Harvesting of the Earth

[Omegatime]

Revelation was written to Israel, not to Gentiles even though the unbelieving Gentile world will indeed be a focus of God's wrath. John was not an apostle to Gentiles, but to the twelve tribes as James stated in his epistle. Most assume the seven churches were Gentile churches, which isn't necessarily true given that Gentiles converting over to Messianic Judaism became Jews who were zealous for the Law.

MM

I would agree

 

[Beekeeper]

Revelation was written to Israel, not to Gentiles even though the unbelieving Gentile world will indeed be a focus of God's wrath. John was not an apostle to Gentiles, but to the twelve tribes as James stated in his epistle. Most assume the seven churches were Gentile churches, which isn't necessarily true given that Gentiles converting over to Messianic Judaism became Jews who were zealous for the Law.

MM

It is JESUS that addresses the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodocea.
Are you telling us that all the people that Jesus was addressing believed that they were under the law of Moses?

 

[GaryA]

1. The old covenant ('law') has been "replaced" by the new covenant ('grace') - where salvation and the Church is concerned.

Hebrews 8:

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Dare we pay close attention to the grammar, that verse doesn't at all say that the new covenant is now in force from a past activation. The Mosaic Law is still in force today all the way through the tribulation. Notice that the establishment of the new covenant is upon "better promises," not that it has yet become in force. Assuming that into the text is a timeline error.

MM

What part of "which was established" do you not understand...?

Please note that it is 'past tense' - meaning that it had already occurred at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.

With regard to the Mosaic Law, go back and take another look at post #107 - dare to pay close attention to #3 in the list.

The cross of Christ "did away" with the Mosaic Law in the sense of having to follow it according to commandment.

Do not misunderstand what I am saying. Jesus 'fulfilled' the 'law'. I am not saying that it has no relevance - "it was our schoolmaster" (Galations 3:24) - however, other than that, it has no spiritual standing as being 'active' in any sense - not even for [the] Jews.

And, don't say "Well - it was established but is not yet active." - a covenant becomes 'active' the moment it is 'established'.

This is not to say that a covenant cannot involve things that are yet future in terms of event or occurrence - this was certainly true of the Old Covenant. I am saying that the New Covenant is most certainly 'established' and 'in effect'.

 

[GaryA]

Revelation was written to Israel, not to Gentiles even though the unbelieving Gentile world will indeed be a focus of God's wrath. John was not an apostle to Gentiles, but to the twelve tribes as James stated in his epistle. Most assume the seven churches were Gentile churches, which isn't necessarily true given that Gentiles converting over to Messianic Judaism became Jews who were zealous for the Law.

MM

Revelation was written to:

1. "the seven churches which are in Asia" (Revelation 1:4,11)

2. all Christians of all ages (needless to say - all scripture is)

3. all people on earth (as a revelation of truth for all people)

 

[GaryA]

The New Covenant became 'in effect' the moment Jesus resurrected.

 

[Omegatime]

It is JESUS that addresses the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodocea.
Are you telling us that all the people that Jesus was addressing believed that they were under the law of Moses?

Beekeeper-here you go again not reading the text as MM wrote

 

[2Christ]

Revelation was written to Israel, not to Gentiles even though the unbelieving Gentile world will indeed be a focus of God's wrath. John was not an apostle to Gentiles, but to the twelve tribes as James stated in his epistle. Most assume the seven churches were Gentile churches, which isn't necessarily true given that Gentiles converting over to Messianic Judaism became Jews who were zealous for the Law.

MM

really MM? john as all the other disciples were sent to the gentiles its in your bible please verify

Do not force a conclusion onto Scripture that the text itself does not support. Saying that Revelation was written only to Israel requires ignoring the many places where Revelation plainly speaks about every nation, tribe, people, tongue, and king.

Revelation begins by saying that it is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants”(Revelation 1:1). It does not say that it was given only to Jewish servants. It then gives a blessing to “he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written therein” (Revelation 1:3). No restriction to Jews is given.

The strongest evidence is Revelation 14:6:

And I saw another angel flying in mid heaven, having eternal good tidings to proclaim unto them that dwell on the earth, and unto every nation and tribe and tongue and people. (Revelation 14:6)

That is plainly worldwide. The message is proclaimed to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people.

Revelation 7:9 makes the same point even more clearly:

After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands. (Revelation 7:9)

Notice the distinction. Revelation first identifies the 144,000 from the tribes of Israel (Revelation 7:4–8), and then John sees a multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue (Revelation 7:9). Israel is clearly included in God's plan, but Revelation does not make Israel the only people involved.

Revelation 10:11 says:

And they say unto me, Thou must prophesy again over many peoples and nations and tongues and kings. (Revelation 10:11)

Again, the prophecy reaches far beyond Israel.

The false argument that John was not an apostle to Gentiles does not prove that Revelation was only for Jews. James wrote to “the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion” (James 1:1), but that tells us who James addressed in that letter. It does not establish the audience of John's Revelation. We must allow Revelation itself to tell us its scope.

The claim that the seven churches were Jewish churches is also an assumption. Revelation never says that the seven churches were exclusively Jewish. In fact, Revelation itself speaks of people who “say they are Jews, and they are not”(Revelation 2:9; 3:9), showing that the book itself distinguishes between Jews and others.

Finally, Revelation ends with an invitation that is plainly open:

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take of the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

It does not say, “Let the Jew come.” It says “he that will.”

Revelation is deeply connected with Israel and contains much prophecy concerning Israel, but it is not a book written only for Jews. Its message concerns the whole earth, its judgments involve all nations, its gospel is proclaimed to every nation, and its redeemed people come from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue. Israel has a special place in the prophecy, but Revelation's scope is universal.

 

[GaryA]

More than anything else, Revelation is a book written to-and-for Christians.

 

[GaryA]

Dare we pay close attention to the grammar, that verse doesn't at all say that the new covenant is now in force from a past activation. The Mosaic Law is still in force today all the way through the tribulation. Notice that the establishment of the new covenant is upon "better promises," not that it has yet become in force. Assuming that into the text is a timeline error.

MM

Revelation was written to Israel, not to Gentiles even though the unbelieving Gentile world will indeed be a focus of God's wrath. John was not an apostle to Gentiles, but to the twelve tribes as James stated in his epistle. Most assume the seven churches were Gentile churches, which isn't necessarily true given that Gentiles converting over to Messianic Judaism became Jews who were zealous for the Law.

MM

It is JESUS that addresses the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodocea.
Are you telling us that all the people that Jesus was addressing believed that they were under the law of Moses?

Beekeeper-here you go again not reading the text as MM wrote

Seems like a reasonable response to me...

(And, a very good question to ask in my opinion.)

Yes, it would have been nice if Beekeeper would have quoted the post with the 'Mosaic Law' statement in it; nonetheless, I am pretty sure he made the response he made having read the 'Mosaic Law' statement earlier.

How well have you read the text as MM wrote...???

 

[Musicmaster]

It is JESUS that addresses the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodocea.
Are you telling us that all the people that Jesus was addressing believed that they were under the law of Moses?

I know that for a fact. Scripture supports that very well, and when replacement theology Gentiles today inject the idea into those seven churches that they were Gentile churches, they're violating some of the most basic rules for hermeneutical interpretation.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Revelation was written to:

1. "the seven churches which are in Asia" (Revelation 1:4,11)

2. all Christians of all ages (needless to say - all scripture is)

3. all people on earth (as a revelation of truth for all people)

Then you're remiss in your duty to "scripture" by not offering up sacrifices for all answers to your prayers.

Not all scripture was written TO us today, although it all is FOR us to give to us greater understanding of the Lord and Hos ways and what He has done for us through the various periods of time, speaking to various peoples various differences in His instructions to them.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

really MM? john as all the other disciples were sent to the gentiles its in your bible please verify

Do not force a conclusion onto Scripture that the text itself does not support. Saying that Revelation was written only to Israel requires ignoring the many places where Revelation plainly speaks about every nation, tribe, people, tongue, and king.

Revelation begins by saying that it is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants”(Revelation 1:1). It does not say that it was given only to Jewish servants. It then gives a blessing to “he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written therein” (Revelation 1:3). No restriction to Jews is given.

The strongest evidence is Revelation 14:6:

And I saw another angel flying in mid heaven, having eternal good tidings to proclaim unto them that dwell on the earth, and unto every nation and tribe and tongue and people. (Revelation 14:6)

That is plainly worldwide. The message is proclaimed to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people.

Revelation 7:9 makes the same point even more clearly:

After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands. (Revelation 7:9)

Notice the distinction. Revelation first identifies the 144,000 from the tribes of Israel (Revelation 7:4–8), and then John sees a multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue (Revelation 7:9). Israel is clearly included in God's plan, but Revelation does not make Israel the only people involved.

Revelation 10:11 says:

And they say unto me, Thou must prophesy again over many peoples and nations and tongues and kings. (Revelation 10:11)

Again, the prophecy reaches far beyond Israel.

The false argument that John was not an apostle to Gentiles does not prove that Revelation was only for Jews. James wrote to “the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion” (James 1:1), but that tells us who James addressed in that letter. It does not establish the audience of John's Revelation. We must allow Revelation itself to tell us its scope.

The claim that the seven churches were Jewish churches is also an assumption. Revelation never says that the seven churches were exclusively Jewish. In fact, Revelation itself speaks of people who “say they are Jews, and they are not”(Revelation 2:9; 3:9), showing that the book itself distinguishes between Jews and others.

Finally, Revelation ends with an invitation that is plainly open:

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take of the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

It does not say, “Let the Jew come.” It says “he that will.”

Revelation is deeply connected with Israel and contains much prophecy concerning Israel, but it is not a book written only for Jews. Its message concerns the whole earth, its judgments involve all nations, its gospel is proclaimed to every nation, and its redeemed people come from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue. Israel has a special place in the prophecy, but Revelation's scope is universal.

Your traditional, Westernized position is easily disproven by scripture, but the injections Western thought has injected into the texts as deep-seated constructs on theological thought today renders most today unteachable from the basis of scripture.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Seems like a reasonable response to me...

(And, a very good question to ask in my opinion.)

Yes, it would have been nice if Beekeeper would have quoted the post with the 'Mosaic Law' statement in it; nonetheless, I am pretty sure he made the response he made having read the 'Mosaic Law' statement earlier.

How well have you read the text as MM wrote...???

It's my hope that folks also keep in mind that I've also stated that although the Law is still in force today, we who are in Christ are dead to it.

MM

 

[Beekeeper]

I know that for a fact. Scripture supports that very well, and when replacement theology Gentiles today inject the idea into those seven churches that they were Gentile churches, they're violating some of the most basic rules for hermeneutical interpretation.

MM

I would need you to clarify that before I could make sense of it.

What do you call a "Gentile Church"?
Is that a congregation that begins on it's own authority and denies it's OT roots?
Is it just a congregation that contains persons born into bloodlines other than that of Jacob?
Is it about non-acceptance of the law of Moses?
Anything else?

If I were to think for example, that the Ephesian congregation contained predominantly Gentile born persons, which basic hermeneutical rules would I be violating.
I have not been to a religious cemetery, so I hope you do not mind giving a bit of detail.

I am not much of a fan of the English word "church", but a lot of people call the entire bride of Christ a church, and I wonder if you would describe that one as either "Jew" or "Gentile".

In your opinion, would Jesus be the redeemer of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Would He be the redeemer of the faithful ones who have lived before Judah, Jacob and even Abraham?

 

[2Christ]

Your traditional, Westernized position is easily disproven by scripture, but the injections Western thought has injected into the texts as deep-seated constructs on theological thought today renders most today unteachable from the basis of scripture.

MM

Easily disprove you say? then please do so if you can, the text is clear, why cant you see the truth of it? you are doing a lot of damage here with your ignorance and lies.

 

[Rob7]

Blessed Sabbath Folks !​

Let me put this into the concept of Jesus
.... and His ideal of Sanctification unto Glorification and Eternal Life .
... expressed by this video

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

 

[Musicmaster]

I would need you to clarify that before I could make sense of it.

What do you call a "Gentile Church"?
Is that a congregation that begins on it's own authority and denies it's OT roots?
Is it just a congregation that contains persons born into bloodlines other than that of Jacob?
Is it about non-acceptance of the law of Moses?
Anything else?

If I were to think for example, that the Ephesian congregation contained predominantly Gentile born persons, which basic hermeneutical rules would I be violating.
I have not been to a religious cemetery, so I hope you do not mind giving a bit of detail.

I am not much of a fan of the English word "church", but a lot of people call the entire bride of Christ a church, and I wonder if you would describe that one as either "Jew" or "Gentile".

Good questions, and thank you for your typing time to ask. I sincerely appreciate that.

The local bodies of believers planted by Paul are what I loosely refer to as "Gentile churches," mainly because they tended to always be populated mostly by Gentile converts to the Gospel of Grace rather than the Kingdom Gospel. There were indeed some Jews among the majority Gentiles within the churches under Paul's ministry.

For clarity (at least, I hope you pick up on this, which isn't easy given the contradictory teachings drilled into the psyche of church congregations today from men behind pulpits who do not accept scripture for what it says), please consider this, if you will:

Galatians 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:

These two verses speak such loud volumes to us dare we accept them for what they say, but much of modern and historic, West-styled theology, rejects this, thus transliterating it into something other than what the TR majority manuscript texts declare to us. When the argument of translations enters into the mix, that's when it all breaks down and goes nowhere, which is by design...

So, rather than to launch into another long dissertation about this, does this speak to you through all the noise of what you've ever been taught by Gentiles preachers and teachers? The context of these verses doesn't change their meaning, in isolation, in this post.

Jumping past lengthy dissertations, then, all the way to the conclusion, there were churches planted by the twelve that were ALL zealous for the Mosaic Law under the Kingdom Gospel, and then there were "Gentile churches" planted by Paul and his fellow workers he trained up, teaching the mystery, revealed initially and only to him alone, by Christ, that did NOT involve adherence and zeal for the Mosaic Law.

Acts 21:20-22
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: [In Jerusalem]
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Paul didn't teach the Jews under the ministry of the twelve to forsake the Mosaic Law and its requirements. It was only the predominantly Gentile churches planted by Paul, sprinkled with some converted Jews, who were taught such. Notice that James and the elders didn't say to Paul that he was wrong for what he was teaching Jews scattered abroad under his ministry, but to keep the peace he was instructed in the context to go and give the appearance of adherence to the Mosaic Law for purification, which also required animal sacrifice, which Paul did not perform since he was almost immediately arrested.

Please keep in mind that the Lord declared us Jews to be a stiff-necked people, and we are indeed. Our history bears that out in living colors...so to speak. Paul was careful to never build upon the ministry foundations of the twelve, as he stated elsewhere, so the division was indeed a reality that remains denied and hated by modern teachers of falsehoods. The lollipop express, filled with milk-toast-n-wet-noodle theologies of modern and historic invention, like to teach that both groupings were in harmony with one another, always at the exclusion of the above quote from Acts 21.

Does this help?

In your opinion, would Jesus be the redeemer of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Would He be the redeemer of the faithful ones who have lived before Judah, Jacob and even Abraham?

I asked you first. What are YOUR thoughts along this line and why? Please comment on the quotes I provided in my post to you earlier that clearly stated that ALL their iniquity was forgiven by their bloody placement upon the goat's head, symbolic of their sins, to be sent out into other regions and the wilderness? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that first given that I asked you first.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Easily disprove you say? then please do so if you can, the text is clear, why cant you see the truth of it? you are doing a lot of damage here with your ignorance and lies.

I accept that is what you personally believe...be it true or not...

MM

 

[GaryA]

Then you're remiss in your duty to "scripture" by not offering up sacrifices for all answers to your prayers.

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement while utilizing Revelation verses to do so.

 

[GaryA]

It's my hope that folks also keep in mind that I've also stated that although the Law is still in force today, we who are in Christ are dead to it.

MM

Well - yes - it does help for you to say this --- since it modifies what I thought you meant by 'still in force today', it puts you somewhat closer to what I was saying...

It helps to be as precise as possible when making a claim like that.