Thank you again for your posts. I find them incredibly valuable.
I've
finished 20 years worth of Les Feldick's transcripts, and I'm about
turn about and read them again. Needless to say, I was pleased to know
that you would agree with about 97% of his exposition. He does get a
little fuzzy on some historical matters, however.
In #2 Absence of Proof you quote: But
during the the Tribulation, the Great Commission, is carried out, not
by the Church, but by an angel appointed to the task of God. "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to PREACH TO THEMTHAT DWELL ON THE EARTH, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." -(Revelation 14:6).
I've
long thought (assumed) that this is the fulfillment of the great
commission (which, I think, applies to Israel and the Kingdom Gospel,
not the Church). Yet, as I read this this time, EVERLASTING leaped off
the page. We have two known gospels: 1. The Gospel of the Kingdom, King
and Messiah, as preached during and after Jesus's ministry to Israel and
2. Paul's gospel of grace, revealed only to him, by which we are saved
-- 1COR 15: 1-4, to wit, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and
rose again on the third day, all according to Scripture (OT), and by
which we are saved.
What,
then, is the EVERLASTING gospel? It can't be the Grace Gospel. That
dispensation was closed at the rapture. Is it the Kingdom Gospel, then?
is that not what the 144,000 are preaching? The world is now again under
the interrupted dispensation of LAW, and the Kingdom, after all, is
EVERLASTING. Or, is the EVERLASTING gospel something new, possibly
reflecting the new covenant God will establish with Israel? The
preaching of the Kingdom Gospel would surely fulfill the great
commission, but if it is yet another, distinct Gospel, it would not.
Very tentatively, it would seem that if the Holy Spirit meant Kingdom
Gospel, He would call it Kingdom Gospel.
This has become a great puzzle to me. I'd appreciate your analysis.
I thought you'd appreciate seeing again this quotation from page 1 of the introduction to Bullinger's Commentary on Revelation.
"And yet in spite of this, the blessings spoken of Judah and Jerusalem
are taken away and given to the Church, while the curses and judgments are kindly left for
"Judah and Jerusalem!"
On this system of interpretation the Bible is useless for the purposes of Divine revelation.
It is made a derision to its enemies, a ground for the attacks of infidels, while it becomes a
stumbling-block to its friends. And yet it is on this same principle that the Apocalypse is
usually treated. ... "
Another puzzle i'm struggling with is the end of the beast, the anti-christ.
Revelation:
20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought
miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the
mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the
remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
It clearly states that the beast and the FP are cast into the lake of fire ALIVE.
Daniel 7:
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake:
I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. 12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away:
yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Here
it states the beast was slain, his body destroyed and given to the
fire. I'm sure both books are referring to the same event, but what and
why is this apparent anomaly? It could be that Daniel refers to
kingdoms, but kingdoms don't have bodies. Contextually I see an
individual, not a kingdom.
Likewise, Daniel asserts that the other beasts' lives were prolonged, yet Revelation asserts the opposite. I'm baffled.
As usual, I've gone on far more than I intended. Thank you again for your posts.
Maranatha,
Bob