It is funny, and a little scary, how much our views change over the years. Sometimes they are even required even though we had been trying to make sure that our beliefs were accurate.
One of the recent changes in my understanding of the Bible was first researched several years ago. While reading through the Bible, the genealogies seemed long and monotonous. In order to make more sense of all the names, I created a simple genealogy program and started to enter names and ages into it.
One of the problems that I ran into with this concerned the genealogies of Joseph, the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus. The genealogies given in Matthew 1 are very different from the lineage given in Luke 3.
At the time I had done some poking around and research to figure out why that was. Somehow my sources managed to convince me that Luke traced Mary’s ancestry, while Matthew was more concerned with arguing to the Jews and traced Joseph’s.
Last night I ended up looking at these passages again and I just could not see how that argument could work out. Here are the two passages that make the view impossible in my mind (emphasis mine):
Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Both passages are clearly talking about Joseph. How I was convinced otherwise, I have no idea. It seems that I let myself get distracted. This difference appears to pose quite a problem at first so I did some more digging.
The solution that I view as most probable is mildly complex and very intriguing. It was proposed by a man that is known as Julius Africanus who had, it seems, lived in Emmaus for some portion of his life. You might recall how Jesus traveled with several disciples who were walking there on the day of His resurrection. Many speculate that Africanus was even born in that town. He wrote this explanation for the differences between Matthew 1 and Luke 3 roughly 200 years after Jesus lived:
- Both genealogies are those of Joseph.
- That Joseph was the son of Jacob or of Heli, either by adoption, or because Jacob and Heli were either own brothers or half-brothers; so that,—
- On the death of one of the brothers, without issue, the surviving brother married his widow, who became the mother of Joseph by this marriage; so that Joseph was reckoned the son of Jacob and the son of Heli.
- Joseph and Mary were of the same lineage, but the Hebrews did not reckon descent from the side of the woman. For them St. Luke’s genealogy is the sufficient register of Christ’s royal descent and official claim. St. Luke gives his personal pedigree, ascending to Adam, and identifying Him with the whole human race.
If this is what happened, it is neat. Say that Joseph’s grandmother married and had a son. Her first husband died and she remarried. There was another son by that marriage.
As time passed on, one of those sons married but died without leaving his wife a son to carry on the family name. The Jewish law then commanded that the man’s brother marry her and raise up a son to bear his brother’s name (Deuteronomy 25:5,6).
Yes, I know. I’ve heard women say “My brother-in-law is alright, but he’d better not touch me.” There is a reason for this close view of family that we have strayed away from in our western world. Anyhow, back to the original point.
If only one son came out of that marriage—namely, Joseph—he would be heir of both sides of the family.
This is definitely more plausible than the teaching from 1502 that Luke traced Mary’s genealogy. The text of Luke it too explicit to hold to that belief.
Another example of a change in beliefs would concern the now-popular view that Jesus is going to return and claim His church before the tribulation period spoken of in Daniel and John’s Revelation.
During my senior year in high school I had written a paper examining the “pre-,” “mid-,” and “post-” tribulation rapture ideas. I had been taught pre-tribulation for most of my life and it was the doctrinal position of the church that I was attending at the time. In that paper I wrote that there were good arguments for all three but that I would hold to the pre-tribulation view.
My intent has since changed. There is a very informative book called The Incredible Cover Up (Dave MacPherson) that traces the origins of these separate views.
After extensive traveling and pouring through books, letters and notes, he found that the earliest reference to a split in Christ’s return (once for his church, then again later in judgment) came from a vision/prophesy in 1830 by a woman named Margaret MacDonald. This was picked up by Darby, who was visiting that night, and developed into an entire branch of theology.
The funny thing is that on the same night, Miss MacDonald also prophesied that one of the socialist leaders of their day in Great Britain was the Anti-Christ.
If you judge by the Left Behind series (which I’ve read) or Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth or any other similar source, when the Anti-Christ appears the world only has seven years left.
By all accounts, Margaret MacDonald prophesied wrongly. And the Bible does not teach a split return of Christ on its own—anybody who has studied what Darby and Scofield propagated can tell you that.
So what happens? For now I’m forced to fall back to what is said in Deuteronomy 18:22:
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Or, in this case, her.
It is humbling to find that I’ve messed up such things after examining them in the past. This is also useful as a reminder to keep my eyes on the one that all wisdom comes from. Proverbs 9:10:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
I pray that you seek wisdom and understanding also.
Comments
Submitted by Anonymous on
I finally figured out that I am “Pan-Trib” - It will all pan out in the end!
Submitted by Kim on
Interesting about Joseph. Don’t think I’ve ever really noticed his “two” fathers. I would’ve just assumed it was the same guy with a different name (as has happened elsewhere in the Bible).
Submitted by Chris on
It definitely will. The main reason that it would matter is that we have a lot of people now who think they are going to be pulled out before things get really bad.
That hasn’t happened for the Christians leading up to our time and it is dangerous to expect for such a thing to happen now. At best, we have Isaiah 57:1:
But I certainly do not claim to know how it is going to play out… at least not yet.
Submitted by Chris on
Oh, it gets better. It is possible that the grandfathers listed are the same guy with minor differences in spelling, but apart from that the lists are entirely different from David to Joseph.
I’m not pretending to know definitively what is going on. It has simply piqued my interest.
Submitted by Kayla on
We’ve been studying the Rapture at church lately. Consider I Thessalonians 4:13-5:4. The verses in chapter 4 seem to describe a peaceful and wonderful taking away of the saints whereas the verses in 5 seem to describe a violent and stressful time. Verse 4 especially points out that “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day [referring to the day of the Lord] should overtake you as a thief”. Also Isaiah 13:6-9 describes the “day of the Lord” which is the same term used in I Thessalonians 5:2.
Just some thoughts.
Submitted by Chris on
Yeah, I Thessalonians 5:4 is probably the most relevant verse for this explanation. If we ignore that Isaiah was written in Hebrew and the letters to Thessalonica in Greek, a phrase study of “the day of the Lord” is still a neat one. To do it properly, you would have to compare the Septuagint text to phrases used in the New Testament and my Greek isn’t good enough for that. Thankfully II Peter 3:10 helps:
The “day of the Lord” is when Jesus returns to judge the nations. With this in mind, how could a Christian be taken by surprise when that day comes (I Thessalonians 5:4) if the Christians are caught up at a different time?
There is a difference in how Christians and non-Christians will view that day, you are right. It is similar to Luke 12:3:
This is a verse that Believers in persecuted countries cling to. It is a curse for those who do wrong, and a promise for those who do right.
HTH.
Submitted by Kayla on
Very true, the translation probably is different. And yes, the day of the Lord is the second coming of Christ. However, if that day will not overtake believers as a thief in the night, perhaps we won’t be here because we will already have been caught up in the clouds to meet our Lord in the air. (It was also said that a thief in the night is not a “sneaky ninja” but in the ancient times would literally overtake you and it would be stressful.)
II Peter 3:10 could pose problems for pre-trib people, but 2:9 holds the promise that He will deliver the righteous. And if you read back to verse 5, He spared Noah from the Flood. Using this example, go back to Matthew 24:37-40. Just as God saved Noah through the Ark from the Flood, God will save those believers during the Tribulation through Christ from the second coming of Christ. The evildoers were taken away (violently) while the other (believer) was left. This differs from the Rapture in the way that believers during this time we be caught up with Him in the clouds (His feet never touch earth), while the believers during the Tribulation will be left on earth when He comes the second time (His feet will touch the Mount of Olives). Many people think that Matthew describes the Rapture, but it does not.
This having been said, we do not believe we will be spared persecution. In fact, that is one thing Paul promises we will have.
This is the view I currently hold to, but I’ll be the first to admit, I’ve not studied it in detail and I’m looking forward to the continuation of our study at church. The second part is this Sunday, so I’ll have more ideas and proof then. (If you want, we can get you a copy of the sermons on CD and send them along.)
And as a side note with the genealogies and stuff, my great-grandmother married her brother-in-law, so we’re very familiar with that idea.
Submitted by Chris on
It is only speculation that the day of the Lord won’t overtake us as a thief because we won’t be here. If you read the phrase in context, Paul is telling us what is to come so that we won’t be caught off guard when the day of judgment comes. That sounds an awful lot like we’ll be there.
A thief in the night was the same back then as now. See Matthew 24:42,43:
IIRC, Darby specifically taught that the passage in Matthew is not talking about the rapture. The passage from verse 46 onward makes it impossible.
Allow me to ask this about II Peter 2:9. How would a rapture from God’s wrath keep His own from temptation? Would facing that wrath tempt them? Likewise, how does a time devoid of the church reserve others to judgment in a way that differs from what we already see? The tribulation period is not hell itself. The burning sulfur was not created as a time of repentance for Sodom or Gomorrah. Neither was the time after Noah’s ark was closed up a time when the people could repent. There was no special class of people who could jump extra high to latch onto the boat. They were damned even while they walked.
I grew up under the teaching that Jesus’ foot never touches the earth when he calls up those who belong to Him. I do not see a distinction taught in Scripture. However, if you want to send the sermons my way I’ll listen to them.
If you look at this as one event where Jesus comes, calls up His church, and judges the world, Matthew 24 fits more easily with its talk of two walking and one being caught up.
Hmm, that is kindof neat about your great-grandmother. In some ways the idea makes me cringe and in others I think it has some great symbology.
Submitted by Kayla on
Sorry I’m late.
I read I Thessalonians 5:4 in context several times (because I tend to miss things ). Although I see where you’re coming from (and I’m willing to study it further as it seems possible), verse 9 also points back to this: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” Of course this could mean several things, but I’m just reading it without studying the words, reading articles or books, etc., and it seems to say that God hasn’t appointed us to wrath, but to be saved by our Lord Jesus Christ (from this wrath). You’re right, I am just speculating at this point.
If the day of judgment comes after the Tribulation, I don’t think it would be much of a surprise to believers. (Matthew 24:29) Not much would catch us off guard, I would think. I might be wrong, as I’ve not studied it much yet.
The passage in Matthew about the thief in the night backs up my definition.
The passage in Matthew about “the rapture” is not about the Rapture. It’s about the day of the Lord, the second coming of Christ (as opposed to the Rapture, which is the secret coming of Christ). See I Corinthians 15:51-58, paying special attention to verse 51: “Behold, I shew you a mystery…” If this is a “mystery” like Paul says (and I don’t think anyone can call Paul a liar), it would not have been spoken of in Matthew. Although Christ did know about this secret coming, it was being kept a mystery.
Re II Peter 2:9: I don’t know for sure. What I do know for sure is that II Peter was written to the Jews. If there is no Rapture and all believers are called out on the day of judgment, how would that save His people from temptation? I get the idea some people during the Tribulation will be able to figure it out (“Aha! So this is what all those religious fanatics were talking about!”). Another idea I picked up on (but can’t remember where) is that possibly God will let some remain to teach those. Unlikely, but just an idea.
When judgment comes, it’s too late. The doors of the ark were open even during the evil time. But when the rains came, it was too late. “They were damned even while they walked.” They were not. They had the chance, the opportunity, to get on that ark, to accept the salvation, and they chose not to. It was only when judgment came (the rains), that it was too late.
True, I don’t believe there is a definite distinction, but to “meet the Lord in the air” is an indicator, although not very clear.
Matthew doesn’t say one will be “caught up”, it says “taken”. And Matthew specifies it will be the evildoers who are taken away, not believers. (Since, in the days of Noah, the evildoers were “taken away” [drowned] and the believers [Noah and family] were left.)
Submitted by Chris on
This is quite a bit more prolific. Don’t worry, I’m reading through Things That Differ so I will answer some of the more central arguments in time also (I have a feeling that post will be fairly prolific. ).
That the tribulation period is God’s wrath as opposed to the wrath of men is a teaching that I have grown up under. There is a problem with that belief as well. What purpose does God’s wrath serve? There are only two scenarios that I have found. Either God uses it to turn men to himself or He destroys them entirely “in a moment” (Psalm 73:19). Neither purpose would be served by God’s wrath being sustained for seven years without Christians here to proclaim the need to repent.
As to the reply to that, where the Jews will be here, I have explained before that the Christians are a part of the covenant with Abraham. Paul wrote this in Romans 11. I’ll avoid tracing the covenant here as I’ve gone over it with you before and expect to write it out again in reply to Things That Differ. Because of this grafting in, I give little credence to something being specifically for the Jews. I’ll try to give this more attention soon since it is a fundamental difference between our views.
Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus coming back and catching us up would be a surprise to believers? I think that at least most of those who are caught up will know it is coming a short while beforehand. Jesus said many things so that we would not be caught off-guard, as did Paul.
Um… I think if you re-read that passage from Matthew you will find that the breaking-in was a surprise and not a slow, forceful overpowering. That sounds like it is at odds with what you had said… if not, perhaps I am merely misunderstanding.
The word “mystery” is made a great deal about by Stam. I find it bizarre that he cannot think that any mysteries are like those in Mark 4:11-12 and 4:23. There are some matters that are concealed until somebody has sought out God to obtain the answer. Some other matters are never revealed entirely in Scripture. Some say that Christ’s death was a payment to Satan (Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?) while others view it as an act of reparation to God. There are other views, of course, but my point is simply that these are mysteries as well. Theology is full of them. Sometimes those mysteries are allowed to be made more simple so that more people can understand them. I think this is what Paul is talking about.
Concerning Noah, he was in the ark a full seven days before the flood began (Genesis 7). It is hard to tell from the wording, but I think that the door was closed after that week. If you really want to use Noah’s story as a type for the rapture, those seven days could be translated into seven years (as is done with some parts of Daniel). Noah was still here for that. But it was not the rains that made it too late. It was the closing of the ark that made it too late.
What about 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (16 to go along with 17)?:
The Lord himself shall descend from heaven to where? A loud shout will accompany that coming along with a trumpet call. I would describe this as a battle call. It will not be missed.
Submitted by Kayla on
Lots to think about here for me. But I’m going to be busy again this weekend and this time I am letting you know before I drop off the face of the planet. I’m not ignoring you and will get back to you ASAP.
Submitted by Chris on
I’m curious what you’ll come up with. Have a good weekend.
Submitted by Kayla on
...here I am. :D
I have come to the conclusion that there is only one minor misunderstanding: I am right; you are wrong. j/k
I’m looking forward to reading your post about Things That Differ. It’ll be interesting for me, as I’ve never read it.
God’s wrath will be displayed at the second coming, the day of wrath. It’s not synonymous with the Tribulation.
As far as the world being without Christians if the believers are all raptured out, that’s where the 144,000 come in. They are that remnant. The prophecy program is going to pick back up. This is how it has been explained to me. (I just found a series of articles on bereanbiblesociety.org on Revelations, so I’ll be going through them.)
Okay, I’ll be looking forward to yet another explanation. :D
I never said the Bible said that Jesus coming back and catching us up would surprise us; you did. Or at least, that’s what I deduced. If he says what he does so we won’t be caught off-guard, then without such warning it would surprise us. But, by our thinking, he’s not warning us, he’s telling us we won’t be here.
Yes, the day of the Lord (second coming of Christ) will be a surprise, like a thief in the night. I don’t think most of the people (i.e. unbelievers) during the Tribulation will think it’s that dreadful. If people can think that our current state of morals, etc. is fine, then chances are, it will be a gradual change to whatever it will be and people will accept it.
I agree with you about the mysteries. There are several. But why would Christ reveal a mystery to Paul, the last author of the Bible? Why to him and only to him? Why would Paul say it was revealed to him first? Why would Paul call it his gospel? And there are differences between his gospel and the others.
The rains, the judgment, would be equivalent to the second coming, the day of the Lord. Noah was on the ark for those seven days (saved), but the opportunity to be saved was still there. There will still be the opportunity to be saved from the second coming during the Tribulation, but once Christ comes… too late. (I haven’t found anything to back this up in books, etc. so it’s purely all my own logic. It might be wrong, lol.) But Noah’s story is not a type of the rapture. It is a type of the second coming. The bad people will be taken away (drowned, destroyed), the good people will be left on earth. (Again, by my own logic, I walked myself in a circle and I’m wondering why God wouldn’t take the good people off the earth while He destroyed the bad people and then put the good people back on earth. Perhaps has something to do with His promise that He will never destroy the earth like He did during the Flood?)
He descends from heaven to the atmosphere. Again, I’m not convinced this is enough evidence against post-trib rapture. There’s nothing saying He can’t keep coming. I don’t know where there is more. And as far as the loud shout and trumpet call, I wanted very badly to tell you that it was all just fanfare, because I thought you got me. :D It was a very good point. But I read up on it and the author I was reading from believes that this will be similar to the situation with Elisha in II Kings 6:16-17. The believers will be able to hear/see all this, but the unbelievers won’t. I don’t know though.
What do you do with II Thessalonians 2:1-3?
Submitted by Chris on
That is quite true, I am right. Hehe. Oh, and I’m re-threading this. It’s getting too narrow.
If the Tribulation period is not God’s wrath, who is making life hard on who? It is called “tribulation” for a reason. The pre-trib teachings are that it is God’s angels who pour out God’s wrath on the earth and yet men still don’t repent (Revelation 9:20,21). The interesting thing is that this wrath is poured out but it is not counted as judgment (Revelation 6). It is only building up to the great and terrible day of the Lord. Revelation 8:3-13 is also pretty interesting even though there is debate over how figuratively or literal to take it.
If the tribulation is not God’s wrath on men then it must be men’s wrath. Yet if there are no Christians here to persecute, that leaves only the Jews and what purpose would that persecution serve? How would it affect the world worse than the crusades or the concentration camps only half a century ago (Ugh, I just invoked Godwin’s Law)?
I’ll give you a sneak peak at what is waiting in the post about Things That Differ (since it looks like it will be a couple weeks before I finish that). From Paul in Acts 26:22:
How is it that the prophesies have been suspended if Paul was preaching them? Paul said that all he was preaching was what Moses and the prophets had said (only clarified as some have now been fulfilled). Enjoy.
The teaching that Jesus would return to catch up the Christians secretly was a teaching of Darby. The “secret” at-any-moment rapture is common in pre-trib doctrines and is stressed heavily. Mid-trib gives some warning, unless we are to believe that even Christians won’t know we are experiencing God’s wrath.
Paul was not the “last author of the Bible.” Quick lesson. Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galations and James were probably written within about two years each other. Luke traveled with Paul and wrote Acts. The epistles to the Thessalonians were written a decade before these others. Paul was beheaded by Nero’s orders in 69 AD. John was exiled to the Island of Patmos around 97 AD. The three smaller epistles bearing his name are believed to have been written around 90 AD. No matter how this is sliced, there are other writings after Paul’s. It was not uncommon in the early church to purchase copies from courts of the Saints’ sentences or transcripts of their tortures so we can be fairly sure of many dates.
Many of the things that are said to have only been revealed to Paul are phrased as “but now” (ie. Colossians 1:26) which is a phrase not that far different from what I said in the parenthesis three paragraphs back. How did you interpret it? Could the phrase also mean that some prophesies were fulfilled with Jesus’ coming which has happened since the prophesies were made? Was Paul really teaching a different gospel than what the other apostles were? That is a dangerous thing to say, especially in light of Paul’s quote of Isaiah 52:7 in Romans 10:15. Wasn’t Isaiah even preaching that good news, of people restored to God? If so, we have quite a quandary. Paul was preaching the same gospel as Isaiah, only after a large part of the promise had been fulfilled.
The analogy of Noah breaks down for you yet again. I’m sorry, Kayla. Noah’s ark was resting on the ground for those seven days. I have read a piece by Alexander Whyte that said he thought Ham’s wife was a party girl that was barely convinced to enter the ark. Sidenote, but it was an interesting thought.
This world will be destroyed again but not by water this next time. It will be by fire. II Peter 3:10:
Those who have accepted Christ’s atonement shall be removed.
Lol, you have stumbled onto an argument some others use as an attempt to reconcile the pre-, mid- and post- trib eschatologies. There are some who believe that all three will happen. Unfortunately I have not been around anyone who believes that way yet so I do not know how they reconcile some problems with the idea.
Here’s an interesting word study for you, do a search on the phrase “from heaven.” How many times does it occur where the person/voice/teaching/blanket/etc. does not descend to the earth? Why should one passage be interpreted differently? I think that I will withhold my argument against the trumpet call being only for Christians for the moment. It is a little wordy and I think this word study is sufficient for now.
I’m not sure that I see your point with II Thessalonians 2:1-3. It would be a problematic passage for those who preach an “at-any-moment” rapture because it says we should not worry that the day is upon us. We won’t be gathered to Jesus until after the anti-Christ is revealed.
Wow, that was long.
Submitted by Kayla on
God’s wrath will be displayed during the Tribulation. However the day of wrath and God’s wrath are two different things. (Actually, the day of wrath has been said to include the entire Tribulation as well as several events afterward, but I try to distinguish the two as to not confuse myself.) I may have used them interchangeably for a while and I shouldn’t have. God’s wrath = Tribulation, day of wrath/day of the Lord = second coming of Christ. Having read Revelations 9:20-21, I would say that I agree although I’m not sure it would be the angels pouring out the wrath, only it was they who blew the trumpets. What would be other teachings, just out of curiosity? As far as Revelations 8:3-13 goes, I guess we’ll find out, won’t we? Also, if we are not appointed to wrath (I Thessalonians 5:9; God’s or man’s), that seems to be quite the difference from the persecution and salvation we are promised today.
We addressed the third paragraph earlier.
Just because prophesies have been suspended does not mean they will never come to pass. He’s still preaching they will come to pass, just not for now. It’s never been prophesied that Gentiles will be saved because of the fall of Israel. It has always been Gentiles will be saved through Israel (proselytes). I do understand where you’re coming from; I often wonder many of the same things. But I still can see that Paul says different things than everyone else.
We also talked about Darby and MacDonald, so…
I didn’t mean Paul was the last author, as in the last one to write, I meant the last one to be added. Sorry about that. The others had been Christians while Christ was on earth. Paul was of a different calling, to preach that Jews and Gentiles were equals now. Thanks for the history lesson. I did enjoy it.
Throughout the four gospels and even in the beginning of Acts the mode of salvation is “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized”. After Paul shows up and claims that Christ revealed something new to him, it changes to just “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. Also, if Paul was preaching the same thing as the apostles and he had nothing special, why would he claim it as his own gospel and why would Christ actually reveal Himself and tell him to go to the Gentiles when before the direction was the lost sheep of the house Israel, not Samaria, not the Gentiles. Paul’s gospel doesn’t disagree with the others, it only shows the program has paused (God put Israel aside in disbelief, the very nation Christ was preaching to during His time on earth). Also, God promises Israel an earthly hope (the kingdom of Heaven is at hand; physical blessings), while He now promises us a heavenly hope (Ephesians 1:3). Not to mention, Acts 1:11 vs. I Thessalonians 4:15-18. There are several gospels also and some carry throughout all dispensations.
You’re not sorry. I actually have not really understood the analogy of Noah’s ark very clearly, but the point of the passage is (from a dispensational point of view) that one is taken away and the other is left. The one taken away is taken violently, just as the unbelievers were taken away violently in a flood.
Yes, He will. But not to purge the world of sinful men and behavior the way He did the first time. True, it is a judgment, but not a mass judgment of all left on earth. (At least, I don’t think so.)
I did do a word study and none of them mean they didn’t descend from heaven. And I never said the trumpet call of God didn’t. But there’s nothing saying only believers will hear it. Nothing saying they won’t either. :D
What do you believe the falling away to be in II Thessalonians 1:3?
Submitted by Chris on
Yeah, I’d agree with that. God’s wrath is demonstrated in more than just the “tribulation” though and was poured out even against Israel in the OT. There are some who take Revelation 8 as references to meteors of various types and others who think that it is metaphorical and only intended to show that those events on earth come from heaven above.
Being appointed to wrath is a reference to the day of judgment, yes.
Paul says different things than everyone else because he was more studied. The other apostles admitted that many of the things he wrote of were hard to understand, especially for the simple-minded. Likewise, the prophesies about other nations being blessed through Israel are not something that were only beginning to be fulfilled in Paul’s day. I’ve told you before how even the commands in Exodus set a framework for Israel in how they were to welcome men from other nations. Jesus told the woman at the well that the time was coming and was come when men would not have to go to Jerusalem to worship God (John 4). She was a Samaritan, an outcast of mixed blood from the Jews. Some viewed them as worse than gentiles, yet Jesus proclaimed salvation to her. The plan has always been to accept any who were willing. The difference is that some were given the message to bear to others first. Those men and women who bore the privilege well are deserving of our respect and admiration.
The interesting thing with Paul is that he quotes things that Jesus said directly to him that were not recorded in Acts. I do wonder so much about these references and the circumstances that surrounded them. ^_^
The disciples were told to remain in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit was given to them. After that there is the great commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every nation, teaching them to obey the commands of Jesus. How is that not a focus on preaching the gospel to the gentiles and Samaritans? The kingdom of heaven being at hand could also mean that finally the secrets of how God’s redemption (promised even to Eve) worked would be made known. I do not believe it was speaking of a physical kingdom on this earth (otherwise would it be a “kingdom of heaven”?).
Haha, you have guessed true. I’m not really sorry but do find it amusing. You are partially right though. The unbelievers will be taken away violently and to eternal destruction when God judges this world again, as a whole. If this world is destroyed by fire, it must be a mass judgment of everyone. If the world is left for a thousand years then there would be some room to argue that not everyone will be judged when Jesus returns. I have not hammered out my own thoughts yet on the millenium, so I’ll pass on getting into it too much further.
Regardless of whether the trumpet is heard or not, the effects of it will be pretty evident. Revelation 1:7 says that when he returns every eye will see him. I’d expect every ear will hear it.
II Thessalonians 2:3, I think, means that people will follow after a lie. Mark 13:22 says that “if possible, even the elect” would be deceived.