The Weekend Word
Revelation 11:1-4
The Two Witnesses = the Church in Vocation / Ministry
Matthew 16:24-26 could be the theme of Rev 11:1-14 as we will see the church move into action to fulfill Rev 10:9-11 (eating the scroll).
Romans 12 is the vocation of the church – to be living sacrifices.
1 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,
- So in 10:9-11 we saw the commission of John to preach. Now we will see his commission to measure
- What is the church to expect when it is operating in an unrepentant world? Remember 9:20-21 as a description of John’s time. What to expect as the world endures God’s trumpets of judgment. Will the church go under? Shall we despair?
- John will declare here that there will remain and will remain forever a holy church on earth – there will be a temple. Look at the language John uses – he does not say there will be a fortress, a castle, a bunker – no he says the temple and the altar.
- The idea is this is where God dwells, exists in the midst of his people. This is what Ezekiel 48 describes – the Lord is there. Ezekiel 40-48 is the vision of the new city and the new temple of God.
- Ezekiel was told to measure and now we see John doing the same. This is the measuring of the church – not a physical building or grounds – but the temple where God is – in his people (if we were studying Ezekiel I would make the same case for his measuring of the temple. God is consistent as he tells the same story.
- “and those who worship there.” What God measures he claims as his own and he takes under his protection. These are those who are sealed on the earth between the 2 advents. We today like those before us and those generations to come, are those people, measured, sealed and living under God’s protection.
2 but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.
- This is very important – if God measures what is his, what does it mean when he does not measure something? Look what he says – “leave it out”.
- God marks the boundaries of what is his – this far and no farther.
- Everyone within the boundary line will be untouchable and protected – the same as we saw in chapter 7. These boundary lines are like separating the sheep and the goats – the 144,000 are the sheep and the unbelievers are the goats. Those not sealed are described as being in the outer court.
- The “outer courts” are reserved for the pagan nations – they do not have access to the sanctuary. There is no middle ground – either one is inside the Temple worshipping the True God or one is outside. Either one believes or one does not believe. Period!
- The unbelievers worship other Gods and as we will see latter in the book, they worship not the Lamb, but the Beast. The unbeliever has the Beast’s mark and they along with the Beast are headed for destruction – now think of your nice gray haired unbelieving grandmother – Rev 14 & 19.
- The unbelievers are called the nations and they show their disdain and rebellion by trampling the holy city, the church for 42 months, also called 1,260 days and 3 ½ years (these all refer to the same time period expressed different ways.)
- The holy city is the church and the trampling is for a limited but definite time period – definite as described by time but limited as Jesus has said the time would be cut short – so the church during our age will be experiencing oppression, persecution at the hands of these people – the nations, the languages, the kings who deny the lordship of the Lamb who was slain. This is precisely the language of Daniel 7:25 & 12:7 – a limited time of power, the license to persecute the church or the people of God.
- This the the church age, the time between the two advents – this is the time of preaching, the time of prophesying. The time of repentance. This is still the time that the Lord continues to desire that all be saved.
3 And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”
- Jesus gives his authority. What authority does Jesus have to give? All authority. This sounds much like Matt 28 – also John 20 “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
- Jesus’ authority given to the church is a baptizing & teaching authority.
- Sackcloth – this is a repentant church.
4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.
- This is the description of the anointed, witnessing, worshipping community of God on the earth – the church, whom God has made a kingdom and a priest – see Rev 1 & Rev 5 – whom the Lamb stands as Lord and guardian.
- We see similar language in Rev 2 with the 7 churches and the 7 lampstands with Christ in the midst – in the midst of his church.
- Note that as we say the same element of time expressed 3 ways – 42 months, 1260 days – 3 ½ years – so we see the church described as the 2 witnesses, the 2 olive trees and the 2 lampstands. The descriptions come from Zechariah 4:2-3
Then again these two witnesses may be 2 beings sent by God to scare the bejabbers out of man … Their demise will call for a huge celebration followed by a glimpse of doomsday power.
Is MLD’s interpretation accurate? Could be… dunno… do i? ?
Em, they could also be 2 bowls of mashed potatoes – but there is no indication in the text that they are 🙂
Remember, my lens for this study is that this is the revelation of Jesus Christ – and it is to his church, about his church and for his church – and no other purpose.
Zechariah 4 gives a clue that it is not speaking of 2 individuals. Here and there it speaks of these 2 witnesses being the 2 olive trees and the 2 lampstands – right there we have at least 4 entities that make up the 2 witnesses.
Morris’s chapter on this passage is fantastic. He digs in deep on some of the options about the two witnesses. He teeters twoards a solution similar to MLD’s, but with a little more nuance.
“Thus we should take the witnesses as symbolizing the witnessing church (or part of it). As John has spoken of seven churches only two of which (Smyrna and Philadelphia) are not blameworthy, it is tempting to think of the two witnesses as standing for that part of the church which is faithful. Perhaps he has the martyrs in mind. It is possible that part of the significance of the number ‘two’ is that in the law the testimony of two witnesses is required (Deut. 17:6). God has provided all the witness that is needed.”
Waloord’s commentary only says this should be taken as two indivuals. (I’m sure he wrote more specualtion about it elsewhere, but I don’t have it handy”.
Carson sees this as the witnessing church.
I tend (of course) toward a more literal, two individual, interpretation, but do appreciate the different perspectives.
I would think that the defacto position of dispensationalism must be against this being representative of God’s church on earth as the church has been long gone from the scene by the time we reach this chapter.
To anyone, out of curiosity, what are the diverse views of who or what is God’s witness today on the earth? My answer is that it is the church.
I would have thought that the opening verse about the temple was a dead giveaway that John was discussing the church.
“what are the diverse views of who or what is God’s witness today on the earth? My answer is that it is the church.”
Yes, the church. I don’t know of any diverse opinions on that one.
I do not equate temple with church.
Josh – “I do not equate temple with church.”
Non dispensationalists like the Apostle Paul do. 2 Cor 6 — 🙂
“For we are the temple of the living God”
“Yes, the church. I don’t know of any diverse opinions on that one.”
So when the church is removed from the earth, I would assume that his witness is removed (we both agreed that the church is God’s witness on the earth).
So who are these 2 guys again if not the church? (or did God choose a new witness?)
I wish I still had my Walvoord / Zuck bible commentary.
I would equate the temple with individual beleivers, like Paul.
Paul said ‘we’ not “I Paul am the temple of God.”
We could do a full study on what he meant there, but I take it as you, MLD, are the temple and I am also the temple.
So in what context was Paul speaking as the church was active and present in the day he wrote those words?
Are you saying the church today is made up of individual temples? Note the language used – temple singular – as in we all make up this temple – just like we all make up the church.
In 11:1 is John being asked to count individual temples left on the earth after the now removed church (populated by individual temples) has gone?
You went and got wierd on me.
How can you say I got weird? All I did was show that Paul and John both use Temple as a synonym for the church.
You’re the one who went off and spoke of temples and some form of individual entities.
My point is at here in Revelation 11 at the very beginning is that John is making it clear that the Temple Church is still here on Earth at the time so when God goes on and speaks of his two witnesses he’s talking about the church. Then I guess we could go on and try to describe what is that two prong witness of the church.
” John is making it clear that the Temple Church is still here on Earth ”
I disagree, but we know that. The questioning just got a little loaded, and convoluted. 🙂
I just thought your take on the witnesses was interesting and worthy of investigation.
The NT speaks of the temple three ways.
Jesus is the temple.
The church is the temple.
We individually are the temple.
If the church is absent, there is no witness of God.
“If the church is absent, there is no witness of God.”
UNless, of course, He seals 144,000 for that particular purpose.
But these are different interpretations. We know that.
the sealing of the 144K – so you would now have a non church, non christian entity known as the 144K being the new witness of God on earth?
The funny thing is, this is actually the dispensational ‘interpretation’ – the church is gone and God is dealing with the non church again as he did in the previous 5 dispensations before the Age of the Church. (the parenthesis). – at least the classical dispensation position – I don’t know how far the progressives have back pedaled from this.
But assuming you are correct and the church has been removed, who are these 2 individuals? NOT their names but what are they representing?
***If we are looking for suggestions as to the identities, I have always thought we could be talking John Fogerty and Kanye West — but it would take a while to chart out my thinking. 🙂
“non christian”
Incorrect.
“who are these 2 individuals? ”
Not sure. Like, I said, I found your interpretation interesting. I don’t think these are “representations” but two actual individuals.
MLD, i understand that the teaching presented here is your choice of interpretations after much time and research… however, 2 beings sent by God can be gained from the texts… but, mashed potatoes? it must have been supper time when you wrote that 🙂
#19 – yes and amen to that
however, while it is true that today there’d be no witness without the Church in whom the Holy Spirit dwells… a logical progression to a witness manifest as it was in the O.T. after the Church is removed is sound, i think…
it seems to me that even if one can’t accept dispensations with God interacting with man in different ways, one can still see the Church as a separate and very unique work/creation of God in His interaction with mankind… but then i am one who accepts that the Bride of Christ IS the Church, but not every single soul that is redeemed from the beginning of time…
#21 – when one accepts the view that the Church is removed from the planet before the bowls (vials) of God’s wrath are poured out upon this earth, one also sees God as not leaving this earth without a witness to Himself and His offer of redemption…
however, if you want to stay thru that period (kept from God’s wrath, but still here) and be part of the entity that preaches God’s truth?… okay,
i think that it would take quite an infusing of the Holy Spirit as, frankly the Church as it is today isn’t up to the task, not even the Lutes… but i’m sure hoping that i’m right and you’re wrong…
Em, you are a tough on.
I look ahead to chapter 16 and what do I see – and I would hope you would see the same?
Verse 12 we see the angel pour out the 6th bowl. This is about as far as you can go into God’s wrath and the church is still there – see v 15. Who else has the garments if not the church?
So the text goes on and we still see no removal of the church. If you have an alternate view then it would need to include non church people with THE garments.
More to the garments – 16:15 is an encouragement to the church to be on guard and protect their garments of righteousness – see Rev 7:9; 13-14 – I have several other references from Job, Isaiah and Zechariah but to include them will get me held up in moderation.
These are the garments worn by all believers who have been baptized into Christ – since we all know that through holy baptism one is clothed with Christ.
The point being Rev 16:15 is addressing the church at least through the bowl judgments.
Ahhh – I still got hung up.
once again, MLD… our readings will vary according to our doctrines of choice and influence how we interpret this book…
those garments may be the garments of the guests at the wedding, not the Bride of Christ, which is IMV the Church… however, by your definition all the Redeemed are the Church and so our reading will vary…
what is an “on” …?… BTW 🙂 i am an on? okay by me
Em, excuse my typing error. I was saying you are a tough one.
You are correct to an extent about our presuppositions guiding us – however I always back mine up with scripture references both in my articles and comments. You on the other hand make assertions that cannot be follows up on.
But let me agree with you on this – you do explain your position well (which is the classic dispensation position) that there are more than one people of God. In your example here the church (represented by the bride of Christ) and ‘other’s – those redeemed who are not the church (represented by the wedding guests).
Em, I made a point last week on a similar note that the church is called by several names by Jesus himself.
He calls them the sheep, he calls them virgins, he calls them his bride.
Your point is a bit unique and I will do a little more reseach into Jesus calling folks into the wedding feast as guests to be witness to the actual wedding between Jesus and his bride.
CI Scofield was the one who developed the dispensationalist position that the church was God’s plan B, to become God’s people in heaven and that Israel would be God’s people on earth. (His 1909 Scofeild Bible). This was taught also by Chafer when he began DTS. They began to back away from the plan B terminology after both Walwood and Ryrie had public debates with a guy A.T. Ollis (I am guessing at the name from a long ago memory). The debates were not about plan B or too many people of God but the distinctions between Reformed theology and dispensationalism – but he did some work on their plan B terminology – yes, the plan B terminology did originate with the dispensationalist at the turn of the 20th century.
“those redeemed who are not the church”
Again, and as Em pointed out in her last comment, this is all semantics. If you are using “church” to mean “all believers from all times”, then we all agree. There is one people of God.
If we use different definitions, of course we have different conclusions.
“plan B terminology”
Let’s say you are correct, that the term originated with Chafer or Scofield. Why does it matter. It is incorrect and we don’t believe it now.
Are people not allowed to depart from errant beliefs?
Josh, you can try to cover all you want – you have one group called the bride of Christ and you have another group called the wedding guests.
I realize these are parables, but you have one group that will be married to Christ (the church) and you have another group not married to Christ but only invited guests and witnesses (those who are NOT the church)
Even in my simple mind those are 2 people.
You need to remember last week that I specifically reduced my use of the term church to that identified by dispies in The Church Age. (a distinction I don’t make but for conversation I conceded to.
For the record, I see no evidence that Chafer ever taught that the church is “plan B”. That term has been used by his enemies, but not by him. I’ve never actually read much of Scofield.
If MLD can provide links to correct me, I will apologize and disagree with Chafer on this point.
They departed from the phraseology – not the concept – only the progressives have, but they have removed themselves from much of classic dispensationalism which is still by far the main force. Progressives have gone back to covenant theology which is what the dispensations were originally formulated to combat.
“I realize these are parables, but you have one group that will be married to Christ (the church) and you have another group not married to Christ but only invited guests and witnesses (those who are NOT the church)”
Em may have misspoken, or just confused by your rabbit trail questioning, but can you provide a link where a dispensationlist says this?
“They departed from the phraseology”
Point me to a place where someone uses that phrase. I can’t find it.
“only the progressives have, but they have removed themselves from much of classic dispensationalism which is still by far the main force. ”
My favorite theology book is Ryrie’s Basic Theology. Is he progressive?
No, Ryrie is not progressive – but Ryrie and Walvoord changed much from their teachings prior to 1964 because of challenges received from reformed theologians in the latter 1950s.- hence the scrubbing of much of Scofeild and Chafer’s teachings.
I can’t do it for you – check Scofield’s 1909 study bible to the revised 1964 edition. I had both but by mistake tossed the 1909 and kept 2 1964s. Big error on my part at the move.
But I still need you to address the church of the Church Age vs the church not of the Church Age – it still sounds like 2 peoples to me.
Also just as a note, up until his death, Ryrie was vehemently against the progressives.
I don’t have much from Scofield at all. Just searching though, I can’t find him saying anything about “plan B”. I see his opponents saying that about him, but not him.
I read a good bit of Chafer. No plan b there, either.
Still, if there is something that was wrong, I see it as a good thing that it has been discarded.
“Church Age vs the church not of the Church Age – it still sounds like 2 peoples to me.”:
Nope. Just two different uses of the word “church”.
For instance, just saw this tweet from a pastor:
“Praying this am for thousands of churches ”
Is he saying there are 1,000 different peoples of God?
Nope. Just different usage of the word.
Pushing it off as just different uses of a term is very weak and I think you do not understand the dispensations as presented. This is all that matters in dispensationalism and everything else is just subtext.
According to the dispensations God worked in 5 different dispensations that had nothing to do with the church. If Jews had understood the dispensations they would have known those five and they would see the future age of the kingdom, but known nothing of this entity called the Church Age. This is why it is called the parenthesis.
So God spends redemptive history working with a people who are not the church in any form. We then progress to the kingdom age and although the church is present, but I guess no longer called the church, God is back to work with the previous people from the first 5 dispensations hoping they will be called into the group formerly known as the church – but the kingdom, the time of peace and perfect rule ends in failure with rebellion and war – a 2nd fall in a 2nd garden.
Still no term used for a church of a different meaning.
“I think you do not understand the dispensations as presented. This is all that matters in dispensationalism and everything else is just subtext.”
Incorrect. I can copy and past the source material if needed.
“According to the dispensations God worked in 5 different dispensations that had nothing to do with the church. If Jews had understood the dispensations they would have known those five and they would see the future age of the kingdom, but known nothing of this entity called the Church Age. This is why it is called the parenthesis.”
That’s a misunderstanding. “Church” is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but Scofield calls it the “hidden mystery”.
You last paragraph is also a complete misunderstanding. I just flipped thorugh Scofield’s “Rightly dividing the Word of Truth”, and he refutes all your points. You just got it all wrong, MLD. It’s not your first time 🙂
One other thing, my description of the dispensations is brief and not meant to be exhaustive.
“my description of the dispensations is brief and not meant to be exhaustive.”
Nor accurate in any way.
I need to go out soon, but tell me where my last paragraph is incorrect.
Is not the group formerly called the church in the kingdom, not as subjects but as rulers? Is not the purpose of the kingdom to work on and rule over those not yet saved or a part of God’s people? (You even said these people are not judged until the end of the kingdom.
Does the kingdom not end in rebellion of the inhabitants.
Is not the goal of this last dispensation to bring those ” non churches” into union with those formally known as the church?
Is not God’s earthly kingdom at the begining a place of perfect peace and perfect rule? How did that change and end in war?
Satan is loosed at the end.
Most of your #46 I don’t follow.
“When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison”
So Satan undoes the kingdom and recaptures saved people?
I just pulled out Ryrie’s The Final Countdown. I skimmed the contents and the last chapter real quick before I leave. I will reread it but I know he will say exactly what I have been saying – because he is not an ashamed dispensationlist who backpedals.
In the last chapter, he contradicts your version and says that the Jews are judged before entry into the millennial kingdom saying the purpose of this judgment is so the unsaved will be cut off from both the millennial and eternal kingdom. So I know that he supports perfect, peaceful beginning to the kingdom – and he does talk of them entering in with their physical bodies.This is totally foreign to the Bible that folks pass through judgment and still remain in their physical bodies.
OK, in my library I can lay my hands on Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today – his The Final Countdown _ the Ryrie Study Bible and Ryrie’s Basic Theology.—and, my Tim LaHaye Bible prophecy pull out chart.
I doubt that you comprehended what he said. You’ve misrepresented everthing else in this thread, but let’s say you got Ryrie 100% accurate.
He was wrong. That’s easy.
How do you interpet Rev 20:7?
Rev 20:7 – you must remember that the millennium to us is the current rule and reign of Jesus between the 2 advents.
We believe that the believer is judged at his conversion – John 5:24 calls this the first resurrection, when we are moved from death to life. So, the time of Satan’s release is right before the return of Jesus.
Just like the Bible says. 🙂
Rev 20:7 – you must remember that the millennium to us is the current rule and reign of Jesus between the 2 advents.
We believe that the believer is judged at his conversion – John Five Twenty Four calls this the first resurrection, when we are moved from death to life. So, the time of Satan’s release is right before the return of Jesus.
Just like the Bible says. ?
Later I will give you the quote and address – I disagree with Ryries take on just about
everything – but your defense that the unjudged enter the earthly kingdom boggles my mind.
Gotta run
“but your defense that the unjudged enter the earthly kingdom”
And for those scoring at home, find where I ever said this.
Back to MLD – we both think Satan will be released at the end of the MIllenium, but disagree on the nature of the millenium.
“…You are correct to an extent about our presuppositions guiding us – however I always back mine up with scripture references both in my articles and comments. You on the other hand make assertions that cannot be follows up on.”
MLD, you are a teacher… my comments are made from the frame of reference that i’ve developed being taught…
yes, i could enter into a back and forth of scripture flinging as i don’t accept what is taught without scripture to back it up on this subject…
that said, i don’t see myself as a teacher here at all and what i post is a pew sitters view… if anyone is goaded to find some good teaching on dispensation and the coming millennial reign of our Lord on this earth that would be great… (your restatements of same are, forgive me, weird)
i am glad to read the back and forth between you and Josh the B as without it there would be no rebuttal to your misstatements of the scenario that i accept as, not only plausible, but the most likely of the two views… even tho yours, like the rest of your theology of choice, is the older of the two….. i actually think that the two teachings could conceivably both be correct until we reach the subject of the 1,000 year dictatorship of Christ 🙂
for the record i was never taught the Jews are judged before the millennial reign, only that the post rapture Believers, including Jewish ones, are kept from the cataclysmic return of Jesus Christ to set up the 1,000 year kingdom…
described in Rev 19:11-16 … oh look! a Scripture reference 🙂 and before the final judgement followed by the creation of a new heaven and earth
no matter which side one’s faith falls on on this issue it is good that you are presenting the examination of Revelation here as the world’s chaos today is threatening to get between us and our concentration on the plan of God
post script yes, i know the Scripture ref. says Jesus comes to judge, but the use of the word here is not referring to a judgement of the Jew… of course there’s more to the use of that word, so i guess find your own teacher and learn what is entailed in the verse….
You speak well Em. And I do learn from you whether you consider yourself to be teaching or not 🙂
Josh – you crack me up – I don’t think you even understand yourself.
I originally asked you how the Jews had been judged and came into the kingdom in their physical earthly bodies? – which is the dispensationalist position which I will show you from Ryrie – but I need to type it out from the book. Your reply earlier was that the Jews are not judged until the end of the earthly kingdom, which brought up about unjudged earthly people making up the millennial kingdom.
So, when you ask – “but your defense that the unjudged enter the earthly kingdom” — And for those scoring at home, find where I ever said this.
Answer – in that conversation. If indeed as you say the Jews enter the kingdom unjudged – not to be judged until the end of the kingdom age, then my statement holds true.
Em, “I know the Scripture ref. says Jesus comes to judge, but the use of the word here is not referring to a judgement of the Jew…”
Again, my objection to dispensationalism that everyone in the world is judged differently and separately at a different time – a proposition that is found absolutely nowhere in scriptures. This is the same thought of dispensational teaching that says that Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats again does not include Jews. (the Jews are never called the nations is the proof text … with no related text.)
But then the dispensationalists hold also that the new covenant of Jeremiah is not for the church but is fulfilled in the millennial kingdom to the nation Israel.
This is becoming tedious and leading us farther and farther away from discerning the message of the book.
One thing that strikes me is that the traditional chapter by chapter, verse by verse, method actually obscures rather than clarifies the narrative of the Revelation.
MLD – you are so scattershot with your topics I often get lost on what we are talking about.
I thought we were talking about the two witnesses.
“This is becoming tedious”
I was just having fun, but I’ll step away.
Enjoyed it MLD, we’ll catch up next time.
Josh I did speak of the 2 witnesses until you and Em ganged up and said I was wrong.
I said multiple times I thought it was an interesting take. I even posted a couple of scholars who agreed with it.
Michael – I am willing to end the study here if you think it is divisive and obscures truth.
These two theological camps will be at odds until the Second Coming.
Each new article is just an opportunity to restart the debate that will never end.
This is an important book for Christians…the overarching narrative is what is important and the individual chapters can be used to highlight and emphasize that…but these battles between interpretive grids aren’t shedding any light on the text.
We continue…but hopefully with a heart to discern the message of the book, not defeat another group of interpreters.
Michael – I don’t think I have a way to write an article that meets your standard – you may need to carry it on in an “anglican” manner.
How am I supposed to present? What do I say when in a case like this we come to the 2 witnesses if I cannot say that they are the church without causing someone else to say “not so!” and I absolutely refuse to present as “just my opinion.”
My articles are valid – the comments may not be — hey, some of my articles go with out comment or very few.
well, nothing would be more wrong IMV than to end MLD’s study mid-stream…
i apologize for what i have contributed to any kind of a fracas over the subject and i certainly do not want to cause you, Michael, any more angst than you have to deal with – period…
i contend he wrongly and unnecessarily misstates or pulls out off the wall versions of the dispensational takes on the book – MLD, why don’t you just teach your view?
Therefore and that said, i will grit my teeth and not make any more comments here that veer the lesson plan off course… probably not say anything more because it isn’t necessary and i do notice that i goad MLD or he goads me…. dunno… 🙂
but could the teaching of the book add a post script: “the traditional, amillenial view of Revelation?”
MLD,
I have no issue with the articles, the comment section sounds the same week after week.
I would simply like the focus on the actual message of the text.
We actually have quite a few folks who follow these studies…
Honestly, For the first few cahpters I didn’t comment on the Revelations study…and noone else did. I thought the articles deserved more attention, so I started commenting. Not to convince, because that won’t happen, just to be honest aboput my views, but to bring attention to the articels. I’ll stop.
Em, I always teach my view and every week you object to my view. I never start out teaching “this is what the other guy teaches.”
Go back and read the article itself and tell me where I misrepresent another position. I teach my position alone.
Re read this article and get back to me.
MLD, like Josh the B, my comment @#1 was intended to see if there couldn’t be more visible interest stirred up… you note that i didn’t say you were wrong… i thought the mashed potato comment a little stupid, tho 🙂
but, i do think that my commenting is not serving the purpose for which the teaching is presented here and i do intend to become one of the lurkers…
i must thank you, tho as i really don’t spend much time thinking about the end and frankly i think that this nation is entering into a historic unstable era, possible end of the Republic… at the least a time of very intense – i won’t say persecution – dislike of or disdain for the Christian Faith… end times creeping up on us? that i do not know, but it is a time to make sure we are familiar with what God has told us about that time
no matter which side of the interpretation of this book one chooses as the correct scenario there will be a day when, if we know the book, the events will be clear… i think God intends that whether it’s centuries away yet or just around the corner
God keep
Josh – here is the Ryrie passage. From his 10th chapter – Peace on Earth – p.111 The Final Countdown.
After the Lord returns and defeats His enemies in the midst of the battle of Armageddon, certain judgments will prepare the way for the setting up of Christ’s kingdom.
1.) All Jews who survive the Tribulation will be judged (Ezekiel 20:34-38) This judgment will prevent any rebels from enjoying the millennial reign. The Lord spoke of this judgment in parable form Matthew Twenty five: fourteen thru thirty and in the Olivet discourse placed it immediately after his return and the full gathering of the Jewish people (Matt twenty four: thirty & thirty one and Matt twenty five: six.
The result of this judgment will be that the unsaved will be cut off from both millennial and eternal life (Ezekiel twenty:thirty seven; Matt Twenty five:thirty) and that the REDEEMED WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF THE EARTHLY BODIES ( caps are mine for emphasis.)
should read enter the kingdom of THEIR earthly bodies.
I wrote out the scriptural addresses to avoid moderation.
Em,
“i must thank you, tho as i really don’t spend much time thinking about the end ”
These studies are not about the end in any exclusive way – all of these teachings are about the time between the 2 advents – the entire time. Even the 2 witness story is about the life of the church from Pentecost to the end. God choosing his 2 witnesses is something that happened soon after his death, perhaps even sooner are he sent out his disciples say at the time of the sending of the 70/72. and going towards the end with the church facing ever increasing persecution leading up to a time of near extinction.
Try it that way instead of thinking of the book as an end times story.
I want you to still comment.
“I want you to still comment” thank you, MLD 🙂
i think the subject is better served here as a presentation of the amil view sans any dialog from those of us who do see in Revelation a marvelous description of how the end of this age will play out…
folks here are smart enough to ferret out good material on the millennial interpretation of the book, if interested… my only hope is that they are also smart enough to see that your interpretation of it, the one you’ve studied, taught and now rejected, isn’t exactly accurate when you speak of it…
God keep