The only way to deny the complete transcendence of the old covenant by the New is to discard the entire book of Hebrews and vast portions of the remainder of the New Testament.
Ain't gonna happen.
Upvote
0
The difference between the rapture of the Church and the second coming of Jesus
- Thread starter Quasar92
- Start date
Ain't gonna happen.
Micah888
Well-Known Member
Well think of it in this way -- does every Bride eventually become a wife? Revelation speaks of "the Wife of the Lamb" (Christ) not "the wife of God".
So since all the saints (OT and NT) are presently in the New Jerusalem (which is in Heaven), and all have been saved by grace, washed in the blood of the Lamb, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and will be perfected in body, soul, and spirit, with immortal, glorious, and glorified bodies, then all the saints will become the "Wife of the Lamb" (or the Lamb's Wife).
Which speaks of an eternal, perfect, and intimate union with Christ. All this applies to the Church. See Hebrews 11 and 12. Revelation does not say anything about "the wife of God" but that may only be because the Church is in view.
Now we know that in the OT God espoused Himself to Israel, but "divorced" unbelieving Israel. So after the second coming of Christ and the redemption and restoration of the kingdom of Israel on earth, every believing Israelite will be regenerated, and become "the wife of God". But this a a separate entity from the Church (which is eternally in the New Jerusalem). We see the following passages in the OT:
ISAIAH 54 (addressed to redeemed Israel)
5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. 6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. 7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. 8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.
ISAIAH 62 (addressed to redeemed Israel)
4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. 5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.
Upvote
0
One thing that appears will not happen... you recognizing that there are different covenants, and the only one the New Covenant abrogated was the Mosaic Covenant. Jeremiah 31 makes the abundantly clear. You keep throwing all the various covenants made in the Tanakh into one basket. And it is that sort of reasoning that denies that Israel has a destiny in God's plan. It is the fulcrum that the blasphemous doctrine of Replacement Theology rides on.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 (NKJV) “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
So, the Abrahamic Covenant is not replaced by the New Covenant. That is the covenant that has Israel in place today where it is. That covenant, along with what Ezekiel had to say about when Israel would be restored (Ezekiel 4 along with Leviticus 26 when applied comes out to 1948) and that they would be gathered to the land initially in unbelief (Ezekiel 36 and 37). And YHWH said, that it was not for their sake that He would do this, but for His name's sake, since His name is on the line to honor the Covenant He made with Abraham. So those that say this covenant is over.... well there is no nice way to say it.... they are calling YHWH a liar.
The Noahic Covenant is not replaced by the New Covenant. The Davidic Covenant is not replaced by the New Covenant. Only the Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. And to say that the other covenants were abrogated by the New Covenant is to call God a liar. It is myopic presupposition that all of Genesis thru Malachi is the "old covenant". It isn't. It includes various covenants. And only one of them is "old", or done away with. The Mosaic Covenant.
If the Noahic Covenant is done away with, it is time to start building an Ark, because God promised He would never destroy the world with a flood ever again. If that covenant is over, then God lied and we better take swimming lessons or build one heck of a good boat.
If the Davidic Covenant is no longer valid, then God lied again. He promised David that the Messiah from his lineage would rule on the throne of Israel as David did. And God lied again when he had Gabriel confirm to Mary the same thing. Well, time to pack it up boys. I guess no use playing the Christian game any longer since the Messiah is never going to reign over anything.
No.... I, for one, will never negate the other covenants God made. And those that do.... well, good luck. It isn't like you weren't warned.
Upvote
0
I would beg to differ. The verses you quote are apropos, but not to the conclusion you derive from them. When the Lord is calling Himself "thine husband" the reference is to physical Israel including all those who believe and didn't. The Bride of Messiah is a totally different entity, as it is only made up of those who trust in Him. It is the the Ekklesia of Yeshua. And adding "addressed to redeemed Israel" does not make it as you suggest. If you would have said "addressed to restored Israel", then you would have been closer to the mark. The context of those passages, taken with Ezekiel 36-37, shows it is talking about a restoration.
Upvote
0
Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Christ is the fulfillment and recipient of the Abrahamic covenant and promises, and is the heir of all things, which without exception, includes all the promises, blessings, and benefits found under the old covenant.
The Old Testament is all about Christ. He is its complete and total fulfillment, and recipient of all of its promises.
Luke 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures
Acts 13
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
John 19:28
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Your position is based on interpretations of what certain scriptures mean, while mine is based on what other scriptures explicitly say.
Upvote
0
Your position is based on the rejection of the word "all" in the Scriptures which explicitly declare that Christ is the fulfillment and heir of "all".
Upvote
0
- Nov 25, 2017
- 4,861
- 1,022
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
That's correct, except that the word "brethren" regarding those for whom His Salvation was prepared for before the foundation of the world does not mean only Jews.
Matt 25:39-40
39 Or when saw we Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, 'Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.'
KJV
These sheep are the "brethren" He was speaking of. This is what He pointed to first:
Matt 25:33-34
33 And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
KJV
What is sad is how those like you have tried to steal that subject of Christ's Salvation there for His sheep with creating an anti-Semitic persecution theory using that word "brethren".
Upvote
0
By this illogic, the division of Scripture into only the Old and New Testaments was illegitimate from the beginning. Because there are four covenants, there should be four Old Testaments, with each one containing only the Scripture deemed applicable to it. Similarly, there should be four corresponding New Testaments. However, only the New Testament allocated to the Mosaic covenant should receive any Scripture, as it is the only covenant which it is claimed has been fulfilled. The remaining three should each contain only a single page with the word "Unfulfilled" prominently displayed.
For convenience, all testaments could be packaged under a single set of covers, with a page tab identifying each testament.
It is indeed surprising that the dispensational community has not yet produced a Bible version incorporating these innovations. It has had approaching two centuries to do so. Darby and Scofield missed a tremendous opportunity to introduce their new truth to the world in this form. They should be unmercifully castigated and excoriated.
I presume that you would enthusiastically endorse the production of such an aforedescribed new Bible version.
However, should you be wrong, and the historic division into two Testaments be legitimate, note that under the immutable legal definition of a (Will and) Testament, a New Will and Testament revokes, replaces, and supersedes the previous old will and testament in its entirety.
In the case of the New Will and Testament in the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, it also fulfills it.
Just so you know.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You have to remember, JGR, there was no book called the Old Testament when Yeshua was walking around Israel. There was only the Scriptures, or Tanakh. It was later, after the canon we have now was put together that the established Tanakh was called the "Old Testament" by subsequent translators. Even when Paul was running around teaching about Yeshua, the Holy Spirit commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures daily to see if what Paul taught them was true. All they had was the Tanakh. And the scriptures during that time were never called, collectively, the "Old Testament".
The Tanakh contains the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets. That is where the name "Tanakh" comes from. Three distinct divisions that were well in place 150 years before Yeshua showed up. It was all one Bible, but divided into 3 sections. But within those three divisions of scripture, was many different covenants. The Mosaic covenant was just one of them. And that is the specific Covenant that Jeremiah states is replaced by the New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 (NKJV) “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
That is the Mosaic or Sinai Covenant. Not the Covenant with David that his descedant, the Messiah, would rule over Israel. Nor the Covenant with Abraham. Nor the Noahic Covenant that YHWH would not ever destroy the earth by flood again. There was even a covenant established in scripture with day and night!! See the following.
Regarding the Davidic Covenant......
Jeremiah 33:19-21 (NKJV) And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “Thus says the Lord: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers.
Two covenants right there! So I rest my case.... there are multiple covenants in scripture and it is only the Mosaic or Sinai Covenant that was replaced by the New Covenant.
The Tanakh contains the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets. That is where the name "Tanakh" comes from. Three distinct divisions that were well in place 150 years before Yeshua showed up. It was all one Bible, but divided into 3 sections. But within those three divisions of scripture, was many different covenants. The Mosaic covenant was just one of them. And that is the specific Covenant that Jeremiah states is replaced by the New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 (NKJV) “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
That is the Mosaic or Sinai Covenant. Not the Covenant with David that his descedant, the Messiah, would rule over Israel. Nor the Covenant with Abraham. Nor the Noahic Covenant that YHWH would not ever destroy the earth by flood again. There was even a covenant established in scripture with day and night!! See the following.
Regarding the Davidic Covenant......
Jeremiah 33:19-21 (NKJV) And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “Thus says the Lord: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers.
Two covenants right there! So I rest my case.... there are multiple covenants in scripture and it is only the Mosaic or Sinai Covenant that was replaced by the New Covenant.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Copperhead, I don't disagree regarding the (sub)covenants which you identified. But nothing in my previous posts has been invalidated.
It is manifestly evident that the Early Church Fathers who were responsible for the canonizations recognized that the events of the BC era and those of the AD era constituted two hierarchies under which all of the associated subcovenants could be categorized and treated; to wit, the OT and NT. Otherwise, one would expect to see them treated separately, each as essentially its own installment of the OT or NT, totalling up to eight such installments.
What the two divisions do demonstrate in particular is the ECF recognition of Christ as the sole and exclusive NT fulfillment and heir of all OT promises and subcovenants. (ref. post 285 Scriptures). This validates the understanding of the NT as a New Will and Testament which meets all legal requirements for it to be recognized as such, in its complete fulfillment, revocation, and replacement of the OT.
The ECF's under Holy Spirit guidance knew whereof they decided, wrote, and spoke.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
this gets rather tiring having to repeat myself myriads of times in the same thread... Ok.... one last time....
I stated it can mean the Jews, the Believers, or both. And which, it doesn't matter.
Reason: The sheep and the goats are people from all the nations being judged how they treat the brethren, so using very basic grammar rules, that means those that are being judged are not brethren. There is nothing in that passage that says brethren are being judged on how they treat brethren. It really makes no difference who the brethren are. they can be Jews, believers, or both.
I simply stated that, given that Yeshua is saying that these people of the nations are being judged, and He is telling this to a pre-pentecost Jewish audience, that it probably has a lot to do with how the people of the nations treat His brethren. And being that He is Jewish, the audience is Jewish, that the brethren He is referring to are Jewish.
And, the earthly Messianic kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the earth for mankind. Since these "sheep" treated Yeshua's brethren well, they are allowed to go into the Messianic Kingdom, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world. The prophets elaborate greeting that the kingdom will see births, deaths, sin, the Messiah ruling with a rod of iron, etc. After all the tribulation stuff, there has to be some mortals remaining to repopulate the restored earth in the Messianic kingdom.
Where folks get messed up sometimes is equating the Messianic Kingdom with the Heavenly Kingdom. As if the Messianic Kingdom is some sort of perfect existence like heaven. Well, if it is so perfect, why does it only last 1000 years? If it is so perfect, why do people die? If it is so perfect, how does Satan manage to get just about the entire kingdom to rebel against the Lord when Satan is released? Why are the nations raging, wanting to be out from under the rule of the Messiah, as seen in Psalms 2?
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Even when they explicitly wrote about an end time restoration of the Jews?
Upvote
0
- Nov 25, 2017
- 4,861
- 1,022
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
And once again, you misinterpret "brethren" there to mean only bloodline brethren of Jesus, pointing to Jews, when Jesus is pointing to His Church with that word "brethren". The reason He is pointing to His Church, and I do mean His Church all the way from the time of Abraham, is because of the persecutions for The Word of God and for the Witness of Jesus those 'brethren' have, and will have, endured.
These are the "brethren" He was talking about:
Rev 20:4
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
KJV
Upvote
0
I didn't misinterpret anything.... Hey.... wake up.... it doesn't matter who the brethren are in the passage of Matthew 25!!! They are not the focus of the passage!!!! The people of the nations being divided into sheep and goats is the focus. AND THEY ARE NOT THE BRETHREN!!!! They are being judged how they treated the brethren.
So yet again for the umpteenth time....... the brethren can be the Jews, the believers, or both... it doesn't matter! The people of the nations cannot be brethren because they are being judged on how they treated the brethren of Yeshua.
Totally amazing how basic, simple grammatical structure goes right over the head of some. The public school system has done a lousy job. I want my tax money back.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
.
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
The oldest of these known to this writer was Justyn Martyr, who is believed to have written the following sometime between the years 155 and 167 A.D.
“And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: "I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame." ("The First Apology of Justin," by Justyn Martyr, chapter 52, “Certain Fulfillment of Prophecy.”)
We again see this in the writing of Hilary of Poitiers, who is thought to have penned the following sometime between the years 356 and 360 A.D.
“Remember, God the Father set the day within His authority, that it might not come to the knowledge of man, and the Son, when asked before, replied that He did not know, but now, no longer denying His knowledge, replies that it is theirs not to know, for the Father has set the times not in His own knowledge, but in His own authority. The day and the moment are included in the word ‘times’: can it be, then, that He, Who was to restore Israel to its kingdom, did not Himself know the day and the moment of that restoration? He instructs us to see an evidence of His birth in this exclusive prerogative of the Father, yet He does not deny that He knows: and while He proclaims that the possession of this knowledge is withheld from ourselves, He asserts that it belongs to the mystery of the Father’s authority.” (“On the Trinity,” by Hilary of Poitiers, book IX, paragraph 75, from “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D.)
So Hillary clearly taught that Christ “was to restore Israel to its kingdom.”
But this was not just taught by the early writers. It was still being taught in the fifth century. Augustin wrote:
“After admonishing them to give heed to the law of Moses, as he foresaw that for a long time to come they would not understand it spiritually and rightly, he went on to say, ‘And, behold, I will send to you Elias the Tishbite before the great and signal day of the Lord come: and he shall turn the heart of the father to the son, and the heart of a man to his next of kin, lest I come and utterly smite the earth.’ It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. For not without reason do we hope that before the coming of our Judge and Saviour Elias shall come, because we have good reason to believe that he is now alive; for, as Scripture most distinctly informs us, he was taken up from this life in a chariot of fire. When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus ‘turn the heart of the father to the son,’ that is, the heart of fathers to their children; for the Septuagint translators have frequently put the singular for the plural number. And the meaning is, that the sons, that is, the Jews, shall understand the law as the fathers, that is, the prophets, and among them Moses himself, understood it. For the heart of the fathers shall be turned to their children when the children understand the law as their fathers did; and the heart of the children shall be turned to their fathers when they have the same sentiments as the fathers. The Septuagint used the expression, ‘and the heart of a man to his next of kin,’ because fathers and children are eminently neighbors to one another. Another and a preferable sense can be found in the words of the Septuagint translators, who have translated Scripture with an eye to prophecy, the sense, viz., that Elias shall turn the heart of God the Father to the Son, not certainly as if he should bring about this love of the Father for the Son, but meaning that he should make it known, and that the Jews also, who had previously hated, should then love the Son who is our Christ. For so far as regards the Jews, God has His heart turned away from our Christ, this being their conception about God and Christ. But in their case the heart of God shall be turned to the Son when they themselves shall turn in heart, and learn the love of the Father towards the Son. The words following, ‘and the heart of a man to his next of kin,’—that is, Elias shall also turn the heart of a man to his next of kin,—how can we understand this better than as the heart of a man to the man Christ? For though in the form of God He is our God, yet, taking the form of a servant, He condescended to become also our next of kin. It is this, then, which Elias will do, ‘lest,’ he says, ‘I come and smite the earth utterly.’ For they who mind earthly things are the earth. Such are the carnal Jews until this day; and hence these murmurs of theirs against God, ‘The wicked are pleasing to Him,’ and ‘It is a vain thing to serve God.’ ” (“The City of God,” by Augustin, tran. by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D., book XX, chapter 29, from “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, volume 1, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D..)
Here we need to particularly notice Augustin’s words, that “It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ.” This is particularly important because it shows, not only that Augustin believed this, but that he said that this was “a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful.” That is, that this was what was commonly believed in his day.
Augustin further wrote:
“In like manner the Lord, speaking by the same prophet, says, ‘And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and mercy; and they shall look upon me because they have insulted me, and they shall mourn for Him as for one very dear, and shall be in bitterness as for an only-begotten.’ To whom but to God does it belong to destroy all the nations that are hostile to the holy city Jerusalem, which ‘come against it,’ that is, are opposed to it, or, as some translate, ‘come upon it,’ as if putting it down under them; or to pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and mercy? This belongs doubtless to God, and it is to God the prophet ascribes the words; and yet Christ shows that He is the God who does these so great and divine things, when He goes on to say, ‘And they shall look upon me because they have insulted me, and they shall mourn for Him as if for one very dear (or beloved), and shall be in bitterness for Him as for an only-begotten.’ For in that day the Jews—those of them, at least, who shall receive the spirit of grace and mercy—when they see Him coming in His majesty, and recognize that it is He whom they, in the person of their parents, insulted when He came before in His humiliation, shall repent of insulting Him in His passion: and their parents themselves, who were the perpetrators of this huge impiety, shall see Him when they rise; but this will be only for their punishment, and not for their correction. It is not of them we are to understand the words, ‘And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and mercy, and they shall look upon me because they have insulted me;’ but we are to understand the words of their descendants, who shall at that time believe through Elias.” (“The City of God,” by Augustin, tran. by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D., book XX, chapter 30, from “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, volume 1, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D..)
Here, like Cyril of Jerusalem before him, Augustin applied Zechariah 12:10-14 to the Jews, saying, “For in that day the Jews—those of them, at least, who shall receive the spirit of grace and mercy—when they see Him coming in His majesty, and recognize that it is He whom they, in the person of their parents, insulted when He came before in His humiliation, shall repent of insulting Him in His passion:” and then he noted that this prophecy did not speak of those who rejected Christ when He came, but of their descendants.
Further down in the same chapter, Augustin added:
“That the last judgment, then, shall be administered by Jesus Christ in the manner predicted in the sacred writings is denied or doubted by no one, unless by those who, through some incredible animosity or blindness, decline to believe these writings, though already their truth is demonstrated to all the world. And at or in connection with that judgment the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed. All these things, we believe, shall come to pass; but how, or in what order, human understanding cannot perfectly teach us, but only the experience of the events themselves. My opinion, however, is, that they will happen in the order in which I have related them.” (“The City of God,” by Augustin, tran. by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D., book XX, chapter 30, from “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, volume 1, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D..)
Here again, Augustin clearly states “Elias the Tishbite shall come;” and “the Jews shall believe.” as the first two end time events he foresaw.
Upvote
0
Joh 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Joh 19:31 Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Joh 19:32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.
Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.
Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
Joh 19:35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.
Joh 19:36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "NOT ONE OF HIS BONES SHALL BE BROKEN."
Joh 19:37 And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."
Apparently Justin Martyr needed to read the Gospel of John more closely.
John quoted above from Zechariah 12:10, as if the part about them looking on Him whom they pierced was fulfilled at Calvary.
This shows that the Early Church Fathers were not infallible.
.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Mixed messages. Definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. But I'm certain that none of these brethren would question the testamentary division of the Scriptures.
"As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXXV
"He proceeds, For ye shall leave your name for a rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. These words, dealing with a future time, are addressed to the carnal Israel, which is taunted with the prospect of having to surrender its name to the chosen of God. What is this name? Israel, of course; for to Israel the prophecy was addressed. And now I ask, What is Israel to-day? The Apostle gives the answer:—They who are in the spirit, not in the letter, they who walk in the Law of Christ, are the Israel of God."
(“On the Trinity,” by Hilary of Poitiers, book V, paragraph 228, from “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D.)
"Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ."
Augustine, Confessions
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
