The Orange Mailman

Wading Through Deep Waters

The next dialogue I would like to quote from Illumination is a back and forth between Jason Payton and myself.  I appreciated his admission that he was no expert, but was “trying to wade through these deep waters myself.”  He posted a couple of comments previous to my Provocative Response to Dr. Waldron.  Then after my response, he had a comment for me.  I’ll post my response to him in Orange.  How about a nice turquoise for Jason?

Hi Orange, please take my questions and comments as presented in a good spirit and tone, understanding that I am no expert but am trying to wade through these deep waters myself.

You said, “I’m having a hard time finding some passage in the New Testament which teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice abolished any other sacrifice…perhaps you could point me to a verse which uses the word “abrogate”, or some reasonable facsimile.”

Though I don’t necessarily even think that we need to point to a certain verse or passage to see this, consider this:  Heb. 8:13 “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

You said, “If Ezekiel saw a physical temple …in which sacrifices will be offered?”  The assumption in your question is that the temple Ezekiel saw is in fact physical.

You said, “As far as retrospective versus prospective, the Old Testament sacrifices were both, as I stated concerning Passover.”  Even if the observance of the Passover was retrospective to the exodus (which event in itself is prospective to Christ’s work), I don’t think that proves that the sacrifices were also retrospective or even had a retrospective element. I’m sorry if you have answered this before but, to what in the OT were the OT sacrifices looking back?

The redemptive/historical view doesn’t intend to “discount” the original context of the vision in a subtractive way, but rather, in what might be called an additive way, it tries to support a fuller interpretation of OT visions/prophesies with the “meta-narrative” of scripture in view, so Ezekiel himself didn’t fully understand what he saw.

I don’t know if Waldron and Barcelous would share my exact understanding (they very likely have a much greater understanding of these things than I) but I do think this discussion helps all those (like myself0 to think about these issues much more clearly.

My response to Jason was as follows:

Hello Jason-

I have read your post a couple of times now and I agree that discussion helps these matters.  It can clear up misunderstandings if there is interaction.  I myself am trying to understand where A-Millennialists stand on issues without resorting to dispensational extrapolations.  I’m not a dispensationalist, but I am a Pre-Millennialist.  When Dr. Waldron posted his series on MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto, it was an eye opener for me since I had some false assumptions about A-Millennialism.

Concerning the subject of sacrifices in conjunction with the new covenant, my study of the new covenant from the old covenant perspective (old testament perspective) is that even under the old covenant, a new aspect of it was foretold in Deuteronomy 30:1-8.  Israel would return and obey; in response the LORD would circumcise their heart.  I see the prophecies of a new heart and new spirit for Israel to be connected with the everlasting covenant in Jeremiah 32:40 and Ezekiel 37:26 and the new covenant in Jeremiah 31.  I don’t see any reason to separate a future, everlasting covenant that the LORD promises to make with Israel from the new covenant that the LORD promises to make with Israel.  This leads me to believe that the new covenant includes the same provisions as the old covenant.  The new covenant was made with Israel, confirmed in the presence of the believing remnant of Israelite believers.  Later, Gentiles were allowed to participate in the New Covenant with Israel on equal terms without becoming members of the nation of Israel.  Israel looks forward to a national repentance and national conversion thereby nationally participating in the New Covenant.

So to get to the point, the verses in Hebrews to which you refer I see quite differently.  The Old Covenant was based on “will you do what God says?”  The people responded “yes”.  They didn’t obey therefore God chastised them.  The New Covenant is based on “did Christ obey”?  The answer is “yes”.  Do you then believe in Christ?  That’s how one participates in the New Covenant : by faith.  Christ’s sacrifice is the only sacrifice necessary for sins.  But if God plans on fulfilling His Word concerning the everlasting covenant in concomitance with the new covenant, then the future restoration of the nation of Israel is a reality which the LORD will bring about.  So to try to sum up, it is simply the way of participation which has been made new.

Concerning the temple, yes I am assuming that the temple is physical.  I think the physical location, physical dimensions, and physical accouterments all make this a fair assumption.  I don’t read in the passage any spiritual characteristics or symbolism, and the New Testament has no quotation of this passage as being fulfilled in the church.

As far as retrospective versus prospective goes, my response was to clarify that these are not mutually exclusive ideas.  It doesn’t have to be one or the other.  Sacrifices from the time of Adam forward looked back to the fall, the death of mankind, but forward to a redeemer.  From Noah onward, they looked back to the fall and to God’s grace in sparing the human race, and looked forward to a redeemer.  From Passover onward, they looked back to the fall, the flood, and to redemption of the nation of Israel as God purchased a people for Himself.  They also looked forward to a redeemer now revealed to be a spotless lamb.  The Israelites were instructed to keep the Passover every year because of what God had done in the past.  If children asked why they were having the feast, God had a prepared statement for the Israelites to explain to their children.  It was because of what God had done in the past that they were sacrificing the Passover lamb.

What does the redemptive/historical view consist of?

What is meant by “meta-narrative”?

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

This is where the dialogue ended.  I never received any other response from Jason.  BTW, thanks to my ONE FRIENDS Jim for explaining what Meta-Narrative means.  I had forgotten about my inquiry of the term until I was reading my response to Jason again.  It was actually just this past Sunday that Jim mentioned it in his Sunday School lesson.  Then after evening service, Jim explained it a bit more fully.  I’d still like to know what the redemptive/historical view consists of though.  Anybody?

P.S.  That evening, Pastor Shane had preached on Dispensationalism versus Covenant Theology for his sermon.  I still can’t call myself a dispensationalist.  And now I understand a bit more as to why.  I’ll have more on that after this series.

Abrogating Fulfillment

Before getting to Dr. Waldron’s actual response, I would like to post a couple of side discussions that occurred as a result of my post.  The first response was by Professor Barcellos, who, if I’m not mistaken, may have gotten his doctorate, so he may be Dr. Barcellos now.  He posts under the name Barcelou and is the other predominant poster on Illumination.

Remember that the main goal for me in posting was to dialogue, not debate.  I wanted there to be some open communication between the two positions of A-Millennialism and Pre-Millennialism.  Since I am not a Dispensationalist, I felt that there could be dialogue without bringing that aspect into the mix.  Here is Professor Barcellos’ response (how about purple for him), followed by a couple of comments written by me today.  Then I post my response which appeared on Illumination all that time ago, in orange of course.

orange,

Concerning prospective and retrospective functions of the sacrficial system of the OT, it seems to me that the former is clear - i.e., the sacrificial system of the OT is prospective; it is pointing toward and typological of Christ and His work; Christ is the anti-type and, thus, the abrogating fulfillment. The NT (esp. Hebrews) makes this clear and irrefutable. However, concerning a future 1,000 yr. millennial retrospective function of the OT sacrifical system, the Bible is silent. It seems to me that one must smuggle in an unrevealed element into the equation to conclude a future retrospective function of the OT sacrificial system. Where in Ezek. 40-48 are we told that the OT sacrifical system will no longer function prospectively but exclusively retrospectively at some point in the future? I think we are left with two interpretive options: 1) either Ezek. 40-48 is referring to a time in the future when the *prospective* OT sacrificial system will be reinstituted or 2) Ezek. 40-48 is using OT language in a prophetic context to speak of NT realities. The NT use of the OT leads me to conclude that the latter is the better option, especially since Jesus has already come.

You will notice the use of the phrase “abrogating fulfillment”.  The A-Millennialist must believe that Christ’s sacrifice did not just fulfill the law, but abrogated it.  Some similes to abrogation are #1- repeal a law, #2- to do away with, #3- abolish, or #4- to formally revoke.  Here is where I depart.  I believe that Jesus Christ fulfills the law, fulfills the Old Covenant, while Covenant Theologians (A-Millennialists) seem to believe that Jesus did away with the law, or perhaps replaced it with His sacrifice.  On to my response:

Professor Barcellos-

Thank you for your partial response to one of the items that I addressed.  From my perspective, your reasoning appears like this.  The broad, sweeping view that all OT sacrifices pointed toward Messiah’s future sacrifice [supposedly] trumps any other truths that might be brought out of the Old Testament.  Of course, this is making me to sound as if I can see truths to which you are blind to, which could appear pompous.  But please allow me to progress with a response just the same.

From another perspective, we could use this same logic.  We could make broad, sweeping statements about the Son of David.  David was anointed as king over his people.  Yet his own people rejected him.  He was hunted almost to the point of death and exiled from his own people as he was rejected.  In spite of this, he later presented himself to his people a second time.  This time they believed on him and followed him willingly.  At this time the nations gathered against David, only to be defeated by him in battle.  The kingdom was established by David who made Zion the place of royal rule.  David was proclaimed to be the stone which the builders rejected, but now standing as the chief cornerstone in Zion.   This also is prospective, pointing to the life of Messiah.  Messiah came, was rejected by His own, ascended into heaven to await a second presentation.  When He comes again, His people will believe on Him as their King.  The nations will gather, but Messiah will defeat them, establish His kingdom, and make Zion the place of royal rule.  At that time He will be the stone which the builders rejected made the headstone of the corner in Zion itself.

I’m having a hard time finding some passage in the New Testament which teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice abolished any other sacrifice that could ever be made.  If the New Testament makes this clear and irrefutable, perhaps you could point me to a verse which uses the word “abrogate”, or some reasonable facsimile.

If Ezekiel saw a physical temple to which the Shekinah glory returns to, in which sacrifices are offered, why would we not believe that there will be a future, physical temple to which the Shekinah glory returns to, in which sacrifices will be offered?  There really is no “smuggling in an unrevealed element” when coming to this conclusion.  As far as retrospective versus prospective, the Old Testament sacrifices were both, as I stated concerning Passover.  These ideas were not mutually exclusive, and need not be mutually exclusive in a future, millennial kingdom.  To narrow the field to only two interpretive options seems preemptive to me.  You eliminate any retrospective element without considering that the Old Covenant sacrifices themselves are retrospective in many ways.

I understand your logic.  Jesus came so no other sacrifices can ever be offered again.  That makes #1 (in your post) impossible for you.  However, #2 must discount the original context of the vision.  It was originally about a physical temple with minutely detailed physical dimensions.  I would be interested in reading an A-Millennialist’s view of what all these walls, chambers, gates, windows, courts, steps, pavement, arches, and tables actually represent if not physical attributes of a future, physical temple.  As Dr. Waldron stated, Jesus used logic and so must we.  It seems logical that a description of a physical temple to which the Shekinah glory returns may very well be representative of a physical temple to which the Shekinah glory returns.

Again, thank you for the response, and the opportunity to express an opposing view here on this website.  I would mention one other item, which I almost omitted for the sake of not wanting to appear pompous.  The Pharisees had a view of Messiah which was true, but limited in capacity.  They knew Messiah would be Son of David to the point of excluding that He could be Son of God as well.  They took one facet of God’s Word and made that the whole truth to the exclusion of other truths.  I agree that Old Testament sacrifices were typological of Messiah’s great sacrifice.  But to make this the whole truth to the exclusion of other truths may inadvertently limit one’s understanding.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

I have yet to receive a reply from Richard Barcellos.  The dialogue between he and I ended here.

My provocative response to Dr. Waldron

The following is my initial response to Dr. Waldron’s critique of the Pre-Millennial view.  Again, Dr. Waldron was reviewing a book by Barry Horner.  The series by Dr. Waldron dealt with many topics which Horner deals with, but this particular post was aimed at the basics of the Pre-Millennial view.  Here is what I posted on Illumination.

Dr. Waldron-

I appreciate your series while disagreeing with portions of it.  I do not agree with Horner's views, but I am a PreMillennialist.  I hope you don't mind me expressing some views from another point of view here on your website.

Jesus did use logic, this is true.  We also must use logic.  It is interesting to read an A-Millennialist writing on Ezekiel 40-48 to say what it is not, but I haven't read what they actually say it is as of yet.

Here is the question:  Would the re-establishment of a Levitical priesthood contradict New Testament teachings?  No.  You cite Hebrews 7:11-24 and then say that the passage says that the Levitical priesthood was replaced by a better hope.  I didn't read the word "replaced" anywhere in the passage.  In fact, since Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron, there can be no replacing, only superiority when comparing the two completely differing orders.  That's what the passage is actually saying.  So the re-establishment of a Levitical priesthood within a future, restored, ethnic Israel would not contradict this scripture.

As far as the observances of Sabbaths, new moons, and possible religious calendar, we observe the days of the weeks, months (moons) and yearly observances right now.  Are you saying that since we observe days of the week, months, and years right now that it is a denial of the person and work of Christ?  You see that this is absurd.  If there is a re-establishment of Sabbaths during a kingdom established by Messiah here on earth, it will be for the same reason as before, to point to creation.  The Sabbath was an observance that God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day.  To observe the Sabbath would not be a denial of the person and work of Christ, but a RECOGNITION of Christ as Creator.

In Galatians 4:8-11, Paul was addressing those who thought they had to observe the law in order to continue in their salvation.  The issue is one of salvation by grace through faith.  Colossians points out the term that you use, "shadow".  You would say that once the object casting the shadow shows up, that the shadow no longer exists.  The law was and is fulfilled in Christ.  Once Messiah comes again, the law is not done away with, but fulfilled and established.  His Word endures forever.  You may have dealt with Horner's view, but as far as PreMillennialism, I don't feel you have adequately addressed the issue.

For the issue of sin offerings, I would ask how you know that types and shadows cannot serve as memorials?  Was the Passover a memorial?  Was it also a type and shadow?  You know the answer to both questions is "yes".  And this is our primary example of Christ's redemptive work on the cross!  But you would say that because we are on the other side of the cross now the rules are different.

The passage you quote in Hebrews 10:8-10 does not state that shadow sin offerings have been abolished, but instead the passage refers to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Psalm 40:6-8) that the Messiah would be THE sacrifice.  He takes away the first, that He may establish the second.  Yes the law pointed to Christ through sacrifices which were the shadow.  But those OT sacrifices never forgave any sin anyway, it was all by grace through faith, as Hebrews 11 goes on to demonstrate.

So if national Israel is restored, would the reinstitution of sacrifices go against these New Testament verses?  No.  They could function as a witness to the nations during the millennium (which I know you don't believe is future, but permit my foolishness).  They could function as intercessory sacrifices on behalf of nations which still walk in darkness.  They could function as a memorial just as Passover was a memorial with no ability to cleanse anyone of sin. 

The observance of the LORD's table currently is a remembrance of a past sacrifice which serves as a witness that He will come (I Corinthians 11:26, Matthew 26:29, looking both back and forward.  If there is a literal 1000 years, we will have a period in time which one will look back to the establishment of Christ's rule, and look forward to the ultimate consummation.  Jesus is the great and final (actually only) sin offering, but God has established many ways throughout the Old and New Covenants to point to Himself.

I'm sure that you have researched your position thoroughly, but I'm afraid that you have only dealt with Horner's views and not the PreMillennial stance in your post here.

Please understand that I am not a dispensationalist.  I am currently reviewing Covenant Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism, but I am definitely a PreMillennialist.  I appreciated your series on MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto and am enjoying this series as well.  God bless you as you continue to write.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

Do Pre-Millennialists deny the person and work of Christ?

This begins my series comparing and contrasting A-Millennialism with Pre-Millennialism.  This began when Dr. Waldron began a series on the website Illumination reviewing a book by Barry Horner entitled Future Israel.  One thing that got Waldron’s attention was that Horner feels that A-Millennialists are anti-semitic.  Horner follows the dispensational view with all its flaws, so it is easy to find fault with certain portions.  But there is a place where Waldron is not simply critiquing dispensationalism, but he is critiquing Pre-Millennialism itself.

Enter the Orange Mailman.  I posted a lengthy comment on Illumination responding to an appropriate blog which dealt with Pre-Millennial essentials.  There were three people who responded to me in the response section.  Barcelou, Jason, and Brett were all quite pleasant.  I responded to their responses as well.  But then came the big surprise.  Dr. Waldron took the time to write two blogposts for his response to my comment.  Of course I commented on both of these in the response sections.  Dr. Waldron was very gracious in his response, as well as polite.

My goal here is not to bash A-Millennialists or the A-Millennialist position.  If Dr. Waldron comes to read my blog, I want for him to not be offended in any way, as I was not offended in any way when he responded to me.  My goal is simply to set forth a type of a dialogue between the two positions.  There are some questions that I’m just not getting the answers to.  The A-Millennialist points out what he feels is a contradiction in the Pre-Millennial view.  I respond that there is no contradiction because of a certain reason.  Then I hear crickets chirping.  So my series is not so much trying to prove Pre-Millennialism, but to show that I cannot see where A-Millennialists can claim that they have disproved Pre-Millennialism.

I give the link to the post so that you may check it out to see if everything happened just the way I describe it.  Here is the link to the post with 27 comments.

http://www.mctsowensboro.org/blog/?p=312

The basic ideas in Waldron’s post to which I respond consist of critiquing Horner for believing in a future Millennium.  The passage which Waldron aims at is Ezekiel 40-48 in which Ezekiel sees a temple to which the Shekinah glory returns to.  Ezekiel had seen it depart earlier in his ministry.  Waldron dislikes Horner’s literal approach in believing a yet future fulfillment of this temple because it prophesies that the Aaronic priesthood will play a role in offering sacrifices.  To Waldron, this flies in the face of the sacrifice that Christ offered on the cross.  Waldron quotes heavily from Hebrews to show that our High Priest, Jesus, has a never ending priesthood which is superior to the priesthood of Aaron.

Also contained in the Ezekiel passage are references to the religious calendar including Sabbaths.  Since the A-Millennialist points to everything being fulfilled by Christ, this means that there can be no future religious calendar with new moons or Sabbaths being observed.  Waldron states, “Their re-institution is viewed as a denial of the significance of Christ’s person and work.”  Note upfront:  I believe that everything is fulfilled in Christ.  But fulfillment does not equal abolition.  Those of you who read my series on the Sabbath should understand where I’m coming from.  So basically, according to Waldron, I deny the significance of the person and work of Christ because I believe in a future temple here on earth which the restored Aaronic priesthood will offer sacrifices and observe the Sabbath.

This gets the ball rolling.  Next I will post my response to Waldron followed by some side discussions.  If there is an angle which you feel has been left out, feel free to chime in.

Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

How many of you out there have heard the analogy, "There is a God shaped vacuum in each one of us that only God can fill. We try to fill it with other things, but only God can fill that empty spot within each one of us."??? Thank you brother, I see that hand.

I understand where people are coming from when they share this picturesque metaphor. There is a silent longing within the hearts of non-believers for something that just can’t be understood until we are redeemed. Hey, I used to be a non-believer. I remember a nagging feeling in the back of my mind like I was forgetting something really important. I would be on the way to some event thinking that I was forgetting something. Then I’d remember. It’s this God thing, that maybe I’m not really a Christian, but that I’m on my way to hell instead. So I can identify with Keith Green’s crazy missing part.

There is a point where this analogy breaks down, though. It conveys the idea that human beings are empty vessels waiting to be filled by God, perhaps by the Holy Spirit of God. This is just not the case. The Bible accurately describes mankind as being full of wickedness. Consider two passages that Paul applies universally to mankind as a whole in Romans 3.

Psalm 14

1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.

Isaiah 59

2 But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, And your fingers with iniquity; Your lips have spoken lies, Your tongue has muttered perversity. 4 No one calls for justice, Nor does any plead for truth. They trust in empty words and speak lies; They conceive evil and bring forth iniquity. 5 They hatch vipers' eggs and weave the spider's web; He who eats of their eggs dies, And from that which is crushed a viper breaks out. 6 Their webs will not become garments, Nor will they cover themselves with their works; Their works are works of iniquity, And the act of violence is in their hands. 7 Their feet run to evil, And they make haste to shed innocent blood; Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; Wasting and destruction are in their paths. 8 The way of peace they have not known, And there is no justice in their ways; They have made themselves crooked paths; Whoever takes that way shall not know peace.

Everybody probably remembers this verse as the standard for describing the condition of the human heart.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

There is no empty place waiting for the LORD to simply fill. Our hearts are full of all kinds of wickedness. We do not have the ability to empty ourselves of that wickedness. Only God, through the blood of His Son Jesus, can cleanse our hearts from sin. We must repent of our evil works in order to be cleansed by His blood. If you think you are an empty vessel, you are mistaken. You are either filled with all kinds of wickedness, or you have repented of your evil way to allow Christ’s blood to cleanse you of your sins, and have been filled with the Holy Spirit. We are not born on neutral ground. We are born in sin, completely separated from God. We need a Savior and Jesus the Messiah is that Savior.

This leads me to another point. I cannot judge anyone’s salvation. But I just wonder how many have followed this false analogy in attempting to become a Christian. They just believe they are on neutral ground, they have this emptiness, and they ask God to fill them without repenting of their sins. Where does that take them? Where does that leave them? BTW, I am not including Keith Green in this category. His song was meant to illustrate one facet of the truth. His other music demonstrates other facets of that truth. He plainly had repented of his sins.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

I was pacing 21 mph

I’ve been riding my bicycle back and forth to work on the nicer days.  It is roughly nine miles one way.  It usually takes me about a half an hour.  I had been guessing that it was about nine miles but had never actually measured it with the odometer in my car.

In my younger days when I lost my driver’s license, I rode back and forth to work from Whitehall to Muskegon.  Because I didn’t want to ride on the main busy road, I took the back way which wound up being a little over 19 miles.  Once or twice, I made the ride in one hour flat.  Since I round up for the mileage and round down for time, I rounded up to 20 miles for the ride and deluded myself into believing that I could ride at a 20 mile per hour pace for 20 miles.

So all these years later I have been wondering how fast I can ride for an extended period of time.  A nine mile ride is no marathon, but it’s a bit of a workout.  Imagine my surprise when I made the ride in 26 minutes, and that’s an honest 26 minutes with no rounding down.  It made me curious to know how long the ride actually is, so I could calculate how fast I was riding.  So I measured the distance with my odometer and it winds up being 9.1 miles.  I did a little math in my head and here is what I came up with.

9.1 miles for fraction’s sake will be

91 miles

10

26 minutes for fraction and hourly computation will be

26 hours   which is also

60

13 hours

30

So miles per hour, with the distance being on the top and time being on the bottom, we have a complex fraction that looks like

  91 miles

  10

__________

  13 hours

  30

To calculate this fraction, we invert the denominator and multiply.

91 x 30   which can be simplified to    91 x 3

10 x13                                               1 x 13

Then we have

273   which equals    21

13

I was pacing exactly 21 miles per hour on that day, and that’s with a 15 second dead stop at a red light.  About two weeks after that, I made the ride home in 26.5 minutes, which surprised me because the ride home is after work, so I’m usually a bit more exhausted.   It’s also slightly more downhill on the way to work, and slightly more uphill on the way home.

It’s amazing that my knee still bothers me from my surgery a little over a year ago.  I’m riding quite well, but there is irritation.  It’s great therapy though.  My knee is getting stronger all the time.  Now there is a route that I ride whereby I pick up the bike trail which is 22 miles round trip.  If I can ride that in one hour flat, I’ll be doing reeeeeeal gooooood.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

I read in my local paper today that Justice is Denied to the Poor. That’s not a big shocker. I’m pretty sure that you understand if you are poor, you get treated as less since you can’t afford as much as those with more. People with no money can’t afford good representation, while people with much money can sometimes get themselves acquitted if their connections are good enough.

What strikes me is my recent studies in the book of Isaiah concerning the prophecies of a future kingdom. It is the poor and the meek who are made one of the Messiah’s chief concerns in this future, Messianic Kingdom. Justice will be provided to the poor and meek instead of being denied to them as is currently being done. Consider Isaiah 11:4, which is located in the midst of a highly Messianic passage.

But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

The poor will get to walk all over the backs of those who previously tread them down. Isaiah 25:5-6 is in the midst of an apocalyptic passage that many like to call Isaiah’s little apocalypse.

5 For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust. 6 The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor, and the steps of the needy.

I have blogged about Isaiah 29 before, but these verses hit home in a new way when we study what God’s plan is for the poor, the meek, and now even the handicapped. Yes, the handicapped are considered poor by the world’s economy. I’m sure that doesn’t come as a surprise to you either. Read what God’s Word says about His future plans for them.

18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. 20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off.

Think of the many throughout the world with no fresh, running water. Does God care? Read His future plans in Isaiah 41.

17 When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst, I the LORD will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. 18 I will open rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water.

I would love to write an entire post on Isaiah 58. Israel enters the true fast. At some future point in time, Israel’s repentance will be genuine accompanied by fasting, Joel 2. When Israel finally "gets it", this fasting will include fair treatment to the poor. Israel will enter the Messianic Kingdom where social distinctions are done away with. Read how Israel’s light will break forth.

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? 7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? 8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy reward. 9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; 10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: 11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

Psalm 72 describes the Messianic Kingdom with several references to fair treatment for the poor. The children of the needy are saved, their oppressors are broken in pieces, and any who have no helper are saved from violence. Psalm 82 echoes similar themes with fair warning to those who were currently perverting the judgement of the poor. It’s a powerful picture of God standing present with them just about ready to arise as judge to inherit all the nations of the earth. His big complaint? Justice was being denied to the poor, the fatherless, the afflicted, and the needy.

When Jesus stepped into time, and then into His anointed ministry, He began fulfilling the prophecies concerning the poor in the midst of His ministry. Although the Kingdom was not ushered in with the prophesied apocalypse, His ministry did bring the opportunity to enter the Kingdom of God through repentance. When we enter the Kingdom, we are forsaking this present world in favor of a future kingdom, or a city whose builder and maker is the LORD. Our assemblies consist of citizens of the future kingdom currently living under His rule, even though the world at large does not recognize His authority. We have repented and recognize it in advance.

But if we truly recognize His authority, we will hear how the prophecies concerning the poor can be put into practice today. I ran across this thought provoking article which deals with some of the issues I raise here.

There is coming a day when justice will no longer be denied to the poor. But we can do our best to make sure that our efforts do not add to the current list of complaints that the LORD has against this world. And we can further reach out to the poor by admitting that any social status we think we have, we surrendered at the cross.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

Numerology of Sunday Worship

When the first day of the week dawned on that resurrection morning, it was the day after the Sabbath. When we enter the Messianic Kingdom, we will be entering the Messianic rest. The Sabbath is seven. But when the resurrection came, it was the day after the seventh, or the eighth. The resurrection will one day be a new beginning on the other side of the Sabbath. This will follow the Sabbath rest of the Messianic Kingdom which is the Millennial Kingdom.

When studying the numerology of the Bible, the number eight tells of a new beginning. Since Matthew and Mark both make specific note that the Sabbath was past when this first day of the week dawned, we see that we are on the eighth day, the day after the seventh. So although it is the first day, it is also the eighth. Eight is the number of new beginnings. Eight was the number of souls on the ark for the new beginning on the new earth, I Peter 3:20, as well as Noah’s personal number, II Peter 2:5. Israelites were circumcised at eight days old. This was the cutting away of the old flesh to begin anew. Luke records the fulfillment of the eight days for Jesus. The dedication of the firstborn to the LORD occurred on the eighth day, Exodus 22:30. A leper could be pronounced clean on the eighth day or anyone with a type of uncleanness for that matter thus beginning a new life symbolized especially in the releasing of the living bird into the open fields, Leviticus 14:10, 53. David was the eighth son. He would be the new king after God’s own heart replacing Saul.

Concerning the tabernacle/temple - It was on the eighth day after seven days of consecration that Aaron and his sons began their priestly ministries, Leviticus 9:1. It was the new beginning of the priesthood. The feast of tabernacles has an eighth day as a solemn assembly which concludes a series of feasts. The blowing of trumpets is on the 1^st day of the seventh month. The Day of Atonement is on the 10^th day of the seventh month. The feast of tabernacles begins on the 15^th day and extends to the 23^rd day of the seventh month, that being the eighth day of the feast, Leviticus 23:36. Solomon made a solemn assembly on that very eighth day of the feast of tabernacles after a seven day feast of dedicating the altar at the inauguration of the temple, II Chronicles 7:9-10. This was the new beginning of worship at the temple with a newly dedicated altar. It took eight days to cleanse the house of the LORD from uncleanness during the days of Hezekiah, II Chronicles 29:17. Perhaps this was patterned after Solomon’s seven day dedication followed by an eighth day solemn assembly. Whatever the case, the cleansed temple began anew on the eighth day. Ezra instructed the people to observe the feast of tabernacles including the eighth day solemn assembly, Nehemiah 8:18. This led them to rededicate themselves to the covenant in Nehemiah 9. Let us not forget Hanukkah either, even though it is not contained in the canon. It was the rededication of the desecrated temple along with being a delayed observance of the feast of tabernacles when a small amount of oil miraculously lasted eight days. Ezekiel envisioned a future temple with eight steps from the south gate, the east gate, and the north gate toward the temple proper. It also will have eight tables for the slaying of sacrifices. It will take seven days to consecrate the priests as well as purge the altar. On the eighth day the priests will begin to offer up the sacrifices, Ezekiel 43:27. It will be the temple of a new beginning during the Messianic Kingdom. The feast of tabernacles also has a future in the Messianic Kingdom, Zechariah 14:16.

So what will happen to this resurrection worship that we experience on Sundays when the Messianic Kingdom comes? I believe everyday will be resurrection worship for us as we will be in our resurrection bodies living in the New Jerusalem. What about Gentile nations? I’m not sure. We should remember that Israel will have a theocracy once again with the LORD physically in their midst in the person of Jesus the Messiah. In Israel there will only be one religion that is not against the law. Many Gentile nations will reverence Israel and the God of Israel. They will kiss the Son, Psalm 2, to avoid His wrath. So the idea of church buildings may not even exist any more.

This is it for my mini series with insights into the giving of the law at Sinai. I hope to get to some of the issues between A-Millennialism versus Pre-Millennialism. Those posts will touch base on the interaction (or lack of interaction) that I had at Illumination. My purpose for that series will be to lay out where I’m coming from, the questions I am asking, and the lack of response that I have received thus far. I truly would like to interact with some A-Millennialists who will consider the scriptures objectively and not automatically play the "church is the new Israel" card for every scripture they don’t have an answer for.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

Objections by Replacement Theology

Reformed Theology (i.e. Replacement Theology) would tell us that the church has replaced Israel, infant baptism has replaced circumcision, the body of believers has replaced the Israelite temple, and Sunday worship has replaced the seventh day Sabbath. This is simply not the case. The Sabbath has not been replaced by Sunday worship. The Sabbath will be reinstituted during the Millennial Kingdom. Because Israel as a nation is currently blinded to faith in their Messiah, Israel as a nation cannot currently please God with their Sabbaths. Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16 give believing Israelites the option of observing the Sabbath or forbearing to observe it. In the interim period before the establishment of the kingdom of heaven (when Israel will once again observe the Sabbath) believing Israelites may choose to observe the Sabbath and it will be as unto the LORD. Other Israelites may choose not to observe the Sabbath as prescribed in the Mosaic law understanding th