (15) came to life and (16) reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. (17) This is the first resurrection.
6 (18) Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the (19) second death has no power, but they will be (20) priests of God and of Christ and will (21) reign with Him for a thousand years.
The first resurrection, that of the just, does happen before Yeshua reigns
in that 1,000 year period. You are right. But, they are the elect, promised
to rule with him for a thousand years. We were promised that Messiah has saved
us from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10, 5:9, 4:15-17). Therefore, it happens
before the wrath of God.
There were no punctuation in the Hebrew, nor the Aramaic, nor the Greek at that time. I believe with accurate punctuation should read like this:
4b-6a:
And they lived and reigned with Messiah for a thousand years (but the rest of
the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished). This is
the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.
And there it implies a second
resurrection, and that is described in detail in verses 11-15, and Daniel
12:2.
The first resurrection happens after the tribulation, but, before the wrath of God. The second resurrection happens long after the wrath of God, even after the thousand years of peace! And that is how people get confused. They all think the tribulation is one and the same as the wrath of God. But, it's not! The tribulation is actually the wrath of Satan against the saints of the most high, as Scripture states countless times.
See, when they think that, it appears to them that Messiah is coming after the wrath of God and resurrecting everybody at once at the very start of the 1,000 years! But, when you see the difference between the tribulation and the wrath of God, it becomes abundantly clear. We are saved from the wrath by Messiah when he gathers us up to safety (1 Thess 1:10, 5:9, 4:15-17). That is what is meant by "salvation." Everybody asks, "are you saved?" - but, they don't even know what that means.
Yes, exactly. Your time line is absolutely correct. We've been in the tribulation for nearly 100 years now.Dan was excluded [in Rev 7:4-8] because this was the tribe antichrist was thought to arise from. This derives from the Jewish Pseudepigrapha - if I remember correctly, it is the Testament of Dan. Remember too, "Dan is a snake." If I think about it, I will get you the quote. Much New Testament thinking finds its literary origin in the literature between the testaments (especially The Parables of Enoch, the Testaments or the 12 Patriarchs, and many others) including the fate of Dan. The tribe of Dan is also said to have snaked its way around Europe as evidenced in the hundreds of place names derived from DN there. And we both know where Europe fits into the end-time scheme.
I'd also like to talk to you more about the resurrection at the end of the 1000 years and what that refers to, but we'll leave it for next time.
I did read that theory about Dan before. I have no opinion on that, believe it or not. Me, without an opinion? However, I do not put a lot of stock in that theory, as the jumps to that conclusion are great leaps indeed and the evidence is certainly inconclusive.
However, I do have a very strong opinion and historical
documentation to back it up, that Dan today are the Irish! That tribe did have
a propensity to name places after their tribe father, Dan, as evidenced in Scripture.
And in Europe they did name places after themselves right up and into Ireland
itself. I doubt "the" antichrist has anything to do with them, but
I could be wrong. Dan had always wanted it's own nationhood but was always at
the foot of a stronger tribe (or nation). I believe they had land in or at least
very close to Ephriam at the time of the book of Judges, just like today. England,
I have reason to believe is Ephriam.
I'll find you the quote. My major in seminary was intertestamental literature so I've read just about all of it and written on some. It amazed me to learn just how much NT writers got from the popular religion of their day. I have no doubt that Dan was left out for this reason and, oh yeas, one more.
The number 666 is Arabic, but in Greek letters it's
You will note the first and last letters (chi, sigma) are the first and last letters of Christos. Between the two is the 'xi' - the serpent symbol. Genesis 49:17
"Dan shall be a serpent in the way, A horned snake in the path, That bites the horse's heels, So that his rider falls backward.
(Whole Chapter: Genesis 49 In context: Genesis 49:16-18).
"Dan shall be a serpent in the way, A horned snake in the path, That bites
the horse's heels, So that his rider falls backward."
Because Genesis 49 is Jacob speaking of his 12 sons (and two grandsons) as nations in the last days (verse 1), I see the fulfillment of that prophecy as an identification mark on Ireland and the Irish, how they use terrorist tactics against the English. Although, the English (who I see as the tribe of Ephriam) are not necessarily right regarding this controversial political issue. I just don't believe terrorist tactics are ever warranted. Innocent women and children, and all nonmilitary individuals should not be murdered by thugs with a political agenda. I'm not going to segue into Islamic fundamentalism right now, but I will say this much: they are a death cult.
I have to say, I do not lend any credence to any other writings than the Holy Scriptures themselves. And I do not respect the persons of writers, apologist, theologians who write at noisome, when the Word of God is all I need, and they only serve Satan's will to muddy issues and cloud over and confuse things.
Right -- I'm going to bed. Where are you anyway?
Where? I don't know anymore, I'm so tired and you are keeping me awake!
Long Island.
Nite
