In response to:  http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/july2011/robertb79-2.htm


Hi, Robert
 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 

I understand you prefer the Trumpets options for the Rapture. That’s fine. The reason that I think that Pentecost is more likely to be the Rapture is because I think it hasn’t been fully accomplished yet. I ask anyone to please explain to me where in the Bible can we find a fulfillment of Pentecost when a pair of something (typified by two loaves of leavened bread) has been lifted up to the Lord in Heaven, like the symbolism of Firstfruits in Leviticus 23:10-11, which has been fully accomplished.

On Firstfruits a sheaf of barley was waved and lifted up by the Priest, and this type was perfectly fulfilled when Jesus presented Himself to the Father in Heaven. He was the firstfruit from the dead (1 Cor 15:20), and very probably He presented Himself together with those who rose from the dead during the earthquake narrated in Mathew 27:51-54. If those people were presented to the Father in Heaven with Jesus on the Feast of Firstfruits (the 16th of Nisan), then the type of the sheaf (sheaf = a large bundle in which cereal plants are bound after reaping) of barley being lifted up by the Priest matched its perfect antitype and was fully accomplished.
 

However, the type related to Pentecost (the two loaves of leavened bread being lifted up by the Priest) hasn’t found any antitype, at least as far as I know. Everything that happened on Pentecost so far came down from Heaven (the Law, the Holy Spirit) and was not lifted up. The type of the two loaves of bread hasn’t met its antitype prophetically.

 

The story Ruth took place after the barley AND the wheat harvest (Ruth 2:23). The Kinsman Redeemer and the gentile bride got married at that time, not at Trumpets. The Torah portion read in synagogues on Shavuot is the book of Ruth.

 

I could elaborate more on this later. This time, I don’t feel inclined to, as I think you were very unkind to me by saying that the views I presented “are not be taken seriously”. I know that you are referring to the idea and not to the person expressing the idea, but nevertheless, the phrase you use implies that who wrote that was either telling a joke, or is mentally retarded, or is presenting something ridiculous.
 
I see no problem when someone says that some idea lacks scriptural support, or is unconvincing, or contradicts with such and such, or doesn’t seem plausible etc. But your expression was discourteous.

We all come to this website to grow in the Lord, to share ideas and to be blessed, to ask for prayer (and to pray for others), to find a place of refuge in the trials and severe tribulations that many of us are already going through, even before the 70th Week Tribulation starts. Besides that, all international participants like myself make a tremendous effort to write our thoughts in English, which is not our mother tongue and not even a second language in our countries. None of us likes to come here to be disdained. We are members of the flock and must have a friendly treatment, even when some idea we present might be incorrect or questionable.

We can always disagree and even totally discard many doctrines, theologies and possibilities brought up here in this forum, but we should never imply that what another participant says is risible or not even worthy of being considered.

 

Regards,
 

Eliane