Do You Worship at the Feet of Nebuchadnezzar's Statue?
Nearly half a millennia before Christ, a new era dawned.
The scriptures call it the "Times of the Gentiles" and it was inaugurated by God in part as penalty for Jewish disobedience. It began with the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the exile of the Jewish nation into the land of its first in a succession of Gentile conquerors: Babylon.
There, God gave the Jew's new pagan overlord a remarkable vision that foretold the entire history of this new era in advance. And, fortunately for us, He also gave a faithful Jew named Daniel (then laboring in his conqueror's service) its proper interpretation. That prophet recorded this amazing event in the second chapter of the book of Daniel. We would do well to take note of it, for it speaks not just of ancient times already long past, but of our own time as well.
King Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of a dazzling and awesome statue. It was a great statue of a man, and it was forged of metals, both precious and base. Specifically:
...its head was pure GOLD,
...its arms and chest were SILVER,
...its belly and hips were BRONZE,
...its legs were IRON,
...and its feet were an odd mingling of IRON and BAKED CLAY.
Then the King beheld an amazing sight. A ROCK was cut out, but not by human hands. The ROCK struck the IRON and CLAY feet of the statue, and the statue in its entirety --- the GOLD, the SILVER, the BRONZE, the IRON, and the IRON mixed with BAKED CLAY -- all simultaneously shattered into pieces and, then, like chaff on a thresher's floor, was swept away by the wind. Not even a trace of it remained.
Then the ROCK that struck the statue became a huge MOUNTAIN and filled the earth.
Daniel then explained to King Nebuchadnezzar the meaning of this strange vision as follows:
The statue's four distinct metal sections each represent four successive GENTILE EMPIRES that shall rise up and rule. Each one shall rise up, and then be conquered by its successor.
Specifically:
...the head of GOLD is Nebachadnezzar's own empire, the one that became the first instrument of God's judgment against the Jewish Kingdom: BABYLON! Note that Babylon is the HEAD of this great statue. That means that the entire statue is in some way directed and guided by Babylonian thought forms. As we'll see when we look back at the statue in its entirety, this is indeed the case.
...the arms and chest of SILVER is the future conqueror of Babylon, which Daniel says will be an empire inferior to that of its predecessor. We know this now to be MEDO-PERSIA!
...the belly and hips of BRONZE is the future conqueror of Medo-Persia, which Daniel says will eventually rule the whole earth. We know this now to be GREECE, and, indeed, Alexander's Empire was vast, reaching as far east as India. But, also note that since those times, Greek ideas and Greek ways have indeed come to rule the whole earth, thanks in no small part to the fearsome power of its successor...
...the legs of IRON and the feet of IRON mixed with BAKED CLAY is the future conqueror of Greece, which Daniel says will be "strong as iron" and "as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others." We know this now to be ROME. But, curiously, unlike its predecessors, this fourth empire is never conquered by a man-made rival. It, instead, only changes its form...
...the feet of IRON and BAKED CLAY is the end-times form ROME will take. Daniel explains that the original UNITY OF IRON will eventually become a DISUNITY, only partly strong like the IRON legs from which it came, but also partly brittle, like the BAKED CLAY intermixed with the IRON in its feet. And the mixture of these two elements which do not naturally mix well portends that this one-time UNITY OF IRON will metamorphose into a mixture of peoples that will not remain united, any more than IRON mixes with CLAY.
Friends, this is as succinct a summary of the history of what we call Western Civilization as any ever written.
The Empire that was ROME never really fell. It instead metamorphosed into an IRON and CLAY disunity of many "little ROMES", each like the IRON UNITY from whence they came, but also unlike it in their brittleness, their proneness to break apart, their characteristic of being a difficult-to-unify mixture of peoples.
These are the civilizational children of ROME. We know them well. They have each gone forth to conquer the world, in part: Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Russia, and, yes, even the United States of America.
This last EMPIRE of IRON and then IRON and CLAY will indeed be the LAST. Daniel tells us that it will reign over men until God draws the "Times of the Gentiles" to a close with a watershed event. God will Himself intervene directly in the affairs of men and SMASH this FALSE IDOL of GENTILE EMPIRE to SMITHEREENS with the ROCK hewn not by human hands.
Daniel explains that the ROCK is GOD's KINGDOM and that it is ETERNAL, for it "will never be destroyed nor will it be left to another people." Furthermore, it will SHATTER all those GENTILE EMPIRES and bring them to an end, and it shall endure FOREVER.
This amazing dream lays out all of human history from Daniel's time to our own and beyond in advance.
So, where do we stand in this panoply? Where is America? Are we to be found in this dazzling and seductive man-made idol of EMPIRE? Or are we the ROCK?
George W. Bush would like you to believe we are the rock. He would like you to believe that American Empire, in effect, is nothing less than the Kingdom of God advancing in the world.
But America cannot be the ROCK, for the ROCK is not made by human hands. God's Kingdom will not be established by human works. Rather, it will be established by the UTTER NEGATION of humanity's most seductive work of all. Daniel tells us that the GREAT AND AWESOME EDIFACE THAT IS EMPIRE will be SMASHED INTO NOTHINGNESS by the ROCK, not that it will become the ROCK, or the MOUNTAIN. These two rival claimants of humanity's love, loyalties, and affections stand unalterably opposed to each other for all time, even to the end of time, and the GREAT IDOL that is EMPIRE shall not prevail. The ROCK will crush it. And it will smash it UTTERLY.
It could not be more clear, then, that America is among the many shards of IRON mixed with BAKED CLAY in the great statue's feet. We are one of many end-times heirs to ROMAN CIVILIZATION. But we are not only heirs to ROME. We are also heirs through ROME of the three empires which preceded it. This is why, from God's perspective, these four empires are seen as a UNITY, and the HEAD OF THE STATUE that still directs WE WHO ARE OF IT'S FEET is BABYLON.
If you doubt this, consider the way we order time. There are sixty seconds in a minute, sixty minutes in an hour, twenty-four hours in a day, and twelve months in a year because Babylon so established it, and we follow it still today.
But it goes even deeper. Easter, Christmas, Lent...all now nominally Christian celebrations are actually rooted in Babylonian paganism. Why else do you think Easter bunnies and eggs have been co-mingled with what purports to be an annual remembrance of Christ's resurrection? Because it first was a Babylonian spring fertility rite celebrating the goddess Astarte, that's why.
We are still the children of Babylon, as much as we are still the children of Persia, Greece, and Rome.
And we are among those whom God foretold would be partly strong and partly brittle, having the qualities of the original UNITY OF IRON that was ROME, but also having weaknesses stemming from disunity caused in part by a mixing of diverse peoples.
We are among the many disunified "kingdoms" represented by those FEET OF (partly) CLAY, and, as such, we are destined together with all the rest to be SMASHED TO PIECES by the coming ROCK.
So, whom do you worship? The man-made idol with a head of GOLD and feet of IRON and CLAY? Or the divinely hewn ROCK?
Whatever you do, don't confuse the two. Despite what anti-Christ George W. Bush says, they are not one and the same. In fact, they are unalterably opposed to one another in a fight to the death. And guess what? George W. Bush and his minions who lust after EMPIRE don't have a prayer. Their IDOL shall be SMASHED to SMITHEREENS by the ROCK that will come. It's not a question of if, only when.
I can't wait.
12 Comments:
Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 make clear that God's Eternal Kingdom was to be established DURING the 4th kingdom, and Jesus the Messiah arrived AND declared the kingdom of God was "NEAR" during the Roman Empire.
Even pessimillenialist despairsationalists* acknowledge the 4th kingdom was Rome, yet they must speculate on a "Revived" Roman Empire which may, sadly, end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
*pessimism and despair are the inherent emotion felt by those who listen and trust the Postponement Pundits, who keep repeating that it's A Good Thing that the world is sliding deeper into sin since Jesus will come after The Great Tribulation finally wipes it clean*
Do not repeat the Pharisees' mistake of looking for a physical kingdom! (cf. John 6:15 and Luke 17:20-21 and John 18:36-37 and John 14:19-22)
In clear language, Jesus declared during His earthly ministry in Matthew 16:28 "...There be SOME STANDING HERE, which shall NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till THEY SEE the Son of man COMING in his KINGDOM"
And Paul said in clear language, shortly before his death (and WELL AFTER the "transfiguration" and the crucifixion and Pentecost) in 2Timothy 4:1 "the Lord Jesus Christ, who SHALL judge the quick and the dead AT His appearing and HIS KINGDOM"
Jesus said He would return in His kingdom within the lifetime of His original first-century audience, and Paul was *still waiting* for this event when he was writing his final inspired words - an event which he linked inseparably with the Judgement of the "quick and the dead"!
Listen to the audio broadcasts at RaptureReadyInsurance.com or email me "HealthAlert[at]Hotmail.com"
(NOTE: I am a former pre-trib-rapture believer until I started reading the Scriptures in context, with the perspective of the ORIGINAL audience. Oh, and P.S. re. politics I do know about Problem-Reaction-Solution, PNAC, Bush and Kerry being Bonesmen, NORAD being told by Cheney to stand down on 9-11 amidst the confusing 'coincidental' drills, etc...)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
[[[Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 make clear that God's Eternal Kingdom was to be established DURING the 4th kingdom]]]
Daniel made it clear that when the ROCK comes and God's Kingdom is established, the 4th Kingdom is smashed to smithereens without even a trace of it remaining. That hasn't happened yet.
[[[Since the and Jesus the Messiah arrived AND declared the kingdom of God was "NEAR" during the Roman Empire.]]]
Indeed it was near, but the Jewish leadership rejected it.
[[[Even pessimillenialist despairsationalists* acknowledge the 4th kingdom was Rome, yet they must speculate on a "Revived" Roman Empire which may, sadly, end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.]]]
Cute, but confused. There is no need for a "revived Roman empire" since Daniel's prophecy predicts that IRON would become IRON mixed with BAKED CLAY in the end. In other words, the Roman Empire changes from an IRON unity into a difficult to unify mixture of diverse peoples. This is exactly the quality of Roman civilization today. The 4th Kingdom has yet to end. It has only changed its form. Its end is yet future.
[[[*pessimism and despair are the inherent emotion felt by those who listen and trust the Postponement Pundits, who keep repeating that it's A Good Thing that the world is sliding deeper into sin since Jesus will come after The Great Tribulation finally wipes it clean*]]]
I am certainly not one of those. If evil is to come, it must be in spite of us, not because of us. That evil is prophesied to precede Christ's return is no license for anyone to do evil so as to hasten his coming. To do evil is to become the evil Christ will condemn and judge when he returns. All so-called Christians who applaud the intensification of evil in our time thinking themselves immune from judgment for themselves being complicit in it are simply deluding themselves and are at risk to receive the severe rebuke (and rejection) Christ himself said he will give many who call him "Lord" (but, in fact, never knew him) when he returns.
[[[Do not repeat the Pharisees' mistake of looking for a physical kingdom! (cf. John 6:15 and Luke 17:20-21 and John 18:36-37 and John 14:19-22)]]]
That was not the Pharisees' mistake. Their mistake was not recognizing Messiah when he came and rejecting his Kingdom offer. Had they done both, the physical Kingdom of Christ would have been established in their generation.
[[[In clear language, Jesus declared during His earthly ministry in Matthew 16:28 "...There be SOME STANDING HERE, which shall NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till THEY SEE the Son of man COMING in his KINGDOM"]]]
And so they did. They witnessed his transfiguration and his triumph over sin and death by resurrection. They saw his Kingdom COMING, but COMING is not ARRIVING. COMING must necessarily precede ARRIVING but they are not one and the same. COMING is something less than ARRIVING. They saw his kingdom coming before they tasted death as he promised they would, but it has not arrived yet. Rome still rules over men. The fourth empire is not yet shattered. That day, the day of Rome's shattering, the day Christ's Kingdom arrives with him in the flesh and fills up the whole earth -- that day is yet future.
[[[And Paul said in clear language, shortly before his death (and WELL AFTER the "transfiguration" and the crucifixion and Pentecost) in 2Timothy 4:1 "the Lord Jesus Christ, who SHALL judge the quick and the dead AT His appearing and HIS KINGDOM"]]]
Yes, and this is yet future.
[[[Jesus said He would return in His kingdom within the lifetime of His original first-century audience,]]]
No he didn't.
[[[and Paul was *still waiting* for this event when he was writing his final inspired words - an event which he linked inseparably with the Judgement of the "quick and the dead"!]]]
And we, like Paul, are still waiting.
[[[Listen to the audio broadcasts at RaptureReadyInsurance.com or email me "HealthAlert[at]Hotmail.com"]]]
I'll check your site out.
[[[(NOTE: I am a former pre-trib-rapture believer until I started reading the Scriptures in context, with the perspective of the ORIGINAL audience.]]]
I'm not a pre-trib rapture believer. I don't think last days Christians will be spared the evils of this world any more than first days Christians were. We were promised suffering and persecutions from this world for our faith. True Christians accept and expect that. Those evil doers who call themselves Christians and think they'll escape its consequences via a rapture are in for a rude shock, I think.
[[[Oh, and P.S. re. politics I do know about Problem-Reaction-Solution, PNAC, Bush and Kerry being Bonesmen, NORAD being told by Cheney to stand down on 9-11 amidst the confusing 'coincidental' drills, etc...)]]]
Good. Then I trust you do not believe this world - a world where Rome yet reigns in disunity through many diverse and difficult to unify peoples, exactly as Daniel foretold last days Rome would be ordered -- is the Kingdom of Christ already established. It is not. Which means the coming of the ROCK that will become the MOUNTAIN is yet future.
NOTE: I just noticed that you have removed your "2:18 AM" post, and added a (...12:39 PM? nope, 12:50 PM? nope...) "1:01 PM" post in its place (hopefully you won't repost it again after I hit submit) <--I'm a perfectionist too ;^)
My words below are based on the original post, so hopefully nothing of significance changed (other than the formatting, it looks like).
- - -
Up front, I just want to say that 9 months ago I would have likely agreed with you 100% on just about everything you have said here, even though (and because of) at that time I hadn't done much of my "own" study of the Bible itself. This week I even borrowed from a friend a weighty 800-page tome by the well-known dispensationalist John Walvoord - entirely about Prophecy - in order to see how certain key prophecies are dealt with by one of the leading futurists of our day. So I do not casually state my current view, nor did I come to it happily or overnight - I had to be willing to reexamine numerous topics based on genuine "Sola Scriptura", and that meant being open to being "wrong" about my understanding of God's truth.
And a P.S. YIKES this has become very lengthy! I do apologize, however I tried to respond to your responses, point-by-point, ideally with Scripture as the basis for my perspective.
>>Arator said... Daniel made it clear that when the ROCK comes and God's Kingdom is established, the 4th Kingdom is smashed to smithereens without even a trace of it remaining. That hasn't happened yet.
+You summarize by saying "without even a trace of [the 4th kingdom] remaining". By this, I presume you are referring to Daniel 2:44 ("God['s] ... a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed ... shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms") and 2:34 ("no place was found for [the human kingdoms]: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth") and possibly 7:27 ("and all dominions shall serve and obey [the most High]").
This "consuming" and "filling" could also be referring to the impact of the eternal kingdom of God - the knowledge and the power and the influence of the kingdom that never ends. These words do not necessarily speak of a visible, physical wiping out of all human kingdoms in general. In fact, It goes against the testimony of many other Old Testament prophecies to absolutely require that the imagery of Daniel's vision must be fulfilled in a natural, physical, visible way. Do a word study on "hail" or "cloud" in the OT, and you will find a number of prophecies which were fulfilled by historical events but where hail did not physically fall and clouds were not visibly seen.
Lest you accuse me of unjustifiably "spiritualizing" Scripture, consider that the NT states as fulfilled many natural/physical/visible-sounding OT prophecies, but in a spiritual way. One excellent example of this "spiritual" fulfillment is in Acts 15:13-17, when James quotes Amos 9:11. Yet even today some say that is still unfulfilled*, seemingly because of a natural/physical/visible interpretation of "raise up the tabernacle ... I will raise up his ruins".
*For example, when John F. Walvoord (in "The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook", page 295) discusses Amos 9:11-15, he makes no mention of Acts 15. He seems to say this is a yet-future prophecy, justifying this by the fact that David hasn't yet been resurrected from the dead, nor has a temple/tabernacle been rebuilt: "The last 5 verses of Amos described the ultimate restoration of Israel which will follow the times of God's judgement. ... The prophecies of Israel's complete restoration have never been fulfilled ... Amos declared, however, "[verse 11 fully quoted]." This reference was made to the restoration of the Davidic kingdom with David resurrected from the dead, to reign as king under Christ in the future kingdom following the second coming."
HOWEVER, I prefer to accept the inspired words of James as recorded in Acts 15. He stated unquestionably that "God ... did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name ... And to this agree the words of the prophets ... After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles..." I do not see what prophet other than Amos that James could have been quoting - and James was saying that this prophecy was being fulfilled - "spiritually" - through the conversion of the Gentiles.
>>Arator said... Indeed [the kingdom of God] was near, but the Jewish leadership rejected it.
+Wow. With this you have essentially opened up a very large can of worms. But I will try to be brief in my response to this.
Ask yourself, and let me know, are you saying that Jesus (and His disciples, including John the Baptist) believed that the kingdom of God was about to arrive, but that the Jewish rejection resulting in His crucifixion was an "unexpected turn of events"? If so, then Daniel 9:27 and Isaiah 53 are puzzling to say the least!
And let's examine, who exactly did the rejecting? Consider John 6:15 (as I referred to originally) which shows that the Jews ACCEPTED Jesus, but that He rejected THEIR offer to make Him a king. Why? The other verses I mentioned show the likely reason - that His kingdom was "not of this world" and "does not come with observation". This brings to mind a similar situation in the OT, when God's people were seeking a "natural" kingdom. Look at how God responded to the children of Israel when they asked for a worldly, visible king, in 1Samuel 8:5-9: "... now make us a king to judge us like all the nations ... And the LORD said unto Samuel, ... they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them." The next few chapters record the people as acknowledging this desire as sinful, and repenting of it. (Of course, as usual God took man's mistake and used it for His glory.)
Was Jesus surprised by this alleged "rejection"? Read Psalm 2, especially verse 4. Nothing surprises the omniscient God, including the rejection of His Son by the non-elect members of political, natural Israel. Also nothing could have taken place that would contradict what was already prophesied, without God clearly revealing that "change of plans" beforehand, as stated in Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"
Again, is it really possible for sinful, temporal human beings to thwart God's plans? Consider also Habakkuk 2:3 "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry", and compare this to Galatians 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..." and Isaiah 55:11 "So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
Based on the Scriptures, did Jesus come at the "appointed" time? Did he "accomplish" the goals for which He was sent? (cf. the 3 "goals" of the Son's incarnation - John 18:37, Luke 19:10, and 1John 3:8)
To state, in essence, that "Indeed [the prophesied eternal kingdom of God] was near, but the Jewish leadership rejected it [therefore it was no longer near, in spite of what Jesus and His holy inspired apostles said numerous times about its timing]" is essentially stamping a great big "oops" over top of God's grand plan of redemption. IMHO.
The nearness of the eternal kingdom of God was something that did not change from the beginning to the end of the Gospels - not by the crucifixion or by any other rejection-proving event. Most noteable is the reality that the kingdom was something that was non-delayed, non-cancelled, non-rejected - right up to the last chapter of Acts (verses 23-31: "...there came many to [Paul] to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets ... And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him").
Again, I prefer to accept the inspired words of the NT writers and speakers. Can you find anywhere in the NT that shows Jewish unbelief caused an unprophesied delay or postponement of God's eternal kingdom?
>>Arator said... There is no need for a "revived Roman empire" since Daniel's prophecy predicts that IRON would become IRON mixed with BAKED CLAY in the end. In other words, the Roman Empire changes from an IRON unity into a difficult to unify mixture of diverse peoples. This is exactly the quality of Roman civilization today. The 4th Kingdom has yet to end. It has only changed its form. It's end is yet future.
+Okay, let's allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. What is symbolized by "clay" (especially "potter's" clay!) in numerous other OT prophecies? The argument that "clay" refers to "diverse peoples" or other such speculations is a possibility I suppose, although considering the timing of Jesus' first advent, where the Herodian kings were dependent on, and eventually weakened, the Roman empire, the clay-as-Israel interpretation seems plausible, if not more so.
In addition, you say "iron mixed with baked clay IN THE END". Keep in mind that this timing is not necessarily the conclusion of the "iron empire" itself, but rather this "mixing" could be seen as occurring when the eternal kingdom of God arrives.
>>Arator said... I am certainly not one of those [who are full of pessimism and despair]. If evil is to come, it must be in spite of us, not because of us. That evil is prophecied (sic) to precede Christ's return is no license for anyone to do evil so as to hasten his coming. To do evil is to become the evil Christ will condemn and judge when he returns. All so-called Christians who applaude (sic) the intinsification (sic) of evil in our time thinking themselves immune from judgement for themselves being complicit in it are simply deluding themselves and are at risk to receive the severe rebuke (and rejection) Christ himself said he will give many who call him "Lord" (but, in fact, never knew him) when he returns.
+It is excellent to know that you feel this way. However, may I ask you to consider this: do you believe that millions of Jews must be brought into the secular state of Israel in order for Jesus' predicted return to be possible? Then do you also believe that 2 out of 3 of those Jews will be slaughtered? In fact, in general do you agree with the principle "why polish the brass on a sinking ship" or "why fight when I am on the next flight" - are you waiting for the soon "toot-and-scoot"? Some famous freedom fighter (I believe it may have even been an American "Founding Father") once said something like "all evil needs to succeed is to have great men do nothing/say nothing".
I'm not suggesting any of us must have a long list of "good deeds" in order to be saved, or anything like that. What I am saying is that, if Jesus is really "about to" return, and soon after that He will be wiping clean the physical Planet Earth with physical fire, than it just makes sense that many who believe this see evangelism as the only "salt and light" that will really matter. Therefore as a result they have *willfully* stepped out of the public arena, and voila - welcome to the last 50-100 years of western civilization. :(
>>Arator said... [Looking for a physical kingdom] was not the Pharasees' (sic) mistake. Their mistake was not recognizing Messiah when he came and rejecting his Kingdom offer. Had they done both, the physical Kingdom of Christ would have been established in their generation.
+Considering that most of the first Christian believers were Jewish converts who DID recognize Jesus as Messiah, I would like to know if "they" refers to "the Jewish leadership" as you mentioned earlier. If so, then again I must ask how the unbelief of the "leaders" of a people can make it so the *belief* of some of those people is of none effect. (Didn't Paul say something about this, for example in Romans 3:3 and 11:32?)
I may sound facetious by asking this, but was there a certain percentage of the Jews who needed to believe in order for the kingdom of Christ to be possible? Or a certain percentage of the leaders, since Nicodemus even seemed to be a convert (John 7:50 and 19:39), or at least on his way to becoming one depending on your interpretation.
It comes back to this concept that sinful, temporal human beings could ever cause the holy, omniscient, immortal God to change His mind about the timing of the kingdom, and further, that this change of plans was not even revealed by any of His prophets. I have great trouble with any interpretation that is based on that kind of reasoning, and it seems to be contrary to the multitude of Scriptures that demonstrate God's omnipotent sovereignty over His creation!
- - -
Now, re. "rejecting his Kingdom offer" - please have a look at John 6:15 "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take Him by force, to make Him a king, He departed again into a mountain Himself alone" and compare it to John 18:37 "Jesus answered [to Pilate] Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world". This sounds to me like the Jews recognized Him as the "King Of The Jews", but HE rejected THEM. And yet He told Pilate that He indeedcame into the world in order to be a king! So how is this possible? The timing was correct, but the nature was incorrect. Materialism, naturalism, blindness to a "spiritual" perspective of reality - the leaven of the Pharisees.
I am curious, if Jesus in fact must/will return in the future, at which time He will again offer a physical kingdom to the Jews, then what happens if at that time they again do not "recognize" Him as Messiah? And what happens if they again reject "his Kingdom offer"? Since their original failure/rejection was apparently not foreseen by God (again remember Galatians 4:4, along with the repeated mentions of the Kingdom as being "near" in the early chapters of the Gospels) then for what reason can we expect that things will go different the "next" time? If "Plan B" fails, will God go to His heavenly vault to pull out "Plan C"?
>>Arator said... (re. In clear language, Jesus declared during His earthly ministry in Matthew 16:28 "...There be SOME STANDING HERE, which shall NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till THEY SEE the Son of man COMING in his KINGDOM") And so they did. They witnessed his transfiguration and his triumph over sin and death by his resurrection. They saw his Kingdom COMING, but COMING is not ARRIVING. COMING must necessarily precede ARRIVING but they are not one and the same. COMING is something less than ARRIVING. They saw his kingdom coming before they tasted death as he promised they would, but it has not arrived yet. Rome still rules over men. The fourth empire is not yet shattered. That day, the day of Rome's shattering, the day Christ Kingdom arrives with him in the flesh and fills up the whole earth -- that day is yet future.
+I looked at your explanation, and read and re-read it. But still, to me, I see your attempt to contrast "coming" vs. "arriving" as semantic hair-splitting, which I will certainly not delve into further. But see below, my thoughts on Paul's words in 2Timothy 4:1.
--> :P NOTE: I have been writing this while fighting a pretty nasty flu. I am now starting to feel a bit drained, but since I am close to the end I will still try my best to finish up - bear with me. :P
>>Arator said... No he didn't. (re. Jesus said He would return in His kingdom within the lifetime of His original first-century audience)
+I will stand by my analysis, based especially (but not exclusively) on Jesus' words in Matthew 16:28. Speaking to prophecy-familiar non-theologians, our Lord said "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom". However if you are focusing on the word "see" then I suppose I can "see" (ha, ha) why you don't think that original first-century audience would have understood Jesus' words to mean that He would be actually "coming" in His kingdom before some of them died. Of course, countless atheists, Muslims, and Jews have rejected Jesus as the Son of God because they took the simple common-sense meaning of those words - since apparently "God didn't keep His word". Something to think about.
Again I ask you to consider, much of Jesus' original audience were average fishermen or other labourers - they were not linguists or "Law"yers. So what would they have understood those words to have meant?
>>Arator said... Yes, and this is yet future. (re. Paul said WELL AFTER the "transfiguration" and the crucifixion and Pentecost in 2Timothy 4:1 "the Lord Jesus Christ, who SHALL judge the quick and the dead AT His appearing and HIS KINGDOM")
+I agree that at the time of Paul's writing, this had not occurred yet. But considering the simple common-sense meaning of Jesus' promised time of His "coming in His kingdom", and considering the repeated "soon" theme throughout the New Testament (e.g. Romans 16:20; 1Peter 4:7,17; Hebrews 10:37; James 5:8-9; 1John 2:18; Revelation 1:1,3; Revelation 22:6,7,10,12,20) I think it's reasonable to interpret that Paul believed this would be an event soon to occur, from his own perspective. Again he makes no mention of the kingdom being "delayed" or "put on hold" or "rejected" or "to be re-offered later". Also recall that the NT writers saw their own contemporary time as being the Bible's prophesied "last days" or "time of the end" when the Mosaic covenant would be ending, replaced by a new covenant (e.g. Acts 2:16-17; 1Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:1-2; Hebrews 8:13; Hebrews 10:15-17 - cf. Genesis 49:1; Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Daniel 12:4-8; Micah 4:1)
In fact, look at 2Thessalonians 1:7-10 - Paul says to his readers, "rest with us" - when Jesus returns "in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God". Paul did not say "endure the persecution but focus on the blessed hope that when you die you will go home to be with the Lord". Paul seemed to give the impression that relief from the persecution would take place before the death of his readers, not BY the death of his readers.
Are "coming", "appearing", and "arriving" 3 different times? As a modern example, if Paul were alive today, and his friends were throwing him a surprise party, and they heard him starting to jingle his keys as he unlocked the front door, can't they legitimately say "Paul has come" AND "Paul has appeared" AND "Paul has arrived"?
And finally, a minor point: nowhere in Paul's writings do we have him refer to the transfiguration as any kind of a fulfillment of Matthew 16:28, when Jesus would be "coming in His kingdom".
>>Arator said... I'll check your site out. (re. Listen to the audio broadcasts at RaptureReadyInsurance.com or email me "HealthAlert[at]Hotmail.com")
+That contact email is my own, however the web address ( http://www.RaptureReadyInsurance.com/ ) is not - it is the web presence for a radio program "Voice Of Reason" (VoR), that has been airing for the last 3 or 4 years.
On that note, when I first found their site and listened to an interview or two, I thought their ideas were crazy, perhaps even damnable heresies. I would hit pause after they said something that went against what I felt was the truth, and then I would look up the Scriptures they had mentioned - considering the surrounding context, author, audience, etc. - and guess what? Pretty soon I realized that I had been guilty of "reading into" the Scriptures my own preconceived ideas!
The #1 thing that I had been doing wrong was ignoring the fact that the New Testament was written/spoken to real, living, breathing ordinary non-scholarly human beings, most of which were very familiar with the Old Testament. The "nearness" timing statements peppered throughout the NT (see the partial list above re. repeated "soon" theme) can not be ignored or explained away as being meaningless, because - although He is "outside of time" - God always communicates to His creatures in a language that they can easily understand, especially when He predicts the timing of an event.
Anyway, I would DEFINITELY recommend that you do listen to the "VoR" archives, and I would more specifically suggest that you listen to 2 or 3 programs on a single topic, and during/after invest as much time as necessary to "search the Scriptures" yourself. Skeptically, as I did. Pray about it, take notes, look up related passages on the same topic if you think they are ignoring or quoting out of context or misinterpreting. Above all, seek God's truth alone, based on His word alone, and accept nothing less.
If you wish to continue discussing this topic, or any of the other topics covered on the radio programs, free to EMAIL ME ( HealthAlert[at]Hotmail.com ) - as I am sure this blog is not the best choice for lengthy discussions =^) Again, I apologize for my verbosity :P
Well, that's all for now. Time to catch some "Z"s...
OOPS, darn those off-by-1 typos... "If so, then *Daniel 9:26* and Isaiah 53 are puzzling to say the least!"
Hey "Arator", you said:
[[[I don't think last days Christians will be spared the evils of this world any more than first days Christians were.]]]
I have a question for you. I have never heard of the label "first days Christians", which seems to imply that we ourselves are a different group, the "last days Christians". Or perhaps you mean a future generation will be that.
Yet the human author of Hebrews was moved by the Holy Spirit, to write these words: "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in *these last days* spoken to *us* by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds..." (Hebrews 1:1-2)
So it seems like the Christians in the first century, when Jesus was walking around and teaching and healing and stuff, they saw themselves as the "last days Christians". So how can that be some future group of Christians? Or were they just the "first of the last days Christians"? Have the "last days" of Hebrews 1 gone on for 2000 years? Does the Bible ever talk about the "last days" stretching to 20-50 generations? Did the Bible even say there was a group who could be called the "first days Christians"? What does the Bible say will bring an end to the "last days"?
Greetings Christian brother!
Today is Wednesday 01Dec2004...
My original comment to you (re. the 4th kingdom etc.) was posted on 21Oct2004, and you responded that same day. Then I posted my reply to that the following morning.
On 09Nov2004 - more than 2 weeks later! - there was still no follow-up so I sent you an email asking about the reason for the delay. In that email I acknowledged the possibility that you were "searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so" (a-la Acts 17:11) since I had certainly presented a lot for you to think about.
Here it is now, almost 6 weeks since I posted my comment on 22Oct2004, and no posting or even email response from you.
So my question is simply this:I have a futurist (dispensationalist) friend with whom I would love to share this conversation (impromptu debate?) but I want to be fair by including your reply to my most recent arguments, and especially any objections you may have about the numerous Scriptures I have included to support my statements.
I noticed your website has not been updated lately, so it doesn't surprise me that also you have not posted a response to my most recent list of questions, arguments, and Scripture references.
**HOWEVER, could you please VERY BRIEFLY post a comment explaining the delay in responding to me? Is it...
(A) You have been TOO BUSY (life, work, health, etc.) to deal with this issue, but you PLAN on looking into it in detail (and especially examining those Scriptures I mentioned!) in the near FUTURE.
(B) You have indeed STARTED looking at these Scriptures, but it is a very time-consuming process that you have NOT YET COMPLETED.
(C) You are NOT INTERESTED IN RESPONDING ANYMORE, perhaps because you DISAGREE so strongly that you feel it is POINTLESS to continue. <--If this is the case, then could you PLEASE at least post a response stating this is your reason? -preferably listing those Scriptures that (in your opinion) I have Misquoted or Misapplied or Misunderstood.
NOTE: If you do not respond to this with a simple "A B or C" answer, I think it would be reasonable to presume your answer is "C - NOT INTERESTED IN RESPONDING ANYMORE". I pray this is not the case.Thanks,
In Christ, Darren. (HealthAlert[AT]hotmail.com)
It's A. Don't give up on me yet. ;^)
Is it still "A"? It's been, like, a couple of months... Any progress in your research of this stopic?
It's me again -- November 10th, 2005, and still no update on here nor via my email address... Perhaps you're like others I know and have gotten bored of blogging and/or studying certain issues. Just curious, is it still "A"? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home