5 Common Mistakes When Studying End Time Prophecy -brayley

Some good, solid, thinking here Greg. Thanks for posting it.

Greg,

Was this message done by Eli?

Murray

Let me draw an example for clarity using a straightforward Scripture that has been repeatedly abused in this way. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 reads: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Now from this very Scripture amazing speculation has been deduced. It is said:

1) this is not the coming of the Lord Jesus
2) this is a secret snatching away of the Church
3) this will not be seen, heard or felt by anyone but the Christians
4) this preludes "the Great Tribulation"
5) there will be people left behind who can still be saved
and so forth...

This, I think, is the most blatant example of all. I have pointed it out over the years and when I have the person always points to someone smarter than me as their source. A person can be a triple doctorate and be 'wrong'. The passage is too strait forward to tamper with.

Many Christians hold to a false idea that the Church has replaced the nation of Israel as God's chosen people, or that the Church is made up of all those that call themselves 'Christians', a largely Gentile connotation. Let me remind us of some basic Biblical facts:

First of all, the word "Church" comes from the Greek word "ecclesia" which means "the called out ones". Isn't that wonderful? "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5) Our Father in heaven is preparing a Bride for His Son Jesus, made up of those who are called out of the world according to the foreknowledge and wisdom of God. The Church did not begin some time in A.D., but truly began when men began to call upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. It is not a New Testament institution, but has been in motion since the foundation of the world, but only now manifested in these last days. Hebrews chapter 11, known as the Hall of Faith, records those great individuals who laid hold of God through faith and won the good report. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses... all part of the company of saints.

This is somewhat of a new thought to me. I do see in the OT where gentiles were "saved." Rahab being one example. But does this line of thinking take away from Isreal being a distict people of God?

This is somewhat of a new thought to me. I do see in the OT where gentiles were "saved." Rahab being one example. But does this line of thinking take away from Isreal being a distict people of God?

The Church did not begin some time in A.D., but truly began when men began to call upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. It is not a New Testament institution, but has been in motion since the foundation of the world, but only now manifested in these last days.

This is somewhat of a new thought to me. I do see in the OT where gentiles were "saved." Rahab being one example. But does this line of thinking take away from Isreal being a distict people of God?

Josh, that's a good question. Let me elaborate:

No, it doesn't take away from the distinction of Israel. We need to remember a very important Scripture:

[i]"For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."[/i] - Romans 11:16-25

I say, this entire chapter is one of the most overlooked chapter in the whole Bible which leads to erroneous thinking about the Church and the Jews. Let us never ever forget we are GRAFTED in to the tree, the Jewish tree, Abraham being the root. There is no Church of Israel and Church of Gentiles. All are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). Paul warns us not to boast against the vine or be conceited. Many people don't like the fact that we are grafted into the Jewish tree and attempt to disconnect the two. Remember, we being Gentiles were not originally called by God, we did not seek God; He already had a people called by His name. It is by the mercy of God we are grafted INTO that people! God has not chosen a new people, He has included the Gentiles into His already chosen people.

So what is the Church? The Church is all those called out by God. All those of the household of faith, from the beginning of the world to the end. Jesus is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" and by faith did men look to Him from the beginning until now. [i]"The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart."[/i] (Romans 10:8) God gave a promise to Adam for all mankind that a Saviour would come and save us from our sins. This is the faith men hold to.

The apostles were Jewish, and they were the pillars of the Church! Jesus was Jewish, our Bible is Jewish, everything about the Church is Jewish because we have been grafted into to the Jewish tree! To disconnect Gentiles and Jews is absolutely wrong.

Now not all Jews believe, are they of the tree? No. But not all Jews are unbelievers either, are they of the tree? Yes. A believing Jew is a true Jew, of the seed of Abraham and of the word of faith. An unbelieving Jew is of the seed of Abraham but not of the word of faith. A Gentile is not of the seed of Abraham but of the word of faith. It is really not complicated. A Jewish believer overlaps both seed and faith. He is both Jew by nature and by the Spirit. It is not separate.

Therefore heed the words of Paul: [i]"Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee."[/i] God has not utterly forsaken His people. For if the casting away of them has been the riches of the world and the receiving of the Gentiles, how much for their reconciliation!

[i]"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."[/i] (Romans 11:29-36)

I say, this entire chapter is one of the most overlooked chapter in the whole Bible which leads to erroneous thinking about the Church and the Jews. Let us never ever forget we are GRAFTED in to the tree, the Jewish tree, Abraham being the root.

Hi Eli,

I enjoyed the article very much. I wonder if you have considered that Jesus Christ is actually the 'Root'? That He is [u]T[/u]he [u]S[/u]eed to which the promises were actually made? (Gal 3:16)

God Bless,

Robert

I say, this entire chapter is one of the most overlooked chapter in the whole Bible which leads to erroneous thinking about the Church and the Jews. Let us never ever forget we are GRAFTED in to the tree, the Jewish tree, Abraham being the root.

One of the problems we have here is that we are using different terms as though they are synonyms; this always causes confusion. We need some working definitions of Hebrew
Israel
Jew
The Circumcision We also need to keep in mind that what the United Nations calls "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan]Israel[/url]" is a modern sovereign state and may or may not have any relationship to the Biblical use of the word 'Israel'.

The word Jew derives from Judah. The term is used in the scriptures from the time of the Babylonian captivity: 2Kings 16:6; 18:26,28; 25:25; 2Chr 32:18; Ezra 4:12,23; 5:1,5; 6:7-8,14; Neh 1:2; 2:16; 4:1-2,12; 5:1,8,17; 6:6; 13:23-24; Esth 2:5; 3:4,6,10,13; 4:3,7,13-14,16; 5:13; 6:10,13; 8:1,3,5,7-9,11,13,16-9:3; 9:5-6,10,12-13,15-16,18-20,22-25,27-31; 10:3; Is 36:11,13; Jer 32:12; 34:9; 38:19; 40:11-12,15; 41:3; 44:1; 52:28,30; Dan 3:8,12; Zech 8:23.

The earliest of these references is 2 Kings 16:6 which refers to the alliance of Syria and Israel (the Northern Kingdom) which drove 'the Jews from Elath'.king of Syria. The position of this scripture is significant as 2 Kings 17 is the account of the end of 'Israel'. “In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.”
(2Kings 17:6 KJVS) Samaria, (the city) was taken and the northern tribes of 'Israel' were deported to Assyria; this is key date BC 722. From this point the northern tribes pass out of biblical history and into legend.

In the Old Testament then, the term Jew does not mean what it means in the New Testament. In the OT it is not a religious term or a description on the descendants of Abraham but is a term describing the inhabitants of the nation state of Judah. It is not, and this is important, at this time a synonym for Israel. In fact, it is a term used to distinguish the remnants of Judah [u]from[/u] the banished nation of 'Israel'. You can see why this can get confusing. ;-) In the book of Jeremiah the word 'Israel' has to be read carefully with regard to the context to discover who Jeremiah is speaking about. Most times when he says 'Israel' he means 'Israel' as distinct from Judah. (Israel had already gone into captivity 120 years earlier. However when he describes God as 'the God of Israel' he is thinking of the the whole nation as it had been under Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon. We might call it 'ideal Israel'.

120 years after God had banished the northern Kingdom of Israel the southern Kingdom of Judah also went into captivity; Israel to Assyria and Judah to Babylonia. Both the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom had been emptied of its 'rightful tenants' (God's covenant people). Some 70 years later a tiny remnant returned from Babylon to Judeae. I estimate that at the time of David's ill-fated census the total population of the united nation was upwards of 6 million. The numbers that returned during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah were less that 50,000. (Can someone do the math for me? What percentage returned? It is less than 1%) To give some sense of what this means consider an American megachurch of 5000 people. Imagine them being taken into captivity and 40 people returning 70 years later, and perhaps less than 10 were the original deportees.

In effect this was a brand new beginning. This tiny remnant is really the remnant of a remnant.; Judah was what remained when Israel was taken captive. That remnant, Judah, went into Babylonian captivity and from that 'remnant' a tiny 'remnant' returned to re-seed the land. The astonishing thing to note is that this remnant now become the sole inheritors of the promises which God made at Sinai. There is a significant phrase in Ezra which describes this tiny remnant of Judah as 'all Israel'. The have become the carriers of the promise and destiny of 'Israel'. “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty. And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments. So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and [u]all Israel in their cities[/u].”
(Ezra 2:64-70 KJVS)This tiny remnant of 'Judah' had become 'Israel'.

I am not sure that the Old Testament ever refers to the 'land' as 'Israel'. Israel is the people and the 'land of Israel' is the land which is possessed by Israel. It is not a land called 'Israel' but the earthly possession of the people called Israel. I am open to correction on this, but even if examples could be found to show otherwise I am convinced that the people rather than the land is the carrier of the name 'Israel'. It was not until [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan]November 29th, 1947[/url] that we have a piece of real estate called 'Israel'.

Perhaps I'll wait a little for any feedback before pursuing the other definitions. We still need to see how this people got its name and what it signifies.

Hi Ron,

Perhaps I'll wait a little for any feedback before pursuing the other definitions.

I have struggled to understand how Abraham could actually be the 'Root', though I understand the issue of Abrahamic faith. Maybe I am mixing metaphors here when I point to Galatians 3:16? When I think of being 'grafted in' I am thinking of being grafted into Jesus Christ, the True Vine.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:5)

The Jews who were heirs to the righteousness of God by faith would have been the 'natural' branches. This would be those 'circumcised' referred to in Romans 3:

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

It seems to me that the object of our faith has to be Jesus Christ. We are all 'in' by faith (either naturally or grafted) and that faith is the faith of Abraham. But it seems to be a hard saying that one could be grafted into 'Abrahamic Faith'. It seems easier for me to apprehend if I think that folk are in Jesus Christ through Abrahamic Faith.

Have I misunderstood this?

God Bless,

-Robert

As I understand it, the root is Abrahamic Faith IN Christ.

Hi Eli,

Thanks for the clarification. I am anxious to hear Ron's reply also. He has an excellent study called "Abraham My Friend" that is wonderful. I printed the whole thing out and put it in a notebook. The problem with my point is that it infers that folk before the time of Christ could believe in Christ. I think the solution to this is that their faith was actually in God. They only had a limited revelation, but they exercised faith because of that revelation. I suppose we could say that they had faith in the promised 'Seed', but that would be limited also. Somehow it has to play out, I just am not sure how.

I'll be out for about 10 days so I will likely not be back to reply. I'll try to look at this again then.

God Bless,

-Robert

Brother Robert,

I agree. No one knew who the Messiah was before Jesus came, not even John the Baptist knew until he saw the Spirit light upon his cousin like a dove after coming up out of the water. But I am certain, though they did not know who the Son of Man would be, they knew what He was going to do. As you have pointed out, God gave man the promise of the Seed, and men rightly understood that to be a promise of a coming Deliverer. Most interesting is that in Genesis 4, Abel correctly sacrifices a lamb, an offering of blood, and God accepted it. I believe this reveals that man understood that Messiah would come and shed His blood for their sins. Noah also offered sacrifices, which leads me to think that the institution of sacrifice was introduced by God to Adam at the promise of the Seed, who passed it on to his sons, who passed it on through the generations unto Noah. Another example of this is Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, where he reckoned that God could give him back the dead. Powerful! Time passed and God revealed more about His Son though the prophets, etc, and today we know exactly who He is: Jesus the Christ.

Therefore, I believe that faith in Christ, though not as defined as we have it today, was the same faith of these saints of old. They looked to Him who was to come, we look to Him who has already come; and we all look toward His great and final coming when He shall quicken our mortal bodies, both Old Testament and New Testament believers, with a shout: "Come forth!" (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

[i]"Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"[/i] (John 11:23-26)

Just some initial thoughts. God bless you too, brother!
-Eli

Hi Robert

It seems to me that the object of our faith has to be Jesus Christ. We are all 'in' by faith (either naturally or grafted) and that faith is the faith of Abraham. But it seems to be a hard saying that one could be grafted into 'Abrahamic Faith'. It seems easier for me to apprehend if I think that folk are in Jesus Christ through Abrahamic Faith.

We have a whole list of pre-Abrahamic saints in Hebrews 11 who were 'justified by faith'. I don't know that either they or Abraham were consciously focused on the person of Christ. The basic statement of Abraham-type-faith seems to be “And he believed in Jehovah. And he reckoned it to him for righteousness.”
(Gen 15:6 ASV)Abraham had received several revelations relating to the character of the God upon whom he now leans. I think faith must be in a person rather than a thing but I don't know that those pre-Abraham believers had a very fully revelation. However, it appears it was enough for them to believe God too.

I think it may be mixing two different images to link the Galatians 'Seed' with the Roman's olive tree. I know a fundamental image of the New Testament is being 'rooted in Christ' but I don't think that is in view in Romans 11.

The reason I speak of Abrahamic faith is because is that the Gentile believers are not grafted into the branches but into the root of the olive tree. The nature of the tree is found in its root. If the same nature is missing in the branches they are broken off. And if the same nature is found in believing Gentiles they are grafted in. But they are grafted into the Olive Tree not into the olive branches. The figure continues in its warning that if the Gentile looses his 'believing nature' he will also be broken off. Sobering stuff.

I think the words of John Baptist are significant here. “Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
(Luke 3:7-9 KJVS) I did a little tree-felling in my scouting days and laying the axe to the tree is the way you take aim. This seems to be John saying 'God is taking aim and is about to sever you from the root because you don't have the right kind of fruit on your branches.'

To tell this people that they gained nothing by having Abraham as their father is staggering! Their whole history and destiny rode on the fact as far as most of them believed. But here John cuts through it all. It seems to me that Paul is doing the same in Romans 11.

In Romans 11 those grafted-in Gentiles“And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;”
(Rom 11:17 KJVS) partake of the root not the branches. The root is not the Jewish nation but "that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom 4:12) This is pre-everything faith; pre-covenant, pre-circumcision. According to...“And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
(Rom 4:12 KJVS)... the saints of the circumcision era had to have BOTH circumcision AND Abrahamic-faith. Abrahamic-faith is not rule-keeping but total dependence upon another.

Hi Ron & Eli,

I'll be out for about 10 days so I will likely not be back to reply. I'll try to look at this again then.

Well, here I am at an internet Cafe' in Moab, UT! No kidding! $5 for 30 minutes, so this will be a little short. ;-)

He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, [u]if we believe [i]on him[/i] that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;[/u] Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

It is interesting to note here the emphasis on 'Him' being the object of Abraham's faith. His is certainly Jehovah (or YHWH). This is why I think Ron's emphasis on 'revelation' is so important. Folk can only respond to what God has revealed.

The root is not the Jewish nation but "that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom 4:12) This is pre-everything faith; pre-covenant, pre-circumcision.

I think I had been better off using a different title to the "Jewish Root's of the Christian Faith" thread a few years ago. It gave the wrong impression. I could have called it, "Abrahamic Roots", but I have trouble with that and am coming to a better understanding. The main text book I pull from is called, "Our Father Abraham." However, lets not kid ourselves here. When the Messianics say Abrahamic Roots (at least the ones I have known) they mean more than Abraham and some actually try to introduce Talmud and Mishna as legitimate works. So, defining our terms, as was suggested earlier (somewhere else?), is quite important.

Either way, the original post has been on my mind a bit. It is very hard for me to zoom out and think about Israel [i]not being[/i] a 'nation state' and the eschatological implications of that. I live within walking distance of Harry S. Truman's home and the concept of Israel as a nation is very deeply rooted in my (our local) thinking. It will take me some time to try to work through the issue.

Time is passing... maybe I'll ring again. I'm on a long business vacation and may or may not find another cafe such as this.

God Bless,

Robert

Quote Ron"

[i]I am not sure that the 'object of our faith' has to be Christ if we mean by 'object' a conscious focus.

We have a whole list of pre-Abrahamic saints in Hebrews 11 who were 'justified by faith'. I don't know that either they or Abraham were consciously focused on the person of Christ. The basic statement of Abraham-type-faith seems to be
“And he believed in Jehovah. And he reckoned it to him for righteousness.”[/i]

Hi Ron, I think you will agree that pre-Abrahamic saints' faith was not of the blind sort. They must have heard what God told them to do, and they obeyed. Levitical Jews are required to obey the laws also by faith.

In John 1:1

[b]"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the [i]Word was God[/i].[/b]"

Also bearing in mind Romans 10:17

[b]"So then [i]faith[/i] cometh by hearing, and hearing by the [i]word of God[/i][/b]."

For instance:

Abel : By faith to offer blood sacrifice
Noah : By faith to build the ark
Abraham: By faith to sacrifice Isaac
Jews: By faith to obey Levitical Laws(ideally)
Gentiles: By faith to believe/obey Christ

In my mind, throughout man's history, the object of one's faith has always been God's Word since It's part of the Trinity, first to hear and know what HE says, to believe what He says, and to do what HE says. Even though the Word had has come in various forms (audible voice,laws,prophets,written,Christ in flesh,Christ in Word).)

Why shouldn't the object of our faith be Christ for Christians, since Christ is the Living Word? Just as that same Word as the object of Abraham's
faith?

thanks, learning
In Christ,
mamaluk

I hope I was not giving the impression of negating the nation of Israel, that is the farthest thing from my mind. What I have attempted to do is define the Church, made up of all those of the household of faith. Israel, or perhaps better termed 'Jacob', are all those of the physical seed of Abraham to whom God made the original covenant. They are not utterly forsaken, God still has much to do with them yet. But we must understand this: [b]A Jewish believer is part of the Church as well as part of Jacob.[/b] He is of both parties at the same time: spiritually a member of the Body of Christ, and physically a Jew, descendant of Abraham.

Again, my original intention was to define the Church, not relinquish the nation of Israel.

Eli,

"A Jewish believer is part of the Church as well as part of Jacob. He is of both parties at the same time: spiritually a member "

I used to think that, I tend to think that he is part of Jacob alone, and probably he will remain and serve the King in the future Kingdom of Israel physically, should our Lord return soon. Spiritually, it will not be wrong to say that he's part Church, since the Lord Jesus is the centrality of both.

While the gentile Christian position is [b]united in [/b]the risen Christ with Him as the Head of the Body. I think what I'm saying is that, how can one be half and half, partly in the Lord and partly in the Jewish King, if indeed the Kingdom of Israel is to be restored in the future (which I believe),then he would become a part of the remnant, especially looking at this in the light of physical functionality.

On the other hand, one can say that we (gentile believers) are half and half too, spiritually speaking, since we've been grafted , am I confusing you?

interesting, thanks
mamaluk

(Whoops, posted twice)