First Seal rider......Jesus or AC?

[TCC]

TCC I believe you've noticed something important with the AC and his connection as a false messiah. As I read Revelation what seems to be happening is that satan is creating his own counterfeits in answer to the truth of who God is and what God's done. So, there's the counterfeit trinity in the dragon (satan), the first Beast (world empire) and the second Beast (false prophet). Manning the helm of power in the first beast is the man of lawlessness who is fully possessed by satan.

Just as Jesus had a deadly wound in His crucifixion and was raised up by God's power, satan will use deception to seemingly bring back to life the first beast from a deadly wound. So, there's the false resurrection.

Where Israel has rejected Jesus Christ, they will instead embrace the AC as the false messiah...satan, very deceptively provides his own version and the leadership of Israel fall for the deception as Jesus foresaw they would:

I have come in My Father’s name and with His power, and you do not receive Me [because your minds are closed]; but if another comes in his own name and with no authority or power except his own, you will receive him and give your approval to an imposter.
John 5:43 AMP

However, Israel will figure out in about 3 &1/2 years that the AC is not all that he's cracked up to be. Which is why Jesus said, "And now, look, your house is abandoned. And you will never see me again until you say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’”
Luke 13:35

Israel will then realize who their Messiah really is, Jesus Christ. Zechariah shares how they react to finally realizing this:

For on that day I will begin to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

“Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died. The sorrow and mourning in Jerusalem on that day will be like the great mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo.


In the meantime, God, in His sovereignty, permits this to happen so as to allow those who refused to love the truth (Jesus Christ and placing faith in Him) will be trapped in a deceptive delusion.

The coming of the [Antichrist, the lawless] one is through the activity of Satan, [attended] with great power [all kinds of counterfeit miracles] and [deceptive] signs and false wonders [all of them lies], and by unlimited seduction to evil and with all the deception of wickedness for those who are perishing, because they did not welcome the love of the truth [of the gospel] so as to be saved [they were spiritually blind, and rejected the truth that would have saved them]. Because of this God will send upon them a misleading influence, [an activity of error and deception] so they will believe the lie, in order that all may be judged and condemned who did not believe the truth [about their sin, and the need for salvation through Christ], but instead took pleasure in unrighteousness.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 AMP

Thanks Everlasting. I appreciate your reply. And I do see similarities. Yes. The false Trinity. Embracing a false one. But where it says "in his own name" may have connotations of him coming aside from what is in the Isreali mind relating to their tradition. The strong delusion is related to AC standing in the place of God. The world believing he is God. Many in Isreal will realize the AC is not God, nor whatever about him they may have placed undo affection. I am not aware that there is a scripture that tells us Isreal trusts in the AC as Messiah. I don't think though that there is one. We know in making a covenant with him Israel sees military and social protection. And this AC does seem related to the temple rebuilt and sacrifices reinstituted. So, yes, the temple and sacrifices do well seem to accompany this covenant. It is not certain in what way this may be options through the AC though. I suppose it could just be that under more believed secure conditions, Israel feels bold enough to build a temple and have sacrifices again. The Bible does not seem to suggest that Isreal build a temple nor the AC encouraging them to start sacrifices. On the contrary, Dan 11:37 seems to imply no relation though of the AC concerning the temple and sacrifices. Yes he does enter the temple to disicrate it. But this is in reference to his showing his true colors.

It makes sense on some levels to see the AC as related to the temple and sacrifices. But I am not aware of passages that affirm this religious stature in Israel is all that related to the AC or even the covenant specific he makes with them. If that makes sense? Blessings.

 

[TCC]

How do they mimic Christ? Good question.

Each of them provides a glimpse of the character and nature of the AC in the very places they try to replace Christ. Usually in the authority of Christ as King. Some attempt to be worshipped as a god (Nebuchadnezzer for example- that is the point of the fiery furnace- which provides a picture of the Tribulation which I can outline at some other time)

Starting with Nimrod- He attempts to rule the world (something Christ will do in the Millennium) and unite the world (something Christ will do in the Millennium). Those 2 attempts describe the AC during the Trib- attempting to unite the world (various prophets explain the fracture zones in his quest for world domination) and rule it.

Pharoah again tries to be the ruler of the Jews, ends up being their oppressor, but in his role as ruler he and Nebuchadnezzer attempt to own God's people. Jesus is the rightful king. So again, the quest for kingship, to be that ruler in place of the One who is destined to rule.

Saul is interesting. He comes before the royal David king. He hates David and tries to wipe him out on many occasions. When he explains himself to Jonathan, he is mad at Jonathan telling him not to help David or Jonathan will never be king. So Saul has an awareness of being king in David's place. He knows the divine ordinance placing David as anointed king but he attempts to sidestep God's plans by killing off the rightful heir.

Jesus speaks of this murderous desire in the parable of the owner of the Vineyard.

All thru history there is this struggle by the usurpers to take the place that belongs to God's own Son.

Antiochus Epiphanes - his name means "God Manifest" and he felt he was the living version of Zeus- which is why he sacrificed a pig on the altar- that animal being sacred to Zeus.

Just from his name and claim to be God Manifest in human flesh shows his imitation of Christ, but to then sacrifice the animal sacred to Zeus and absolute defilement to the Jews shows how he felt the Temple belonged to him as Zeus in human flesh.

As Jesus points out in Matt 24:15 the Jews were to look for the Abomination that causes Desolation in the future (his audience knew that this had occurred in the past already under Antiochus) so Jesus is drawing the connection between that Antiochus and the future AC.

That is EXTREMELY important because to the Jews listening to Jesus pattern IS prophecy. Jesus is pointing to a pattern that prophetically will be in future (and even during the destruction of 70 AD did NOT happen)

Jesus also points out that the Jews who reject Him, would fall for one who comes in his own name.

John 5:43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.

Thanks Margery. You make some good points too. If we go by this, then the main difference (other than the AC being the actually literal AC) is that for the first time in history, Israel will regard the stand in for Messiah. Because all the one's prior, Israel was never really partial to them in any way. But your point just being that those men of the past demonstrate how they do relate to a function of Messiah: Ruler of the Jews. King. A manifestation of God.

So these men of the past demonstrate attributes of Messiah in placing themselves over the Jews. Is this I would say yes it makes sense that the AC will enter that role with the covenant. We know later he will manifest himself as God. I believe for me the differences I would entertain would not necessarily be the ones you have well laid out. For it would seem that the AC does come in this fashion certainly for the Jews. And then there is of course the way in which the Jews might interpret how they may see a Messiah to play into this as well. On those points I would see that it is likely. I'm not of the absolute mind that the world will witness Israel calling the AC a Messiah though. It would seem some on the far right of course might. But as a whole, like, I would not necessarily see Netanyahu call the AC their messiah. If so, perhaps as a token diplomatic offering but not like Netanyahu would literally believe that (for example).

I believe where we might see differently (although I do appreciate the clearlity you bring and the connections that would be present with the AC as a Messiah type figure--in how you have laid it out) is the character of the theater in which the AC enters a covenant with Isreal. Sure, he will be some heroic figure to them. But the way it seems we might tend to talk about the AC toward Israel, to me, seems like the world will see Israel go after the AC as their proclaimed Messiah. I'm not saying that we can absolutely rule that out. Maybe that kind of thing might occur. But I don't, nor ever really have, gotten that necessarily from scripture. It seems that, to me, has become more of an evangelical spin on things to a degree. To such an extent there seems now no doubt the AC must come as their literal Messiah figure.

In contrast how I have been thinking about this is that it would seem the AC come at a time of grave need and provide a solution for them. And in this intrigue they go with it. To me, this seems more along the socio-political level (which to the Jews could be all they need to claim themselves a Messiah). More than necessarily a religious one. For Daniel 11:37 seems to portray the AC as not one Israel will have religious interest in. But it seems to me that evangelicalism insists this be the case and then we design all manner of theology ontop of that and read many things through that grid. Whereas I don't see scripture necessarily given us that much poetic license with the whole shabang. If that makes sense though? Blessings.

 

[Margery]

...I believe where we might see differently (although I do appreciate the clearlity you bring and the connections that would be present with the AC as a Messiah type figure--in how you have laid it out) is the character of the theater in which the AC enters a covenant with Isreal. Sure, he will be some heroic figure to them. But the way it seems we might tend to talk about the AC toward Israel, to me, seems like the world will see Israel go after the AC as their proclaimed Messiah. I'm not saying that we can absolutely rule that out. Maybe that kind of thing might occur. But I don't, nor ever really have, gotten that necessarily from scripture. It seems that, to me, has become more of an evangelical spin on things to a degree. To such an extent there seems now no doubt the AC must come as their literal Messiah figure.

In contrast how I have been thinking about this is that it would seem the AC come at a time of grave need and provide a solution for them. And in this intrigue they go with it. To me, this seems more along the socio-political level (which to the Jews could be all they need to claim themselves a Messiah). More than necessarily a religious one. For Daniel 11:37 seems to portray the AC as not one Israel will have religious interest in. But it seems to me that evangelicalism insists this be the case and then we design all manner of theology ontop of that and read many things through that grid. Whereas I don't see scripture necessarily given us that much poetic license with the whole shabang. If that makes sense though? Blessings.

I don't think that Israel apart from the very religious sects will see the AC as any kind of Messiah- like you I see him coming to them as politically useful. A means to live in peace in their own land. The secular leaders of Israel will be very glad the religious Jews will be on board with the AC as Messiah, because it will make it easier for them to have agreement over the covenant.

in my posts above, I was pointing out how one segment- the religious Jews, would view the AC as their Messiah, fulfilling their non biblical view for centuries that their Messiah would prove himself as their Messiah by helping them build the 3rd Temple.

Too many of our brothers and sisters take a simplistic view. The Bible in it's full view, provides a much clearer picture. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Religious and influential rabbis seeing a Messiah providing the right to build a temple AND non religious Jews in govt seeing an expedient way to avoid trouble. Both!

You said this here, and I completely agree.

"In contrast how I have been thinking about this is that it would seem the AC come at a time of grave need and provide a solution for them. .... More than necessarily a religious one. For Daniel 11:37 seems to portray the AC as not one Israel will have religious interest in. But it seems to me that evangelicalism insists this be the case and then we design all manner of theology ontop of that and read many things through that grid. "

This lines up with the passage in Isaiah 28:14-21 as seen here which I'll explain how this fits with our views AND provides depth to see what is actually happening from the non religious pov in Israel- that of the GOVERNMENT of the time, those in charge of governing Israel when they make that covenant with the AC.

Lets look at that passage I'm talking about here in the NKJV Isaiah 28:14-21 I will put the text in Italics, bold for emphasis and add my own comments in brackets.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
(Isaiah is pointing to the RULERS-plural, clearly indicating a parliamentary system where multiple rulers or Members of the Knesset make this covenant with the AC. The fact they are scornful points to scornful attitudes towards the warning of Scripture, scornfulness towards God)

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
(This indicates they know it's not a good deal, but they are afraid of what this scourge can do, and that seems to point to the AC's ability to make life horrific for his enemies)


16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
(Here is the contrast with those who do believe in Jesus, that precious corner stone. They won't hastily make an agreement with anyone. Their attitude contrasts with the leaders of the people- the Knesset)

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
(God says what will happen)

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
(God says what will happen- even though they made a pact with this "overflowing scourge" it's for nothing, the scourge will tread them down underfoot)


19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
(every day, bad news, hard to understand because they thought their agreement would hold- this is speaking of the last half of the Trib when the Temple is desecrated, and the true nature of the AC shows itself- in his persecution of the Jews)


20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.


21 For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

this shows the end of the Tribulation, when the Lord returns. This is a VERY IMPORTANT context clue because it places that covenant at the beginning of Jacobs Trouble, and we know from elsewhere that Jesus returns at the end. Daniel and Rev give us the days and months of this time of Jacobs Trouble, the Tribulation, so it's very important to see this in the context of this passage.

Perazim refers to David fighting the Philistines in 2 Sam 5:20 and 1Chron 14:11.

Gibeon refers to Joshua 10 when Joshua fights Adoni Zedek (the Lord of Righteousness) who is the ruler of Jerusalem at the time. This is the day the sun stood still.

Here is another beautiful prophetic picture of Jesus (Yeshua, or Joshua, meaning SALVATION) fighting the one who pretends to be the "Lord of Righteousness" who is ruling Jerusalem at that time. And yes, there is another little type or shadow of the AC in Adoni Zedek ruler of Jerusalem.

 

[Batman]

The first white horse rider is the AC.......the second is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords......the third through billions is all of "us".

 

[TCC]

The first white horse rider is the AC.......the second is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords......the third through billions is all of "us".

Stated like a true Batman. Straight, to the point. No apology. Even though we differ brother, gotta love it

 

[TCC]

I don't think that Israel apart from the very religious sects will see the AC as any kind of Messiah- like you I see him coming to them as politically useful. A means to live in peace in their own land. The secular leaders of Israel will be very glad the religious Jews will be on board with the AC as Messiah, because it will make it easier for them to have agreement over the covenant.

in my posts above, I was pointing out how one segment- the religious Jews, would view the AC as their Messiah, fulfilling their non biblical view for centuries that their Messiah would prove himself as their Messiah by helping them build the 3rd Temple.

Too many of our brothers and sisters take a simplistic view. The Bible in it's full view, provides a much clearer picture. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Religious and influential rabbis seeing a Messiah providing the right to build a temple AND non religious Jews in govt seeing an expedient way to avoid trouble. Both!

You said this here, and I completely agree.

"In contrast how I have been thinking about this is that it would seem the AC come at a time of grave need and provide a solution for them. .... More than necessarily a religious one. For Daniel 11:37 seems to portray the AC as not one Israel will have religious interest in. But it seems to me that evangelicalism insists this be the case and then we design all manner of theology ontop of that and read many things through that grid. "

This lines up with the passage in Isaiah 28:14-21 as seen here which I'll explain how this fits with our views AND provides depth to see what is actually happening from the non religious pov in Israel- that of the GOVERNMENT of the time, those in charge of governing Israel when they make that covenant with the AC.

Lets look at that passage I'm talking about here in the NKJV Isaiah 28:14-21 I will put the text in Italics, bold for emphasis and add my own comments in brackets.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
(Isaiah is pointing to the RULERS-plural, clearly indicating a parliamentary system where multiple rulers or Members of the Knesset make this covenant with the AC. The fact they are scornful points to scornful attitudes towards the warning of Scripture, scornfulness towards God)

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
(This indicates they know it's not a good deal, but they are afraid of what this scourge can do, and that seems to point to the AC's ability to make life horrific for his enemies)


16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
(Here is the contrast with those who do believe in Jesus, that precious corner stone. They won't hastily make an agreement with anyone. Their attitude contrasts with the leaders of the people- the Knesset)

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
(God says what will happen)

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
(God says what will happen- even though they made a pact with this "overflowing scourge" it's for nothing, the scourge will tread them down underfoot)


19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
(every day, bad news, hard to understand because they thought their agreement would hold- this is speaking of the last half of the Trib when the Temple is desecrated, and the true nature of the AC shows itself- in his persecution of the Jews)


20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.


21 For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

this shows the end of the Tribulation, when the Lord returns. This is a VERY IMPORTANT context clue because it places that covenant at the beginning of Jacobs Trouble, and we know from elsewhere that Jesus returns at the end. Daniel and Rev give us the days and months of this time of Jacobs Trouble, the Tribulation, so it's very important to see this in the context of this passage.

Perazim refers to David fighting the Philistines in 2 Sam 5:20 and 1Chron 14:11.

Gibeon refers to Joshua 10 when Joshua fights Adoni Zedek (the Lord of Righteousness) who is the ruler of Jerusalem at the time. This is the day the sun stood still.

Here is another beautiful prophetic picture of Jesus (Yeshua, or Joshua, meaning SALVATION) fighting the one who pretends to be the "Lord of Righteousness" who is ruling Jerusalem at that time. And yes, there is another little type or shadow of the AC in Adoni Zedek ruler of Jerusalem.

Margery...I think this is a first. lol. Where everything you have shared I am actually in complete agreement with stated as you have shared. But one. lol. But wow...we are getting closer...pretty cool. Not that you or I have changed, but just I think how we lay it out...in what sequence...with what emphasis.

My main concern over all is the tabloid things evangelicalism does with all of this. Seeing that, if I were in the world, I would think Christianity could be comic book. Not all. Just the sensationalizing is not exactly exhausting. What troubles my heart is it can tend to be a poetic license for demonizing others in a sanctified way. Not you. Not saying this of you just like in where I guess i have the strongest reasons for being clear on a topic like this--because Green Acres in fun on film, but not if it is the town we all have to live in as much. The sad thing about me is, I can tend to see a demon in every bush without any help from the peanut gallery thank you very much. And on this I mean to tabloid versions we see out there. The real work out is helping me see Him in His majesty. You pull that off...you own me. lol. Not that you are shopping.Just saying. But you do love to come to those places of His majesty. And I love that about you Majory. Thanks.

. . . . .

As I said, all you have said above I don't think I would see any differently, except one. Other than what I just said above here. Because what I said above here is I think what is happening is God's majesty is pulmitting the earth, and we are all sitting at the beach passing around psychedelic HE WHO SEES THE DEVIL THE MOST wins binoculars.

Ok, i'm back. So where I would disagree is the thing with death. I have combed over those passages before (by the way, really lovely way you lay it out though for sure thanks). It is very specific to a very speciif time. For a very specific reason. THEN. This was already fulfilled though. So what I would ask dear and precious sister is: Is there something about the Isaiah passages (other than it makes a great AC t-shirt/and your lovely extentions actually do give me pause because of the heart you put in it and them) that binds it with the prophetic now prophetically prophecy like? I can say that backwards too...lol. In other words, I know a brother that thinks this applies to the Abraham Accords. So I don't see that. If anything it would make more sense with AC. But it was already fulfilled. Surely the covenant with the AC will be death for them. But they also get an eye opener likely nearing that midpoint. And they can scadattle. So its making a covenant with near death. lol. Ok yeah I am being a little bit of a clown. But we can bring Old Testament verses over to say a lot of things. So like though for me, I mean its obvious making a deal with the devil is death. I mean I am not saying that that covenant with the many is not that. I just don't see a need to shoe horn in (it would seem in general to me... a lot of peeps do that with that verse though...it is a popular framing regardless of my view...but it would seem in general to me...overly redundant to blend it in with the AC). I mean I don't see any unique purpose in bringing it over though.

So see...we have come such a long way. And the door prize? Well there is this one lady that has a ministry. And she is extremely bookoo studied. And she makes some very hot points. For them to be hot in my book...they have to jump through a lot of hoops (being high maintenance, I am). But since I can be duped like any other, I would like to share with you that channel and maybe a pointer video or two of hers. She is not a sensationalist. But has some extremely reasonably provocative views (nothing to do with mine at all...in fact quite the contrary to my views...and more in line with the generic watcher perspectives). May I share that info with you in PM? You would be the one to ask. Because you are very studied yourself. And female. So that will help too. Because you might bring out some nuance men watching might not come to. Or help bring it into a focus that might weigh some things out. Because you do have that spiritual gift. Anywaz it would be a blessing to get your take if that is ok?

 

[Margery]

....As I said, all you have said above I don't think I would see any differently, except one. Other than what I just said above here. Because what I said above here is I think what is happening is God's majesty is pulmitting the earth, and we are all sitting at the beach passing around psychedelic HE WHO SEES THE DEVIL THE MOST wins binoculars.

Ok, i'm back. So where I would disagree is the thing with death. I have combed over those passages before (by the way, really lovely way you lay it out though for sure thanks). It is very specific to a very speciif time. For a very specific reason. THEN. This was already fulfilled though. So what I would ask dear and precious sister is: Is there something about the Isaiah passages (other than it makes a great AC t-shirt/and your lovely extentions actually do give me pause because of the heart you put in it and them) that binds it with the prophetic now prophetically prophecy like? I can say that backwards too...lol. In other words, I know a brother that thinks this applies to the Abraham Accords. So I don't see that. If anything it would make more sense with AC. But it was already fulfilled. Surely the covenant with the AC will be death for them. But they also get an eye opener likely nearing that midpoint. And they can scadattle. So its making a covenant with near death....

Oh what a joy to discuss these things- iron does sharpen iron and you love the Word of God and digging deep. God's majesty, His plans do pummel the earth. He wins, there is never any doubt. He allows the struggle so that we can come to Him for salvation. And THAT is the purpose of the final 7 of Daniels 70 weeks. The final 7 years. The SALVATION of the Jews, the crowning of King Jesus, the fulfillment of all the promises given to the Jews, to Abraham.

You ask a wonderful question here. I quote you: "So where I would disagree is the thing with death. I have combed over those passages before .... It is very specific to a very speciif time. For a very specific reason. THEN. This was already fulfilled though. So what I would ask ... is: Is there something about the Isaiah passages ... that binds it with the prophetic now? "

OH YES indeed and it's glorious but a little harder to see. (I'll deal with the Abraham Accords in another post - no offence to that brother, but he is wrong to see that in here)

Remember, Jewish views of prophecy are repeating patterns. The pattern is prophecy. Our western eyes look for one single fulfillment perhaps 2 in a dual fulfillment but we stop short of seeing the whole picture. So the fact that something was fulfilled partially in the past simply points us to a future fulfillment as Jesus does with His Olivet discourse in Matthew- pointing back to Daniel, the passages about Antiochus and forward in time to the future Abomination of Desolation. The AOD was in the past, fulfilled with Antiochus, but it is also FUTURE with the AC.

So the fact that it may be partially fulfilled in the past often stops us from seeing how it pertains to the present or future.

Let's go over that passage again, this time looking at a very unique time in history future when something starts with a covenant and ends with King Jesus! The final 7 years of what we call the Tribulation, but is best called Jacob's Trouble. Back up and read the whole chapter- you'll see Isaiah is pointing to Jesus the whole time. The problem is how the leaders of Israel stumble- and verse 5 is the cure:

5 In that day the Lord of hosts will be
For a crown of glory and a diadem of beauty
To the remnant of His people,
6 For a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment,
And for strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate. (who is battling at the gate here?- I suggest this alludes to the final seige of Jerusalem at Armageddon but that's another rabbit trail)

The time key is in verse 5 above and verse 21 when it speaks of " that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act." This goes way beyond the original Assyrian invasion that destroyed the Northern Kingdom - Isaiah mentions Judah in this too. So it has the "In That Day" wording which often points to the Day of the Lord, the Day of Jacob's Trouble. And it qualifies that day as a strange work, a strange act. This is something that will astonish all but those whose trust is in the God of Jacob, their Messiah Jesus, that precious cornerstone that Isaiah mentions in v 16.

But also vs 22 where it says:
Now therefore, do not be mockers,
Lest your bonds be made strong;
For I have heard from the Lord God of hosts,
A destruction determined even upon the whole earth.

GET THAT????? A destruction determined even upon the WHOLE earth. This was NOT fulfilled in the Assyrian invasion. Isaiah starts that chapter addressing Ephraim, often used to describe the Northern Kingdom, but by the time he gets to Jerusalem in this passage we are looking at closely, he is ending that section with a destruction determined upon the WHOLE EARTH. The Assyrians didn't do that. They didn't even destroy Jerusalem and the Southern Kingdom. That waited for Babylon's Nebuchadnezzar but even he didn't destroy the whole earth in the process.

SO- we are MOST DEFINITELY looking at some future point in time even as parts were fulfilled in the past. (little rabbit trail- the AC is often called "the Assyrian" or the final Assyrian in the OT- thought you'd enjoy that as I do)

Looking at the flow of the whole of Isaiah 28 we actually see the church age in there too. STOP HERE and read vs 9-13 and if that doesn't scream CHURCH AGE I don't know what will.

The next key is to see Jesus in the centre of this whole passage. Verse 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

The final key is to see how Jesus is personified in that verse. That gives us the key to see how Death, and Hell are personified. Hell (Sheol) is often personified in the Bible.

So we see Jesus personified as a corner stone, (look at Psalm 118:22 which Isaiah references- that Psalm is all about the glorious way the precious cornerstone that the builders rejected becomes the foundation. it's all about the chastening of the Lord to Israel near death, the nations at the gates, God's deliverance)

In fact this whole passage in Isaiah 28 and Psalm 118 is about the stone that the builders rejected. It's in Daniels vision of the stone cut without hands, that destroys the whole earth. This is our Rock, the God of our Salvation in whom we trust.

NKJV Isaiah 28:14-21 again, I will put the text in Italics, bold for emphasis and add my own comments in brackets.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

(the context of this passage Isaiah is pointing to the RULERS-plural, clearly indicating a parliamentary system where multiple rulers or Members of the Knesset make this covenant , they are scornful of the Word of the Lord here - Isaiah is MAKING them listen, but they ignore him. AND notice the context of the passage, which in v 22 as I point out takes it to a point in time when the whole earth is about to be destroyed, by GOD'S decree- yup the WHOLE EARTH)

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

(Death, Hell (Sheol) and lies are all personified here. And the next verse contrasts this personified mess with the precious cornerstone, Jesus. So this gives a clue that we are looking at a person who personifies LIES, brings death and destruction. Who is the father of lies, who is the person who comes to steal kill and destroy? Satan! So we are looking at a person who is indwelt or in complete agreement with Satan. Satan is his master.)


16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

(Here is Jesus, that precious corner stone. The very heart of this chapter. Read Psalm 118 and look at it as a picture of Jewish history, with that stone that the builders rejected)

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

(Isaiah mentions lines above in V9-13 which speaks of the church age- that line is being ignored by Israel for the most part, yet Isaiah speaks of a remnant in v 5 & 16- church age and Tribulation remnants who believe in that cornerstone)

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

(this "overflowing scourge" , the person who personifies death and hell, who is the liar will tread them down underfoot- he will not keep his covenant that starts this time clock of Jacob's Trouble ticking. It won't quit as the next verse says, until the LORD rises up to rescue Israel in v 21 and that is at a time when v 22 tells us is a destruction decreed by God on the WHOLE EARTH)


19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

( They thought it would protect them, but every day the true nature of the AC shows itself- in his persecution of the Jews)


20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

(This refers back to v 15 where lies are their refuge and falsehood their hiding place. The bed is not restful, the covering doesn't cover)


21 For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.


22 Now therefore, do not be mockers, Lest your bonds be made strong; For I have heard from the Lord God of hosts, A destruction determined even upon the whole earth.


I'll finish here. This is the time period that begins with a covenant, ends with the Lord rising up, and it's a destruction determined on the whole earth.

There is only one time period in the Bible that fits fully. This was not finished with the Assyrian invasion of the northern kingdom.


THEREFORE I conclude that this must apply in it's final fullest form to the Tribulation.

And it's all about God bringing His people the Jews to their breaking point, using that liar Satan and his point man the AC to do it. The frustration and grief in Isaiah's voice thru this whole passage is echoed in Paul's grief and pain over his people in Romans 11.

 

[mattfivefour]

Excellent exegesis of Isaiah 28, sister! I was torn between three reaction emojis: 100%, love, and amen.

It is unfortunate that preterists only see one fulfillment of a prophecy and miss the theological fact of prophetic telescoping. It is easily demonstrable in Scripture that prophecies often have at least two fulfillments-- one near and one far (which is why prophetic telescoping is often referred to theologically as dual fulfillment.)

Even the coming of Messiah has two fulfillments-- one 2000 years ago, one still to come. Antiochus Epiphanes was not the final fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel, chapters 8 through 12. Not even specifically of Daniel 8:12 and 9:27 and the reference to it in Daniel 12:11. This is easy to prove because Jesus referred to it as future, as recorded in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.

I believe nearly all error --and the failure to properly discern the times-- has come into eschatology through a failure to understand prophetic telescoping.

 

[Margery]

...It is unfortunate that preterists only see one fulfillment of a prophecy and miss the theological fact of prophetic telescoping. It is easily demonstrable in Scripture that prophecies often have at least two fulfillments-- one near and one far (which is why prophetic telescoping is often referred to theologically as dual fulfillment.)

Even the coming of Messiah has two fulfillments-- one 2000 years ago, one still to come. Antiochus Epiphanes was not the final fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel, chapters 8 through 12. Not even specifically of Daniel 8:12 and 9:27 and the reference to it in Daniel 12:11. This is easy to prove because Jesus referred to it as future, as recorded in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.

I believe nearly all error --and the failure to properly discern the times-- has come into eschatology through a failure to understand prophetic telescoping.

Thank you! I keep forgetting what that fact is called- prophetic telescoping. And you are right, I think so to, the failure to discern the times comes in when we latch onto an explanation of something in the Bible and think that is all there is to know about it.

So a previous fulfillment is used to set aside a prophecy and reject the fullness of the Word of God.

Reminds me of Isiah 61 where Jesus quotes the first part- verse 1 and stops half way thru v 2 back in Luke 4. Before the passage leaps ahead to the Day of Vengeance of Our God!

Jesus not only quits before the Day of Vengeance, He also said that passage about the good news of Salvation (just before the Day of Vengeance) was fulfilled in their ears and sits down. He explains their thoughts to them, the muttering that whatever miracles He did in Capernaum, He'd better do that in front of THEM!

Jesus then says that there were a lot of widows in Elijah's day in Israel but God sent Elijah up north to the gentiles of Lebanon area, and many lepers in Elisha's day in Israel, but Elisha only cleansed a Syrian - another gentile. This infuriates the crowd who just a moment earlier were marvelling at Him.

Luke 4: 24-30
24 Then He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; 26 but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”


28 So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. 30 Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way.

I'm seeing Chiastic structures everywhere - centred on Jesus.

Luke 4 is another chiasm, which introduces a mountain that Satan brings Him to, to see all the kingdoms of the earth to tempt Jesus, who resists all temptation. The middle is this passage where Jesus explains the present day fulfillment of Isaiah 61 v 1 and 2a. It ends on another cliffside view with his neighbours from Nazareth trying to kill Him. But He passes thru the midst of them.

Jesus is providing a prophetic glimpse of the gospel going out to the gentile world, after the Jews reject Him. And the whole of Isaiah 61 is broken into the First coming which Jesus quotes

And the Day of Vengeance at His second coming. The passage of Isaiah 61 fits best seen as a prophecy of the Millennium.

 

[TCC]

Oh what a joy to discuss these things- iron does sharpen iron and you love the Word of God and digging deep. God's majesty, His plans do pummel the earth. He wins, there is never any doubt. He allows the struggle so that we can come to Him for salvation. And THAT is the purpose of the final 7 of Daniels 70 weeks. The final 7 years. The SALVATION of the Jews, the crowning of King Jesus, the fulfillment of all the promises given to the Jews, to Abraham.

You ask a wonderful question here. I quote you: "So where I would disagree is the thing with death. I have combed over those passages before .... It is very specific to a very speciif time. For a very specific reason. THEN. This was already fulfilled though. So what I would ask ... is: Is there something about the Isaiah passages ... that binds it with the prophetic now? "

OH YES indeed and it's glorious but a little harder to see. (I'll deal with the Abraham Accords in another post - no offence to that brother, but he is wrong to see that in here)

Remember, Jewish views of prophecy are repeating patterns. The pattern is prophecy. Our western eyes look for one single fulfillment perhaps 2 in a dual fulfillment but we stop short of seeing the whole picture. So the fact that something was fulfilled partially in the past simply points us to a future fulfillment as Jesus does with His Olivet discourse in Matthew- pointing back to Daniel, the passages about Antiochus and forward in time to the future Abomination of Desolation. The AOD was in the past, fulfilled with Antiochus, but it is also FUTURE with the AC.

So the fact that it may be partially fulfilled in the past often stops us from seeing how it pertains to the present or future.

Let's go over that passage again, this time looking at a very unique time in history future when something starts with a covenant and ends with King Jesus! The final 7 years of what we call the Tribulation, but is best called Jacob's Trouble. Back up and read the whole chapter- you'll see Isaiah is pointing to Jesus the whole time. The problem is how the leaders of Israel stumble- and verse 5 is the cure:

5 In that day the Lord of hosts will be
For a crown of glory and a diadem of beauty
To the remnant of His people,
6 For a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment,
And for strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate. (who is battling at the gate here?- I suggest this alludes to the final seige of Jerusalem at Armageddon but that's another rabbit trail)

The time key is in verse 5 above and verse 21 when it speaks of " that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act." This goes way beyond the original Assyrian invasion that destroyed the Northern Kingdom - Isaiah mentions Judah in this too. So it has the "In That Day" wording which often points to the Day of the Lord, the Day of Jacob's Trouble. And it qualifies that day as a strange work, a strange act. This is something that will astonish all but those whose trust is in the God of Jacob, their Messiah Jesus, that precious cornerstone that Isaiah mentions in v 16.

But also vs 22 where it says:
Now therefore, do not be mockers,
Lest your bonds be made strong;
For I have heard from the Lord God of hosts,
A destruction determined even upon the whole earth.

GET THAT????? A destruction determined even upon the WHOLE earth. This was NOT fulfilled in the Assyrian invasion. Isaiah starts that chapter addressing Ephraim, often used to describe the Northern Kingdom, but by the time he gets to Jerusalem in this passage we are looking at closely, he is ending that section with a destruction determined upon the WHOLE EARTH. The Assyrians didn't do that. They didn't even destroy Jerusalem and the Southern Kingdom. That waited for Babylon's Nebuchadnezzar but even he didn't destroy the whole earth in the process.

SO- we are MOST DEFINITELY looking at some future point in time even as parts were fulfilled in the past. (little rabbit trail- the AC is often called "the Assyrian" or the final Assyrian in the OT- thought you'd enjoy that as I do)

Looking at the flow of the whole of Isaiah 28 we actually see the church age in there too. STOP HERE and read vs 9-13 and if that doesn't scream CHURCH AGE I don't know what will.

The next key is to see Jesus in the centre of this whole passage. Verse 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

The final key is to see how Jesus is personified in that verse. That gives us the key to see how Death, and Hell are personified. Hell (Sheol) is often personified in the Bible.

So we see Jesus personified as a corner stone, (look at Psalm 118:22 which Isaiah references- that Psalm is all about the glorious way the precious cornerstone that the builders rejected becomes the foundation. it's all about the chastening of the Lord to Israel near death, the nations at the gates, God's deliverance)

In fact this whole passage in Isaiah 28 and Psalm 118 is about the stone that the builders rejected. It's in Daniels vision of the stone cut without hands, that destroys the whole earth. This is our Rock, the God of our Salvation in whom we trust.

NKJV Isaiah 28:14-21 again, I will put the text in Italics, bold for emphasis and add my own comments in brackets.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

(the context of this passage Isaiah is pointing to the RULERS-plural, clearly indicating a parliamentary system where multiple rulers or Members of the Knesset make this covenant , they are scornful of the Word of the Lord here - Isaiah is MAKING them listen, but they ignore him. AND notice the context of the passage, which in v 22 as I point out takes it to a point in time when the whole earth is about to be destroyed, by GOD'S decree- yup the WHOLE EARTH)

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

(Death, Hell (Sheol) and lies are all personified here. And the next verse contrasts this personified mess with the precious cornerstone, Jesus. So this gives a clue that we are looking at a person who personifies LIES, brings death and destruction. Who is the father of lies, who is the person who comes to steal kill and destroy? Satan! So we are looking at a person who is indwelt or in complete agreement with Satan. Satan is his master.)


16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

(Here is Jesus, that precious corner stone. The very heart of this chapter. Read Psalm 118 and look at it as a picture of Jewish history, with that stone that the builders rejected)

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

(Isaiah mentions lines above in V9-13 which speaks of the church age- that line is being ignored by Israel for the most part, yet Isaiah speaks of a remnant in v 5 & 16- church age and Tribulation remnants who believe in that cornerstone)

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

(this "overflowing scourge" , the person who personifies death and hell, who is the liar will tread them down underfoot- he will not keep his covenant that starts this time clock of Jacob's Trouble ticking. It won't quit as the next verse says, until the LORD rises up to rescue Israel in v 21 and that is at a time when v 22 tells us is a destruction decreed by God on the WHOLE EARTH)


19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

( They thought it would protect them, but every day the true nature of the AC shows itself- in his persecution of the Jews)


20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

(This refers back to v 15 where lies are their refuge and falsehood their hiding place. The bed is not restful, the covering doesn't cover)


21 For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.


22 Now therefore, do not be mockers, Lest your bonds be made strong; For I have heard from the Lord God of hosts, A destruction determined even upon the whole earth.


I'll finish here. This is the time period that begins with a covenant, ends with the Lord rising up, and it's a destruction determined on the whole earth.

There is only one time period in the Bible that fits fully. This was not finished with the Assyrian invasion of the northern kingdom.


THEREFORE I conclude that this must apply in it's final fullest form to the Tribulation.

And it's all about God bringing His people the Jews to their breaking point, using that liar Satan and his point man the AC to do it. The frustration and grief in Isaiah's voice thru this whole passage is echoed in Paul's grief and pain over his people in Romans 11.

Thanks Margery. At this point I would like to ask you something. And please note, this is coming from someone who has very fringe views no one on this forum agrees with...lol. Nor do any scholars consider. Amen. But here is my question: What importance do you place on commentaries in your reseach? For me, I use them as a general plumb line. Like I like to see the consensus as well as the varietations. So they do hold that place for me. In some cases I view commentaries as plumb lines of protection to a degree. Not absolutely like a voice of a Pope or something. But as something that if I am going to depart from greatly is at least there as likely better studied context for me in general. So when I stray from them, I still have a lot of umbilical cords to what soundness in them God may have provided.

The reason I ask is that from how you draw some conclusions seem very free of commentary. Which is not necessarily a bad thing at all at times. But I guess the old addage of knowing the rules well enough to successfully break them I believe is somewhat of a thing. And as studied as you are, you seem like you would have had much exposure to commentary over the years...but tend to take a path in general beyond any or most. Or am I mistaken? This is just an observation. And as strange as that might sound with my obnoxious first seal view (which no soul on earth but me holds...lol), I hope you know it is coming from a very respecful place.

The reason I asked is because hands down the commentaries would see the following:

1. A destruction determined even upon the whole earth -- Is in consensus understood to mean the known world to Judah
2. In that day the Lord of Hosts will be For a crown of glory and a diadenm of beauty to the remnant of the people -- to yes have future import, but most targeting at the 1st comming of Messiah (although by its language I can understand why you might see it also at the end--I'm not exactly saying that is a stretch).
3. The church age in Isaiah 28:9-13. -- Yes I would agree in part. Although the line upon line business I believe has some history of its own. But from this section we see Paul affirming in Romans this apply to the 1st coming condition of Messiah).

So on that note, yes what we can see in Isaiah 28 is it certainly is something radioactive for future prophecy. Amen. But from a commentary standpoint, it would be as far as Christ's 1st comming, and I see no views (which does not mean they may not apply of course) from scholars who go further and tie it to end times. So Margery I can appreciate the zeal and passoion upon your view of scripture. But this the kind of thing I would be asking for balance sake I guess is why.

. . . . .

Other than that, I don't exactly see the connections you would with the AC. But I appreciate your noble effort and conviction. When dealing with a plethera of scholarship or commentary on subjects, what I have tended to do in modes of expression (although certainly not always) is present like varying consensus views of commentary in where I would differ and how I might differ from that scholarship in order to provide a best context. My posts are long enough...so I am sure it is to the advantage of this forum I dont do that all the time. It would take forever to say anything...lol. But I do believe that when dealing with such ranges of passages and how far or in what ways they might extend into greater prophetic reach it can be helpful to see perhaps how much or in what ways commentary might afford some grounding there.

Having said that, I would say where we have met today is that excellence has been presented in core passages in Isaiah 28 referring and stated and used in Paul's writing indicating the time of Christ's 1st visit on earth. Amen. This has been substantiated beyond question or opinion. Amen. As to its further extensions, we would probably need to still discuss dear sister. Some themes I have seen in general over the years in evangelical leanings is the tendencies to bring the tribulation contexts into the age of grace. And the other is a tendency to bring things referring to Chris'ts first coming to be exentuated into His second. I have seen these things over the years as tendencies I have noticed we might tend to do in evanglecal America...and America's 51st state Canada (lol jk ), so just saying this in hopes of refinement. As you say, iron sharpening iron. Blessings.

 

[Margery]

Thanks Margery. At this point I would like to ask you something. And please note, this is coming from someone who has very fringe views no one on this forum agrees with...lol. Nor do any scholars consider. Amen. But here is my question: What importance do you place on commentaries in your reseach? For me, I use them as a general plumb line. Like I like to see the consensus as well as the varietations. So they do hold that place for me. In some cases I view commentaries as plumb lines of protection to a degree. Not absolutely like a voice of a Pope or something. But as something that if I am going to depart from greatly is at least there as likely better studied context for me in general. So when I stray from them, I still have a lot of umbilical cords to what soundness in them God may have provided.

The reason I ask is that from how you draw some conclusions seem very free of commentary. Which is not necessarily a bad thing at all at times. But I guess the old addage of knowing the rules well enough to successfully break them I believe is somewhat of a thing. And as studied as you are, you seem like you would have had much exposure to commentary over the years...but tend to take a path in general beyond any or most. Or am I mistaken? This is just an observation. And as strange as that might sound with my obnoxious first seal view (which no soul on earth but me holds...lol), I hope you know it is coming from a very respecful place.

The reason I asked is because hands down the commentaries would see the following:

1. A destruction determined even upon the whole earth -- Is in consensus understood to mean the known world to Judah
2. In that day the Lord of Hosts will be For a crown of glory and a diadenm of beauty to the remnant of the people -- to yes have future import, but most targeting at the 1st comming of Messiah (although by its language I can understand why you might see it also at the end--I'm not exactly saying that is a stretch).
3. The church age in Isaiah 28:9-13. -- Yes I would agree in part. Although the line upon line business I believe has some history of its own. But from this section we see Paul affirming in Romans this apply to the 1st coming condition of Messiah).

So on that note, yes what we can see in Isaiah 28 is it certainly is something radioactive for future prophecy. Amen. But from a commentary standpoint, it would be as far as Christ's 1st comming, and I see no views (which does not mean they may not apply of course) from scholars who go further and tie it to end times. So Margery I can appreciate the zeal and passoion upon your view of scripture. But this the kind of thing I would be asking for balance sake I guess is why.

. . . . .

Other than that, I don't exactly see the connections you would with the AC. But I appreciate your noble effort and conviction. When dealing with a plethera of scholarship or commentary on subjects, what I have tended to do in modes of expression (although certainly not always) is present like varying consensus views of commentary in where I would differ and how I might differ from that scholarship in order to provide a best context. My posts are long enough...so I am sure it is to the advantage of this forum I dont do that all the time. It would take forever to say anything...lol. But I do believe that when dealing with such ranges of passages and how far or in what ways they might extend into greater prophetic reach it can be helpful to see perhaps how much or in what ways commentary might afford some grounding there.

Having said that, I would say where we have met today is that excellence has been presented in core passages in Isaiah 28 referring and stated and used in Paul's writing indicating the time of Christ's 1st visit on earth. Amen. This has been substantiated beyond question or opinion. Amen. As to its further extensions, we would probably need to still discuss dear sister. Some themes I have seen in general over the years in evangelical leanings is the tendencies to bring the tribulation contexts into the age of grace. And the other is a tendency to bring things referring to Chris'ts first coming to be exentuated into His second. I have seen these things over the years as tendencies I have noticed we might tend to do in evanglecal America...and America's 51st state Canada (lol jk ), so just saying this in hopes of refinement. As you say, iron sharpening iron. Blessings.

to answer yes, I've read commentaries and I read conservative theological books by a number of authors. The list is pretty long. Some I've only skimmed thru, others like Romans by William R Newell are in my list of books for a desert island that I never want to be without. I prefer the conservative dispensational authors for the most part. Hitchcock, Ron Rhodes, Tommy Ice, David Reagan, Jack Kelley- his site is even more useful than his book. Andy Woods, Lee Brainard, Ken Johnson and more in the more modern camp. Older authors are Tozer, Pink, Chafer, Newell again, Walvoord, Ironside, Edersheim etc. ECF I prefer the ones before about 250AD.

but I go up to Athanasius - I get bored with the later ones, and the Catholic fathers much after him especially that classic City of God by Augustine so I'm not really well rounded but I found the ECF by researching the Trinity and I figured I might as well start with him. I was hooked by his sense of humour which comes thru even after all these centuries. I borrowed a book out of the ECF series that someone loaned me. I couldn't afford to buy my own copies. Years later George gave me a Kindle and I found a lot of good stuff on Amazon for very cheap. including some of the volumes of the ECF that I like.

That rabbit trail eventually led me to Dr Ken Johnson's interesting work on the early church fathers, and from there to his research into ancient rabbinic and church sources. I have most of what he's written. It's actually quite informative when you find out why the old ones thought the way they did about a subject. Like us, they may not be right, but their opinions matter.

I prefer to read widely on any subject, so I can pick up a number of points of view. Then on studying the Bible passage I form an opinion. I learn best by reading, but I also like to listen to people like Chuck Missler for example. I don't agree with everything he says, but he starts me off on the most exciting rabbit trails. I have nearly everything he published.

The limitations of being restricted to commentaries- Commentaries are a great start, but they are not the final word on the subject. The Bible interprets the Bible. The writers of commentaries come to the Bible with their presuppositions in place. It's good to know where they are coming from.

I love following up the cross references or finding out if a word like Hell came from Sheol (I made sure in the passages above) because if a different word is used, it might place a different meaning on it.

I also like to read/listen to some interesting people like LA Marzulli, Tom Horn and Douglas Woodward presenting off the wall stuff because life is more fun that way. And sometimes they make a lot of sense in one area, while I won't agree with other parts of their thinking (Tom Horn in particular). They send me off on interesting rabbit trails and while I'm arguing with them in my head, I'm digging into the Word to see if they are right. I keep meaning to read David Flynn's stuff- it's extreme out there off the wall and downright nuts in spots, but I want to know why he thought the way he did.

Someone that thinks along those lines, but is more grounded is Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council. I have one of his books, not finished but I mean to get back into it. When I see/listen to his lectures on YouTube he is really fun to explore with. I'm sad he's with the Lord and not writing anymore, but glad he left such a great bunch of books and audio/video recordings behind. Sort of like Chuck Missler. Get's me thinking.

Random thoughts
Lewis Sperry Chafer. My grandfather and mother on the Christian side loved his work. My Christian background is from a dispensational theological framework. That does NOT mean I haven't read other ideas because you can't make up the mind until you hear alternatives. I have friends in the Reform theology camp, in the past I read the major stuff in the NAR and in the Word of Faith stuff too. I'm aware of common ideas running thru these camps.

As I was excommunicated from that church I occasionally refer to in the late 90's I learned a tremendous amount about why some theology gives permission to sin (NAR, WOF) or in the case of talking with my friends in the Reform camp, why I DON'T follow their theology. Oh yes, that church was big on Dominionism too. and they were tolerant to the Oneness heresy (which was why I was reading Athanasius.

After that church I spent time in a nice Baptist church that was going face first into Purpose Driven Drivel and it's best friend, the Church Growth, Seeker Friendly movement aka Willow Creek stuff. That taught me just why I couldn't stand Rick Warren and Bill Hybels (or his wife Lynne big in the anti semitic "Christ at the Checkpoint" group. It gave me a deep aversion to the streams of apostasy infecting the non Pentecostal, non Reform sector of the church.

You might say these explorations into alternative theological frameworks gave me a working knowledge of their pov and in contrast what I really believe. God's version of Bible college I joke.

Doesn't mean I know it all, or even think I do. Just means I'm more sure of my opinions, having tested them against alternative points of view.

Why don't I quote the commentaries? I could- but that is a lot of work when I can just quote the Bible. Same reason as you said- my posts are too long as it is.

I can footnote, but it's a LOT of work. If I was trying to convince others based on someone else's work, or writing books I would do that. Or if anyone asks. Mostly I just dive into the Word and read it. then read it again and again, and again...... I've been hyper focused on some areas for decades and still seeing new stuff pop up every time I read those passages.

But writing out footnotes and a library of references is a lot of work and time and effort. Especially tracking down which author I read something in.

Time spent on that cuts into time spent looking thru other threads, writing answers or my own reading or listening offline. Or family time. I have something that behaves like MS and my energy is limited.

I prefer not to teach anymore. Especially if it means I'm teaching mixed company.

Instead, I share the joy of what I see in a particular passage, and if people agree, great, if they disagree, that's fine too.

Each person's progress thru life is bound to be influenced by the multiple people God puts in their way. Speakers, books they read, pastors they sit under.

They have to come to their own opinions. I merely point out how and where I got to my pov. Unless it's a major heresy popping up here on the boards, then I'll get serious.

Too exhausting otherwise trying to convince people. I leave that to the Holy Spirit and try to share the joy I feel exploring the Word. That is a joy you share too and even if we don't agree, it's fun exploring the ideas.

 

[mattfivefour]

1. A destruction determined even upon the whole earth -- Is in consensus understood to mean the known world to Judah

There's a lot I would like to comment on in your latest post, brother, but I just don't have the time at the moment as I'm about to go out the door and run necessary errands. However, I did want to commentb on your statement that I quoted above.

I'm always interested when I see statements such as "it is understood to mean". Such phrases are often used to blunt the force and intention of scripture. Prior to Israel becoming a nation, it was used frequently to explain away verses that led to conclusions that, in the thinking of a commentator, could not be true-- such as the prophetic passages that referred to the nation of Israel.

The Hebrew word eretz can have two meanings: the nation of Israel or the entire earth. A lexical study of scripture demonstrates that eretz is used far more frequently to refer to the Earth than it is to the state of Israel. To get the correct meeting in Isaiah 28:22 you have to look at the entire context. I would suggest that the entire context --historically, grammatically and scripturally-- argues against the possibility that in this verse it is merely referring to the nation of Israel. Therefore I respectfully stand with Margery's interpretation of Isaiah 28:22.

 

[Batman]

Stated like a true Batman. Straight, to the point. No apology. Even though we differ brother, gotta love it

Just to clarify if what I typed was as confusing as my re-read thinks it was.......The first white horse rider is the AC.......the second white horse rider is our King of Kings and Lord of Lords coming back to earth at the end of the 7-year tribulation period to reign and rule........and billions of believers are also on white horse riding with the King on that return.

I suppose it's possible that I could be wrong on the first white horse rider being the AC but the other 2 seem correct.

 

[mattfivefour]

I suppose it's possible that I could be wrong on the first white horse rider being the AC but the other 2 seem correct.

I don't think you're incorrect on anything, brother.

 

[Everlasting Life]

I am not aware that there is a scripture that tells us Israel trusts in the AC as Messiah.

Hi TCC, just popping in quickly to answer and then let the other good responses continue.


In Revelation 11:1, John’s given a measuring reed, typically 10 feet long, to measure the Temple of God, the Holy Place and Holy of Holies, the alter of incense and worshipers within.

In order for the Antichrist of Daniel 9 to desecrate the temple, this necessitates a physically built temple. It seems Israel builds a temple, but out of nationalism rather than out of a spirit filled relationship with God. Therefore, God permits trouble in order to spiritually draw Israel back to Him, thus Jeremiah 30:7 calls the Tribulation, ‘Jacob’s trouble’. Hence the outer Gentile court is not measured, permitting Gentiles to trample it, and the city of Jerusalem for 42 months, or 3 & 1/2 years, in judgment.

Christ’s Kingdom Temple is measured in Ezekiel, chapters 40 through 44. However, Johns measuring is connected to judgment, similar to Ezekiel chapters 8 and 9, where true worshipers in the Temple were marked in protection, with idol worshipers destroyed in judgment.

This act of measuring indicates an evaluation of God’s Holy property and worship. Just as man’s stature is short of John’s 10 foot measuring stick, so too false worshipers do not measure up to God’s divine standard. Especially when the Antichrist, known as the Man of Lawlessness, 2 Thessalonians 2 prophecies, takes his place in the Temple, demanding worship that only belongs to God. 11.52

This is of whom Jesus spoke of to the Jews in John 5:43, “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.”

This Anti-Christ will demand to be worshiped as God (2 Thess. 2:8-10) and it sounds like Israel will accept him as their ruler. As a result, in Luke 21 Jesus says, Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Unbelieving Israel will come under severe judgement.

Further, in Matthew 23 Jesus shares Israel will never see Him again until they say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’ Another words, when the nation finally accepts and believes in Jesus as their Savior.

Temples also point to spiritual temples. Jesus referred to His body as a temple in John 2. 1Corinthians 6:19 says that a believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and 1 Corinthians 3:16 describes the church as God’s Spiritual Temple.

How we worship God matters. John 4:23 says the kind of worshipers God seeks are those who worship Him in Spirit and truth. Part of John’s measuring may also be a measurement of preserving a remnant, those who are worshiping God in Spirit and Truth, with the alter picturing the way this remnant will approach God…..by faith in the work of Christ at Calvary.

 

[TCC]

Just to clarify if what I typed was as confusing as my re-read thinks it was.......The first white horse rider is the AC.......the second white horse rider is our King of Kings and Lord of Lords coming back to earth at the end of the 7-year tribulation period to reign and rule........and billions of believers are also on white horse riding with the King on that return.

I suppose it's possible that I could be wrong on the first white horse rider being the AC but the other 2 seem correct.

Thanks brother. It made sense though. I didn't mean for my comment to suggest you are incorrect. The difference for me in what you stated is we view the white horse 1st seal differently. It is a blessed heart that you consider what you wrote. There is no one else on earth that i know of that would side with my view. Where we disagree brother, you are in massively good company. Blessings.

 

[TCC]

Hi TCC, just popping in quickly to answer and then let the other good responses continue.


In Revelation 11:1, John’s given a measuring reed, typically 10 feet long, to measure the Temple of God, the Holy Place and Holy of Holies, the alter of incense and worshipers within.

In order for the Antichrist of Daniel 9 to desecrate the temple, this necessitates a physically built temple. It seems Israel builds a temple, but out of nationalism rather than out of a spirit filled relationship with God. Therefore, God permits trouble in order to spiritually draw Israel back to Him, thus Jeremiah 30:7 calls the Tribulation, ‘Jacob’s trouble’. Hence the outer Gentile court is not measured, permitting Gentiles to trample it, and the city of Jerusalem for 42 months, or 3 & 1/2 years, in judgment.

Christ’s Kingdom Temple is measured in Ezekiel, chapters 40 through 44. However, Johns measuring is connected to judgment, similar to Ezekiel chapters 8 and 9, where true worshipers in the Temple were marked in protection, with idol worshipers destroyed in judgment.

This act of measuring indicates an evaluation of God’s Holy property and worship. Just as man’s stature is short of John’s 10 foot measuring stick, so too false worshipers do not measure up to God’s divine standard. Especially when the Antichrist, known as the Man of Lawlessness, 2 Thessalonians 2 prophecies, takes his place in the Temple, demanding worship that only belongs to God. 11.52

This is of whom Jesus spoke of to the Jews in John 5:43, “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.”

This Anti-Christ will demand to be worshiped as God (2 Thess. 2:8-10) and it sounds like Israel will accept him as their ruler. As a result, in Luke 21 Jesus says, Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Unbelieving Israel will come under severe judgement.

Further, in Matthew 23 Jesus shares Israel will never see Him again until they say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’ Another words, when the nation finally accepts and believes in Jesus as their Savior.

Temples also point to spiritual temples. Jesus referred to His body as a temple in John 2. 1Corinthians 6:19 says that a believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and 1 Corinthians 3:16 describes the church as God’s Spiritual Temple.

How we worship God matters. John 4:23 says the kind of worshipers God seeks are those who worship Him in Spirit and truth. Part of John’s measuring may also be a measurement of preserving a remnant, those who are worshiping God in Spirit and Truth, with the alter picturing the way this remnant will approach God…..by faith in the work of Christ at Calvary.

Thanks Everlasting. Amen, these verses help to paint a picture. Although they share a lot about the AC., It doesn't show him necessarily as s messiah. "you will accept one who comes in his own name," comes pretty darn close though (by comparative nature). In Zechariah 11 it seems he is noted as a shepherd. That says a lot. So it would seem some form of personal oversight with Israel is a role. Blessings.

 

[TCC]

to answer yes, I've read commentaries and I read conservative theological books by a number of authors. The list is pretty long. Some I've only skimmed thru, others like Romans by William R Newell are in my list of books for a desert island that I never want to be without. I prefer the conservative dispensational authors for the most part. Hitchcock, Ron Rhodes, Tommy Ice, David Reagan, Jack Kelley- his site is even more useful than his book. Andy Woods, Lee Brainard, Ken Johnson and more in the more modern camp. Older authors are Tozer, Pink, Chafer, Newell again, Walvoord, Ironside, Edersheim etc. ECF I prefer the ones before about 250AD.

but I go up to Athanasius - I get bored with the later ones, and the Catholic fathers much after him especially that classic City of God by Augustine so I'm not really well rounded but I found the ECF by researching the Trinity and I figured I might as well start with him. I was hooked by his sense of humour which comes thru even after all these centuries. I borrowed a book out of the ECF series that someone loaned me. I couldn't afford to buy my own copies. Years later George gave me a Kindle and I found a lot of good stuff on Amazon for very cheap. including some of the volumes of the ECF that I like.

That rabbit trail eventually led me to Dr Ken Johnson's interesting work on the early church fathers, and from there to his research into ancient rabbinic and church sources. I have most of what he's written. It's actually quite informative when you find out why the old ones thought the way they did about a subject. Like us, they may not be right, but their opinions matter.

I prefer to read widely on any subject, so I can pick up a number of points of view. Then on studying the Bible passage I form an opinion. I learn best by reading, but I also like to listen to people like Chuck Missler for example. I don't agree with everything he says, but he starts me off on the most exciting rabbit trails. I have nearly everything he published.

The limitations of being restricted to commentaries- Commentaries are a great start, but they are not the final word on the subject. The Bible interprets the Bible. The writers of commentaries come to the Bible with their presuppositions in place. It's good to know where they are coming from.

I love following up the cross references or finding out if a word like Hell came from Sheol (I made sure in the passages above) because if a different word is used, it might place a different meaning on it.

I also like to read/listen to some interesting people like LA Marzulli, Tom Horn and Douglas Woodward presenting off the wall stuff because life is more fun that way. And sometimes they make a lot of sense in one area, while I won't agree with other parts of their thinking (Tom Horn in particular). They send me off on interesting rabbit trails and while I'm arguing with them in my head, I'm digging into the Word to see if they are right. I keep meaning to read David Flynn's stuff- it's extreme out there off the wall and downright nuts in spots, but I want to know why he thought the way he did.

Someone that thinks along those lines, but is more grounded is Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council. I have one of his books, not finished but I mean to get back into it. When I see/listen to his lectures on YouTube he is really fun to explore with. I'm sad he's with the Lord and not writing anymore, but glad he left such a great bunch of books and audio/video recordings behind. Sort of like Chuck Missler. Get's me thinking.

Random thoughts
Lewis Sperry Chafer. My grandfather and mother on the Christian side loved his work. My Christian background is from a dispensational theological framework. That does NOT mean I haven't read other ideas because you can't make up the mind until you hear alternatives. I have friends in the Reform theology camp, in the past I read the major stuff in the NAR and in the Word of Faith stuff too. I'm aware of common ideas running thru these camps.

As I was excommunicated from that church I occasionally refer to in the late 90's I learned a tremendous amount about why some theology gives permission to sin (NAR, WOF) or in the case of talking with my friends in the Reform camp, why I DON'T follow their theology. Oh yes, that church was big on Dominionism too. and they were tolerant to the Oneness heresy (which was why I was reading Athanasius.

After that church I spent time in a nice Baptist church that was going face first into Purpose Driven Drivel and it's best friend, the Church Growth, Seeker Friendly movement aka Willow Creek stuff. That taught me just why I couldn't stand Rick Warren and Bill Hybels (or his wife Lynne big in the anti semitic "Christ at the Checkpoint" group. It gave me a deep aversion to the streams of apostasy infecting the non Pentecostal, non Reform sector of the church.

You might say these explorations into alternative theological frameworks gave me a working knowledge of their pov and in contrast what I really believe. God's version of Bible college I joke.

Doesn't mean I know it all, or even think I do. Just means I'm more sure of my opinions, having tested them against alternative points of view.

Why don't I quote the commentaries? I could- but that is a lot of work when I can just quote the Bible. Same reason as you said- my posts are too long as it is.

I can footnote, but it's a LOT of work. If I was trying to convince others based on someone else's work, or writing books I would do that. Or if anyone asks. Mostly I just dive into the Word and read it. then read it again and again, and again...... I've been hyper focused on some areas for decades and still seeing new stuff pop up every time I read those passages.

But writing out footnotes and a library of references is a lot of work and time and effort. Especially tracking down which author I read something in.

Time spent on that cuts into time spent looking thru other threads, writing answers or my own reading or listening offline. Or family time. I have something that behaves like MS and my energy is limited.

I prefer not to teach anymore. Especially if it means I'm teaching mixed company.

Instead, I share the joy of what I see in a particular passage, and if people agree, great, if they disagree, that's fine too.

Each person's progress thru life is bound to be influenced by the multiple people God puts in their way. Speakers, books they read, pastors they sit under.

They have to come to their own opinions. I merely point out how and where I got to my pov. Unless it's a major heresy popping up here on the boards, then I'll get serious.

Too exhausting otherwise trying to convince people. I leave that to the Holy Spirit and try to share the joy I feel exploring the Word. That is a joy you share too and even if we don't agree, it's fun exploring the ideas.

Thanks Margery. You have quite a seasoned background there my sister. So you stated you were excommunicated from a church? I am not sure which you meant. It sounds like you had been excoummincated from a NAR Church? lol. Not sure if I have that right. But just trying to track.

Thanks for such a full and wide response dear sister. I figured you had dabbled in commentaries quite a bit. And I really appecreciate your heart in seeing the many different sides. The reason I was asking though is because although there are some definite correlations of prophetic intent with Isaiah 28 showing up in the first century, I did not see any commentated extend those concepts to the tribulation age. Might you know of any?

By my asking that in my heart does not infer that extending Isaiah 28 into the tribulation is wrong if no commentary affirms that. Commentaries are helpful guidelines. But will be wrong somewhere. All of them will. For example in what I mean on this is Daniels animal vision (chapter 7). Most commentaries see the lion, bear, leapard, and monster as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. And I do believe this is correct to a degree. In that they have local fulfillment but extend into the end time nations (seen in allusion to them in Rev 13). Yet I have not come across a known scholar that would see those animals as end time nations.

Like for me what does not work is Babylon. Because chapter 7 was after king Nebu's death. So the lion did not seem to relate to him. Sure I suppose we can have a retroactive sense to it. But I am not aware of prophesy that does rhetro. But it is possible. I mean I do see how those animals fit Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. And it might be a helpful vision to tie what was happening and will be happening in the near term to affirm a greater implication of that prophesy's accuracy in the end times. Which is how I would look at it. But still, I do not see any commentary willing to do that. For me, the lion is America, the bear, Russia. And the leapard is a tough one if hazarding a guess. The UN? lol. The monster of course will be the final 10 nation confederacy. So we know there is a future raminifcation. I would see Rome too good a fit not to say it also fit in the local fulfilling. So if there is a future Rome monster, I would see a future lion, bear, and leapard too. But no commentary would give into that. lol.

Plus there is this I see with that issue: Daniel was told that his prophecy would be shut up till the time it is for. So to comment on a book like that dealing with prophecy that will be shut up to one making a commentary seems like an excercise in futility. Yet it would seem our place in a people that book is shut up to, can see "some of it." So they did. But we tend to then go..."Oh ok, so then, got it. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greec, and Rome. Ok, now we are good." But it is a book that has a later aperture. And I don't think I have a lot of support in seeing America as the lion. I mean to me it fits like in spades. But the tendency even before the Trump years was to dismiss America from prophesy in general. Now with NAR and Trump and all, its almost like "You'd better dismiss America, punk." lol. Or so is kind of how it feels. But I don't really let those vibes change my perspective. If something helpful happens in general then yes, I'd be willing to change that. But I don't mind being the minority at all.

So even though I ask about your affiliation to commentaries, commentaries only go so far. As an example, even in how Pastor Adrian weighed in with his views on how best taken is "the whole earth" in Isaiah 28. I agree there is context there that would at least grant extension to the 1st century and perhaps beyond. Its just when there are commentaries that see prophecy in verses for the 1st century but don't see them in the end times, 1 of 2 things is happening. Either they are more accurate, or they only went so far. As an overall perspective I would in general see that if the import seems to highlight the 1st century, it may be a more reasonable place to stop. Not that it has to be. But in order to not bring too many competing ideas into the end times, it could be a pitt stop where providing an end time context perhaps too widely might introduce extra things into it that may not need to be considered as much when considering the whole of what to look at in end times.

And I say all that not to say it does not belong in the end times. I am just stating more or less how I might see some of their helpful import as a gauge. But its by no means a perfect science. But I am just offering like a general rule of thumb. We see many in the watcher world bring all manner of OT prophesies into the end times. Some belong, some may belong, and some don't. And so like in our context of tendencies for that sort of thing to be somewhat off the hook, I am just sharing like a general rule of thumb in how I might esteem the helpful pointers commentaries might be able to provide a long the way. Blessings.

 

[Margery]

Thanks Margery. You have quite a seasoned background there my sister. So you stated you were excommunicated from a church? I am not sure which you meant. It sounds like you had been excoummincated from a NAR Church? lol. Not sure if I have that right. But just trying to track.

Thanks for such a full and wide response dear sister. I figured you had dabbled in commentaries quite a bit. And I really appecreciate your heart in seeing the many different sides. The reason I was asking though is because although there are some definite correlations of prophetic intent with Isaiah 28 showing up in the first century, I did not see any commentated extend those concepts to the tribulation age. Might you know of any?

By my asking that in my heart does not infer that extending Isaiah 28 into the tribulation is wrong if no commentary affirms that. Commentaries are helpful guidelines. But will be wrong somewhere. All of them will. For example in what I mean on this is Daniels animal vision (chapter 7). Most commentaries see the lion, bear, leapard, and monster as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. And I do believe this is correct to a degree. In that they have local fulfillment but extend into the end time nations (seen in allusion to them in Rev 13). Yet I have not come across a known scholar that would see those animals as end time nations.

Like for me what does not work is Babylon. Because chapter 7 was after king Nebu's death. So the lion did not seem to relate to him. Sure I suppose we can have a retroactive sense to it. But I am not aware of prophesy that does rhetro. But it is possible. I mean I do see how those animals fit Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. And it might be a helpful vision to tie what was happening and will be happening in the near term to affirm a greater implication of that prophesies accuracy in the end times. Which is how I would look at it. But still, I do not see any commentary willing to do that. For me, the lion is America, the bear, Russia. And the leapard is a tough one if hazarding a guess. The UN? lol. The monster of course will be the final 10 nation confederacy. So we know there is a future raminifcation. I would see Rome too good a fit not to say it also fit in the local fulfilling. So if there is a future Rome monster, I would see a future lion, bear, and leapard too. But no commentary would give into that. lol.

Plus there is this I see with that issue: Daniel was told that his prophecy would be shut up till the time it is for. So to comment on a book like that dealing with prophecy that will be shut up to one making a commentary seems like an excercise in futility. Yet it would seem our place in a people that book is shut up to, can see "some of it." So they did. But we tend to then go..."Oh ok, so then, got it. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greec, and Rome. Ok, now we are good." But it is a book that has a later aperture. And I don't think I have a lot of support in seeing America as the lion. I mean to me it fits like in spades. But the tendency even before the Trump years was to dismiss America from prophesy in general. Now with NAR and Trump and all, its almost like "You'd better dismiss America, punk." lol. Or so is kind of how it feels. But I don't really let those vibes change my perspective. If something helpful happens in general then yes, I'd be willing to change that. But I don't mind being the minority at all.

So even though I ask about your affiliation to commentaries, commentaries only go so far. As an example, even in how Pastor Adrian weighted in with his views on how best taken is "the whole earth" in Isaiah 28. I agree there is context there that would at least grant extension to the 1st century and perhaps beyond. Its just when there are commentaries that see prophecy in verses for the 1st century but don't see them in the end times, 1 of 2 things is happening. Either they are more accurate, or they only went so far. As an overall perspective I would in general see that if the import seems to highlight the 1st century, it may be a more reasonable place to stop. Not that it has to be. But in order to not bring too many competing ideas into the end times, it could be a pitt stop where providing an end time context perhaps too widely might introduce extra things into it that may not need to be considered as much when considering the whole of what to look at in end times.

And I say all that not to say it does not belong in the end times. I am just stating more or less how I might see some of their helpful import as a gauge. But its by no means a perfect science. But I am just offering like a general rule of thumb. We see many in the watcher world bring all manner of OT prophesies into the end times. Some belong, some may belong, and some don't. And so like in our context of tendencies for that sort of thing to be somewhat off the hook, I wam just sharing like a general rule of thumb in how I might esteem the helpful pointers commentaries might be able to provide a long the way. Blessings.

Yes it was an NAR church but just around the time CPeter Wagner was gathering together like minded people. It was also part of the Toronto "blessing" and had dominionist ideas as well as a background involving the Latter Rain movement. George and I saw spiritual abuse, we saw anti semitism start to take over, we heard the head pastor lie from the pulpit about another pastor and many more things that culminated in our leaving that church publicly with a mail out of about 90 letters to the head denomination (which our ex pastor had been a leader of and was supposedly under the "covering" of) explaining in detail why these things were not Biblical and as a result we were formally excommunicated from the pulpit the Sunday after our letters hit.

It has ended up being an absolute gold mine of experience in terms of heresy and apostasy and as I said, the Lord used it to teach us a lot about not accepting bad theology.

Roots will always have fruits.

As for the other. What you ask for IS out there, but I think it might be a good idea for you to start investigating these things and hunting them down. I know you'll enjoy the fruits of your labours. You are built that way.

I'll give you a head start and some areas to start the hunt.

I would actually suggest you start listening to Soothkeep (Lee Brainard's You Tube channel) on a regular basis as he goes into much of what you are wondering about. Read his books, read Dr Ken Johnson who is leading some of the research into the Dead Sea Scrolls and always has stuff on discoveries within the Early Church Fathers. I would also suggest anything by Dr Mark Hitchcock, Dr David Reagan, Dr Ron Rhodes, Andy Woods as well as a deep dive into Jack Kelley's site.

Here is a good list of his articles from Rapture Ready Jack Kelley keeping in mind he passed into the Lord's presence in 2015

here is his site: Grace thru faith

I'll put some more sites in here but for some reason my computer just quit letting me copy and paste

Give it some time, keep digging because you may not find everything right away. I've been enjoying Dr Ken Johnson since I think his second book and that was a while ago. over a decade now.

As you start to get a grasp of these, launch a thread for more discussions. I know I'll be happy to bat ideas around!

 

[TCC]

There's a lot I would like to comment on in your latest post, brother, but I just don't have the time at the moment as I'm about to go out the door and run necessary errands. However, I did want to commentb on your statement that I quoted above.

I'm always interested when I see statements such as "it is understood to mean". Such phrases are often used to blunt the force and intention of scripture. Prior to Israel becoming a nation, it was used frequently to explain away verses that led to conclusions that, in the thinking of a commentator, could not be true-- such as the prophetic passages that referred to the nation of Israel.

The Hebrew word eretz can have two meanings: the nation of Israel or the entire earth. A lexical study of scripture demonstrates that eretz is used far more frequently to refer to the Earth than it is to the state of Israel. To get the correct meeting in Isaiah 28:22 you have to look at the entire context. I would suggest that the entire context --historically, grammatically and scripturally-- argues against the possibility that in this verse it is merely referring to the nation of Israel. Therefore I respectfully stand with Margery's interpretation of Isaiah 28:22.

Thanks Pastor Adrian. I appreciate your reply. In what I meant was more so that with commentaries in that area they seem to all see it as local or regional to Israel. And in that, I might take it like that or not so much. But what coming to that point of notice opened up for me is a way in understanding how Margery might consider the weight of commentaries in contrast to views she may hold that go beyond them. Like in what general way might she see the function of commentary in where she might go beyond them.

In this you give a great example in how commentators have used their logic to rule out a return of Israel for centuries (demonstrating the temporal mindedness often used in commentary--amen). Just a note on that that I found ironic. And this is just for chuckle sake...having no bearing on your point. But in arguing for a point of "whole earth" consideration, you used an example of where commentators would have tended to see larger or beyond Israel. Whereas you rightly see they should have "localized" passages to Israel. So in irony your example of commentary innacuracy kind of demonstrated how "localizing to Israel" would have been more appropriate for those who would not see Israel returning. So in that your saying "whole earth--not local to Isreal" by using how commentaries did not localize passages referring to Isreal enough. Not localizing passages enough. I just found that kind of ironic. But like in a chuckle way. What I just said here has no bearing on your point that because of context you see "whole earth" as a better fit.

In theory, its not that I disagree with Margery in seeing Isaiah extend to end times. It was more my digging a bit to understand in general if she has some rule of thumb in regards to going beyond commentary. I tried to describe an example of that with how I might in one sense. So it was more the sense when presented with how scholarship might play into how we look at something or not. In this sense for me it would just be: "Ok so a set of consensus does not see whole earth and end times here." And to the degree that might apply, I might consider. Or might not.

But the greater context in asking on that point was I believe more to do with "a covenant with death." Because there I would have normally just seen its local historical import. But was we looked at it together, yes, it would surely seem to point to the first century as well prophetically (which was kind of shock to me...for I was familiar with other surrounding passages showing up also in the first century). But this was a time where not only is there no official antichrist but a time where Christ is spoken of to arrive. So in that it would seem that (and this is to my shock in considering) that a covenant with death seems to relates also to the 1st century commitment to the Jews and their creed it would seem. Because the Jews made no covenant with any nation or person in the 1st century but had to push their views onto Rome to get consensus. It was not like Rome came to the Jews to deliver Christ to death. It was the other way around. So like in that sense (upon the first century) how might the Jews have made a covenant with death? In some way it may speak of it not...but later implications of it when the people of the prince comes. There might be some interesting considerations there. But as it becomes clear that these passages end up in the first century seem to imply "something."

Like in the Isaiah passages it was with making deals with other countries. It refered to a specific people group Israel made deals with. But in the first century, they did not have that condition. Yet it is demonstrated that Isaiah 28 echoes into the 1st century for sure. So it would just seem that whatever it might mean prophetically too in the 1st century might help inform what it can mean as a whole. And that might lend strength to seeing a covenant with death toward a literal AC view, or it might tend to reduce its probability. But in that prophesy does seem to at least make a Pitt stop in the first century, with all that going on in Isaiah 28, it would seem that its import there might be as important or maybe even more important as to how "covenant with death" may or may not apply when it comes to the end times and the literal AC. If that makes sense.

Well I am not trying to open up a can of worms here....lol or stress need to go back and forth on this. I know you are busy. That is not what I am trying to do here. Just maybe some food for thought. Or if @Margery would like to weigh in on this point, that would be awesome. Thanks for sharing. You make a good point though. In passages that have extenuated meaning beyond their immidiate context, I would imagine all kinds of tools additionally come into play that would not be potentials if there were nothing beyond its immidate context informing us. Blessings brother.