Weekly Communion

The Weekly Observance of the Lord’s Supper

I recently heard someone say "there is no commandment in the New Testament. to observe the Lord’s Supper every week" Of course this statement is both True and False. It is true because there is no such commandment. But it is false in that it implies that a weekly observance of communion is not God’s directive will for The Lord’s church. We do not learn God’s will for the church only by commandments. Jesus said He had all religious authority. He transferred that authority only to his Apostles, no one else. He not only told them that what ever they bound or loosed on earth was bound and loosed in Heaven; But he also told them to wait in Jerusalem until they were endowed with Authority from on High! Thus what ever the apostles set as precedents. in all the churches we are to follow. We learn God’s directive will, (that is, those things He expects us to obey or be penalized if we do not) not only by Commandments but also by examples laid down for us by what the Apostles bound and loosed, and by principles in the word of God. We obey the commandments, we follow the examples, and we apply the principles. But it is the example of a weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper that we are addressing here. It is understood that the Apostles set the precedent of meeting on the first day of the week. We follow that example and there is no commandment saying the church must have its assembly on the first day of the week. We simply see the example of the Apostles setting the precedent of the Lord’s church meeting on the first day of every week. There are four New Testament passages that plainly show that it was also the practice of the New Testament church to partake of the Breaking of Bread (a euphemism of the Lord’s Supper) every first day week assembly. Thus we are to follow their example if we want to do God’s will.

Scripture Examples to follow.

1. Acts 2:42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.

If all four of these religious items were followed steadfastly. What would that mean? If a person came to church once a year,. Would he be steadfast ? How about every three months? No? How about once a month? We would probably say, "he comes once in a while, but he is not steadfast." Thus to be steadfast the observance of each requires them to be a part of every weekly assembly. Breaking of bread is a euphemism for the Lord’s Supper. It can also mean taking a meal. But would eating a meal fit this context? For instance: Fellowship, Apostle’s doctrine, prayers, and eating breakfast steadfastly. It does not fit the context. We take the Lord’s Supper in the weekly observance of being steadfast in the prayers and Preaching Apostle’s doctrine and sharing. All or none are enjoined by precedent.

2. Acts 20:5These going before waited for us at Troas. 6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread and came to them at Troas in five days; where we stayed seven days. 7And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart in the morning; and continued his speech until midnight.

The disciples came on the first day of the week. Why? Because they were taught by the Apostles that that was the day to assemble. Most commentators note that 5 days crossing the Aegean Sea must have been caused by bad weather and made Paul late arriving on Monday instead of Sunday or earlier as he must have planned. It is obvious from the ensuing context that did not want to delay because he wanted to be in Jerusalem on a set time. However he felt it was needful for this church which he had started on his way out to Corinth for him to meet with them and it is clear that they came together for the primary purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper. This is another precedent setting verse. We are to follow precedents.

3. 1 Corinthians 11::20 When you come together therefore into one place, it is not the eating of the Lord's supper (the way you are doing it). ......... ........33Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait one for another. 34And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; so that you do not come together to condemnation. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

This passage shows that the Corinthian church were eating the Lord’s supper when they assembled. They assembled on the first day of the week according to 1 Cor. 16:1. But they were taking Communion improperly. They were making a meal out of it instead of a memorial eating to observe Jesus death. and according to 1Cor 10:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Gaining spiritual access to that death and blood. He told them to do it right and explained how. Thus they also were taking Communion on the first day of the week, Every first day of the week. Because that is the Apostolic precedent. They continued doing so after being corrected.

4. Hebrews 10"25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as you see the day approaching. 26For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He who despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, he shall be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God and has counted the blood of the covenant, with which he was sanctified, an unholy thing and has done despite to the Spirit of grace?

How can one lose his relationship to the sacrifice of the Cross? Well this verse says it is possible for the sin of "forsaking the assembling? How is that possible? What connection does weekly church attendance have to do with the sacrifice of the cross or "blood of the covenant?"

Jesus called the cup or fruit of the vine in the observance that he instituted at the last Passover, "the blood of the covenant." It is recorded four times in the New Testament. Testament and Covenant are the same word in the Greek New Testament.

1. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

2. Mark14:24 And he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

3. Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

4 1 Corinthians 11:25 He also took the cup after the same manner, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood:

It is plain in the Hebrews passage that the sin that would cause one to lose his sacrifice is turning ones back on the Lord’s supper, The Blood of the Covenant, in its weekly observance. The Lord’s Supper then was in the assembly that Hebrews warns us not to forsake. It is forsaking the Blood of the Testament; or the passage makes no sense. Thus this is the fourth passage that gives an Apostolic precedent for a weekly observance of the Lord’s supper.

Indeed, we should take this article of Faith as seriously as the apostle makes it in the Hebrews passage.

Was Membership in a Local Church a Part of New Testament Polity?

1. Acts 18 27 is the earliest mention of letters which would accompany a person moving to another church fellowship. Speaking of Apollos:

Acts 18:26ff ........ Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him to them and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly. 27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brothers wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he had come, helped them greatly who had believed through grace:

2. 2 Cor 3:1 shows that some needed letters of commendation also showing that was a common practice as it says that they also wrote such letters as well as receiving them.

2 Cor 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or do we need, as some do, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

3. 1Tim 5:9 speaks of supporting widows. "Taken into the number" shows there had to be a reckoning of who was and was not a member "in the number."

1 Tim 5:9 let not a widow be taken into the number under sixty years old, having been the wife of one man,

4. The tradition of extending "the right hand of fellowship" to someone who has not been a local member but makes their own statement that they have been baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and wish membership in a local Christian Church is based on Gal 2:9. Our tradition is to accept a statement in lieu of a letter. No letter seems to have been given to or carried by Paul and Barnabas.

Ga 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision.

5. A person could be deprived of membership. He could be "disfellowshipped" by the action of the whole congregation (not the preacher or elders). If he was removed as a member then there must have been a membership roll to which he with others belonged.

1Cor 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your glorying is not good. Do you not know a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened.

6. Elders have responsibility over the "flock." There has to be some way to know who is in the flock and who is not. How can you watch over some one if you do not know who is in the flock.

Acts 29 :28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

1Pet 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight of it, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but from a ready mind; 3Not as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

7. Christians are admonished to obey the elders in their local church. How do you know which congregation’s elders are responsible for you and which ones you are to respect as your spiritual overseers if you are not a member of a local church. Christians are to obey their elders of their local "flock." Members at 1st Christian do not need to seek the advice of the elders of Ben Hill Christian Church, Their elders are responsible for their flock, not ours. Unless someone, from there, places his "membership" here.

Hebrews 13: 7 Remember those who have leadership over you, who have spoken to you the word of God: whose faith follow, .........17Obey those who have the leadership and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as those who must give an account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

8. A Bible based church scripturally, fully "set in order" (see Titus 1:5) has elders who are the leaders assisted by deacons who SERVE the saints who make up the congregation. Paul and Timothy wrote to them. Notice they did not write to "The Pastor." There was no one man "Pastor." They included the saints or those saved Christians who would be in the "number."

Plilp 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

9. A sinning member who had been expelled from the local church could be restored to membership. That is: he could be restored to the fellowship of that local church upon his repentance. There seems to have been a formal acceptance offered that was yet to be offered in Corinth to the repentant sinner who was expelled after the action in 1 Cor 5. The following scripture show that the disfellowship action was carried out by the congregation i.e. was inflicted of many, – not by officers or one man. The repentant brother was restored to membership.

2Cor 2: 6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. 7So that contrariwise you ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 8Therefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him. 9For also to this end I wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you would be obedient in all things. 10 To whom you forgive any thing, I forgive also:

10. Some people in Bible time, as well as the present, usurp authority that does not scripturally belong to them. (We are speaking about a New Testament church not any denomination which does not try to follow New Testament church order as Christian Churches have aimed at doing.) Diotrephes mentioned in 3rd John usurped the congregation’s authority as to who could and could not be received as a member and also "cast out" members of the church. If there were no church roll as who was or was not a member, how could they be "cast out?" Diotrephes could not have acted arbitrarily at all if he did not know which member opposed him. He was a usurper of the freedom which belonged to all. The rest of the letter shows that John ignored the false usurper and visited the church anyway.

John says in 3Jo. 9 I wrote to the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. 10Therefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words: and is not content with that, neither does he himself receive the brothers and forbids those who would and casts them out of the church.

What do you think happened to Diotrephes? Did the church let him stay?

Is Cannabis in the Bible

Does the Greek word kannabis which is hemp derive from the Hebrew "sweet cane" in Ex 30:23? And if so: Did they smoke it?

First since there is a Greek word for hemp, that is kannabis, (the Latin word for hemp is cannabis.) it would seem clear that if the Greek word were derived from the Hebrew words "q'neh-bosem" or that the Greek writers of the Septuagint would have known that derivation and have written kannabis meaning cannabis or hemp in Ex 30:23 instead of (kalamos) which means reed or cane, which is the same Greek word used for papyrus and all other reeds. The coincidence of similar sound between q'neh-bosem and cannabis is probably just that, coincidence.

In Ex 30:23

the mixture of spices which were to be mixed together which has among them the Hebrew words that your Rabbi says refers to cannabis could hardly be an intoxicating potion no matter what the composition of the "chrism"since it was to be used for pouring as an anointing oil on the head of Aaron and his sons and the conclusions of all the mixing is: "This shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations." So it really doesn't matter if you defend the herbs or not that were in this oil. What ever the mixture was made of, the result was not to send Aaron on a "high." Even if hemp, though doubtful, were in this passage, it would not be justification of its use as a hallucinogen.

But the derivation of the word that has been given to you seems to me to be in error. The Hebrew word for Calamus in Ex 30:23 is made up of two words. They are qeneh-bosem. The word bosem is "sweet: (just above this is qiniman-bosem which is translated "sweet cinnamon") Again bosem is "sweet". That leaves us with the word qeneh (actually q'neh) which is only related to hemp in that hemp is also a reed or a cane. But is hemp a "sweet" cane? I don't know as I have never even seen a part of the plant. I suppose however that hemp is not a "sweet" cane. I have smelled the aroma at hippie gatherings at Stone Henge and I did not consider it sweet. Thus what ever was in the mixture of anointing oil, called calamus in English, it was probably not cannabis or hemp

The word calamus is used 3 times in the KJV. Of these both the Song 4:15 and the Ezek passage have the word q'neh in Hebrew without the word sweet following as in Ex. There is no "bosem" Thus Calamus is a proper translation of q'neh both of which mean reed or cane and they are generic, that is any reed or cane. Again, the word calamus in Song 4:15 is from the Hebrew q'neh alone. The word bosem (sweet) is not in the text in Song 4:15. The word q'neh translated calamus here appears 62 time in the OT and is translated reed, cane, spear, pen etc. beside calamus.

Now let us do the word cannabis. There is no word for this drug in Biblical Hebrew just as there is no word for galaxy in Biblical Hebrew since Galaxies were not discovered until the early part of the 20th century. Yes there is a word for galaxy in modern Hebrew,- it is a transliteration "galaqsah" an obvious transliteration of an English word, and so the word for cannabis in modern Hebrew is "qannabbos" which is obviously a transliteration of the English or Greek word. Thus the Hebrew word for hemp is derived from English (or Greek) not ancient Levitical Hebrew in Ex 30:23. Cannabis then is not mentioned in Ex 30:23 but "sweet cane" is mentioned

The word "calamus" as you have already discovered is derived from Greek. The Greek word (Kalamos) is used in the LXX in place of q'neh in Ex 30:23 and simply means reed or cane, and as the measuring reed used by Ezekiel to measure the temple of his vision. It stands for any kind of reed or cane. There may be a remote possible phonetic relation between hemp which is a reed called cannabis and the Greek word for reed which in English is calamus but there is not any Hebrew connection. And in spite of what I just wrote, it is very doubtful there is any etymological relation between the words cannabis and calamus.

Thus I would say your Rabbi smokes weed and would like to find some Biblical justification for it, rather than to say he is an expert in ancient Hebrew herbal mixtures. I doubt very much that he is.

I agree that legal opposition to the use of this weed and the penalties for possessing it is over done by authorities in our government at this time, but I do not use it , never have, and believe no Christian would use it except a backslider or one just baptized trying to get over it. Get high on the Holy Ghost just as it says in Eph 5:18 don't get high on booze, but fill yourself with the Holy Spirit". (Miller's translation) means "don't get high on weed, but let the Holy Spirit be your high through Christian music, worship, etc.

Let us be sure to see that even if there were a connection between the hemp plant and Ex 30:23 it was not going to be used for a hallucinogen. That kind of worship is a part of idolatrous and forbidden speaking-to-the-dead religions but not a part of Mosaic or Christian worship. Hemp makes good rope and good sack cloth. I am sorry that the misuse of the plant creates a shortage in the good uses the plant can be put to.

Semetic languages and Hebrew

Semetic Languages

All the Semetic languages are very similar. They may have a different script like the wedge shaped cuneiform of the original Assyrians. That script changed with the coming of Aramaic block script but still the same language. The Behistun Inscription of Darius I is an illustration of Aramaic written in cuneiform script about 500 BC. The cuneiform script was invented by the Sumerians (3500 BC?) whose language was different (a Hamitic language.) But the culture and science (Astronomy, the zodiac has not changed to this day, 360 degree circle and angles based on it, a base 60 and more) was adopted by the conquering Semites about 2000 to 1800 BC.

Another illustration of similar but not the same languages is Italian and Spanish. Same grammar, many similar words, but not the same language. But speakers of each can understand much of what the other speaker is saying. I had the experience with a French church of Christ evangelist in Lille, France, who was born in Italy. He didn't do English and I didn't do French but we communicated more or less in Spanish and hand signs. Hebrew and Aramaic is like that.

All the Semetic languages are related. Aramaic is similar to Hebrew and Arabic actually having the same Alef Bet for all three languages. Aramaic was the language of the whole of the Fertile Crescent (from the Persian Gulf round through Caananite Palestine) at least from the time of the Assyrian Empire beginning 800 BCE and probably before to Abrahamic time, on through New Testament times. The returnees from Babylonian captivity, 536 BCE, spoke Aramaic and it became the lingua franca of the Jews through the time of Ezra to the Advent of The Nazarene Carpenter. Since all people spoke Aramaic, Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the scriptures) were written in the inter testament period so that attenders of the synogogue could understand what was taught. Targums are Aramaic paraphrases of Hebrew scripture and commentary. As you know Jesus spoke Aramaic. There is no Hebrew quotation from Jesus. Even Tabatha qumi is Aramaic. Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani is Aramaic. The Hebrew is Ely Ely lama azavtani. It means the same thing.

Original Hebrew script differs from the Block style Hebrew we are used to. In fact the block Hebrew characters are actually Aramaic and were adopted after the Babylonian captivity. To see an inscription in the Hebrew that was extant in Hezekiahs time click http://www.moellerhaus/22.htm and scroll down till you find the inscription that was written inside Hezekiah's Siloam Gihon Tunnel.

The Inscription, now in the Museum of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul, was found in 1880 by two boys wading inside Siloam tunnel some 20 feet above the western reservoir .

The ancient Hebrew script is nothing like the Aramaic block letters we now use. A part of the Bible is written in Aramaic, that is, a portion of Daniel is written in Aramaic and -- a large portion of Ezra is written in Aramaic and even the Hebrew portion has many Aramaic words.

100 years before Christ The Essenes are said to have composed the DSS Isaiah Scroll. The language of the scroll is Hebrew with a heavy Aramaic accent and some (a few only) Aramaic words. The script is manuscript Hebrew and does not look like the current characters. My Isaiah Scroll introduction pages are actually a grammar of the scroll. You might want to have a look. http://www.moellerhaus/qum-intr.htm

Of the Semetic languages the grammar is almost identical, the Alep Bet the same and much (but not all) vocabulary is shared. All pronominal suffixes are the same except Aramaic adds an open sylable. Like kem in Heb. is 2plural you (ye) and the same in Aramaic is kemah.

The Arabic is still the same: Salaam aley Kem is "peace upon you (ye) Hebrew is: Shalom
aley-kem

Resurgent Islam predicted after the end of the Turkish Empire as early as 1650

Resurgent Islam. Historical interpreters have predicted a resurgent
Islam from the beginning of the 1800's and even earlier. I am just some one
following the lead of those who have gone before in many protestant
denominations including Anglicans, all of whom unfortunately have thrown
their prophetic heritage away with the popularity of the left behind
doctrines.

Durham (1647)and bishop Newton (1750) were both Anglicans, Scott, Farber, (1815) were Methodists, Barnes (1853) a Presbyterian, and B.W.Johnson (1878) of the noninsturment church of Christ. All the preceding predicted a resurgeance of islam after the end of the Turkish Empire(1917).

When most Islamic nations in mid 1800's were under the control of European powers (mostly
English and French) it would hardly seem to be the time to predict a
reassertion of Islamic power is the future after predicting that the Turkish
empire would "dry up" first. But that is what these interpreters and
many more did.

They place the time after the fall of the Turkish Empire 1917 and in
conjunction with the rise and fall of Russian Atheism and the return to
political power of the Papacy lost in 1870 and restored in 1931 which has
crown stronger as Islam increases. It is similar to the argument for
maintain the "temporality" that Luther opposed which the Papists said was
needed to maintain the crusades and hold back the Turks. The Papists are
using it again today to maintain political assertiveness. The alliance of
Soviet atheism, renewed papal political power and an alliance with Islam to
impede true religion was voiced by most of those mentioned above in the 18th
and 19th centuries.

The fall of the soviet system (1991) has taken place and is ongoing to its ultimate
completion. Already, no nation will ever again collectivize its peasantry
and nationalize their industry, that is over, not even the "communist"
Chinese have held the line. Perhaps Cuba and a few other minor entities are
still enamored with the false concept but it will all soon pass as it has in
the former soviet satellites,

The next events of the next 20 years, will include the passing of political
organized power of the Vatican. They will no longer hang anyone under
Blackfriars Bridge, The Bishop of Rome will still be around but not in the
same position. All his embassies world wide will close. and perhaps the
church will get back to the business of interpreting the Bible.
Islam is undergoing great changes. The changes have already been outlined
in prophecy. Islamic nations will open to more and more political and
religious freedom. Islam it self will not disappear but political and
religious freedom will come to Islamic nations. Political freedom and
religious freedom are one in the same. If you have one you have the other.

The Almighty, through the sword of Jesus' mouth, is the most potent weapon and
with all these entities here the war is ideological and will be won on an
ideological battleground and not with the weapons of war.

It is like this: If God is to discipline any person or nation he does not
need our help to do so. I think the Jews were under a discipline from God
and scattering was the punishment. Any nation who felt that God needed help
in disciplining Jews from the Romans, to the Spanish, and then Germans has
suffered themselves. God does not need our help. Islamic nations will open
to Political and religious freedom. I think the current bloody events to
help that concept along are ill conceived and will just impede what is
inevitable. My own position from the 1980's been that the Christian truth
brought to the light of day in our time by Lesbian Atheists is the major
force (not the only ideology but the main one) that must and is bringing
about change in politics and religion in Islamic nations. The woman's
movement is unstoppable and it will do more to bring change than all wars and
the atomic bombs that may yet fall before western politicians get wise.
When you hear that some Baptist and Methodist and perhaps some church of
Christ missionaries have opened little missions in Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina
then you will know the season is well underway.

From 1930 to 2030 Satan is
scheduled to loose his major force against God. All sin will not be gone,
but the 1. Dragon (Godless secular government as an enemy of the growth of
the Christian religion) 2. The Beast ( The false Babylonish religion and
political power of the Papacy) and 3, The False Prophet (the incredible
influence of Islam from Gibraltar to the Indus River and Indonesia to cloud
the minds of multiple millions for more than 1300 years) will be gone.
Militant Islam will be as dead in Riyadh as communism is in Warsaw and
Kiev. Give it 20 or so years. The only thing that will make it longer is
humans trying to help it along with war. That will just delay the
inevitable and we in the west will pay a high price for our interference.

A Critique of the Septuagint Version of the Bible. The LXX

About the LXX. It is not always a faithful translation of the Hebrew text. You probably know that the Hebrew text of Daniel has never been in doubt from the time of Artixerxes Longamanus, but that the LXX translation of Daniel was considered faulty from it inception until it was re-translated in the LXX after the 1st century A.D.

Another complaint I have about one using the LXX and assuming it is precise in conveying what the Hebrew text contains is the fact that, like the NIV, it is an interpretive translation and not a word for word translation and that the LXX translaters used great liberty in giving a very loose and interpretive translation to difficult texts,– actually more liberty than the NIV people used. The highest point of such liberty of adding explanations to the text is found in Isaiah where the text of the LXX differs very greatly in the Hebrew passages where Isaiah's extensive use of "play on words" or alliteration is found.

The variety and liberty of adding of explanatory words was used by the LXX translators because: The play on words or "double entendre" in Hebrew is lost in translation because the alliterative use of homonyms, etc. do not show up in another language, so the LXX translaters took the literary privilege to explain the double meaning in the alliterations. These explanatory additions in the LXX are so extensive in Isaiah that many "scholars" say that the book of Isaiah in the LXX is translated from a different "vorlage" meaning a different text, or source-- they are wrong.

I believe that the LXX uses the same freedom to add to the text in Daniel 9.

I Know When Jesus is not Coming

In my humble opinion, I do not see the second coming of Jesus of Nazareth followed by his actual presence in Palestine. (Required by the pre-mil doctrine) I believe that the theory that Jews rejected his humble first coming but will accept him in majesty is faulty and my opinion is that every knee ought to bend to the Carpenter but that every knee will bow, willing or not, to the one seated on the throne. To be saved everyone, Jew and Gentile, must bow to the Carpenter, the humility of whom is a demonstration of his majesty.

In Isa. 66:22 the continued imagery of the new heavens and the new earth is in the context of the birth of the church, and world evangelism, bringing back gentiles out of all nations to keep Jewish customs and worship and actually becoming priests and Levites which is impossible under the law of Moses. It must be spiritually fulfilled in the first coming and the church age which is the renewed heavens and earth.

Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, are words that are used figuratively in Messianic contexts and were spiritually established during the first coming of the Victim of Calvary and the mission of his chosen apostles.

The Roman letter teaches Gentile Christians are the Israel of God having been grafted into the root that has been abandoned by the natural nation.

Zion is the perfected condition, not a place, that God has prepared for us. Christians dwell in Zion now. "O Zion haste thy mission high fulfilling to tell to all the world that God is light."

Christians, the apostle Paul assures us, dwell in Jerusalem which is above, against which the natural nation has been and is still at war. Christians endure the pain of this world but seek a city. At least in pospect we already live in Zion, Jerusalem, and in the new heavens and new earth.

Contrary to Futurist interpretations that are popular now with the Left Behind group. "Glorification of Israel" prophesies began to be fulfilled at the return of the remnant Jews from Babylon followed by an ingathering of the Jews of remnants of every tribe of physical Israel and the founding of the second commonwealth, and the setting up of the second temple, and "in those days and at that time" God would and did bring forth "a righteous branch unto David." and his coming did fulfill all the "David" and "branch." prophesies.

The symbolic 1000 years of Revelation 20 is a panorama of the Gospel age, from the first coming when Jesus bound Satan which resulted of Satan being bound in the nations until his being loosed again to a short time (100 to 200 years) after the loosing of Satan. We seem to be living in the period of the loosing of Satan. I do not see the second coming in my lifetime.

I do not believe that those who differ with my opinions necessarily will be lost on that account, since it is the blood of the cross that saves, not escatology. Neither do I believe that being right as I assume I am on this subject will save my soul on that account. Only submission to Jesus' will, as it is written "He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him."

There does not seem to be anything to obey in escatology except to watch for his coming.

I will watch, and I do not know when he is coming but I KNOW WHEN HE IS NOT COMING, for instance as long as the Vatican is a state and accepted political power do not look for the second coming. And as long as Islamic nations are not open to religious and political freedom do not look fot the second coming, because the Lion of the Tribe of Judah will overcome all of his enemies in historical time.

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.