Comments on: Vayeira 5768 – Divine Genocide

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:56:55 +0000

PS, Triton.
On the extended ‘come out of her’ case – I assume you might be familiar with Monty Judah…
He does a pretty good series of teachings that tie several of these themes together in a prophetic sense, and talks of a ‘future Exodus’ that combines elements of ‘coming out’ of Egypt, Babylon, and probably even S&G with another stint for His people (meaning ‘us’) in the wilderness, and finally the Great Regathering followed by the ultimate Sukkot/’wedding’ feast.
In this sense, Egypt and Babylon overlap in some areas, but represent a world religious and legal system, respectively – both of which attempt to replace God and enslave or take captive His people. Later both Rome, and even the US, seem to represent empires which combine those elements, and draw people in various types of bondage and paganism.
And I guess in that sense, as well, when I rail against the “501(c)3 corporate church” it’s also a clear metaphor for a world system that has replaced His model with one that serves ‘the prince of this world’ rather than Him.
When we “choose Whom we will serve”, it ultimately means He will redeem us, and lead us out of bondage to everything that is of the old master, and the ‘old man’.

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:44:08 +0000

[re: 'come out of her' -- ] I know you interpret “her” to mean secular government (or something along those lines), but I’m not convinced. I’ve seen equally powerful arguments for “her” being the Roman Catholic Church, in which case “come out of her” would have an entirely different meaning.
I’m still undecided, though, so if you have a case to make in that regard, I’d be interested in hearing it.
I’m not going to disagree too much here, Triton, other than to say I really interpret ‘come out of her’ more broadly, to mean ‘the world’. As in, ‘the world will hate you…for My sake’ references.
Since I’ve never been explicitly Catholic, I can’t make a ‘come out’ claim directly there, although I also think that claim is valid. (And, to the extent that MANY errors in ‘the Church’ are essentially Catholic in origin, from Easter and the Friday-to-Sunday change on, I see that point as well.)
…I do think the preterists are right about Daniel.
I have seen a lot of the preterist info, and would be interested in your article. Even so, (especially having re-read some of Yeshua’s Matthew 24 and other prophecies in light of the fact that Maccabees was history by then) I have come to the conclusion that there’s more to come on that score.
All of which leads to my own central view – that man makes the same mistakes over and over again, history repeats, and so does prophecy. After all, if ‘what happens to the fathers happens to the sons’, it’s to be expected. Which one is the “real one” is sometimes hard to say, even in hindsight.

I’m afraid I’m drawing a blank here regarding the “no flesh survives” part. Could you provide a reference verse, please?
I was afraid you might ask that.
I did a quick search earlier; sometimes the ‘multiple Bible memory’ issue really makes some searches hard. (I use Blue Letter most of the time online, and usually KJV just for consistency.) Other references like the ‘great’ and ‘terrible’ “day of the Lord” (I know John references the “Lord’s Day” as well) exist. And I’m trying NOT to confuse it with Matt. 24:22!
OK – I’ll have to do a better search when I get a chance. (I’m still looking for an e-Bible that will let me do such a search across multiple versions with synonym replacement!)
Anyway, I can still be convinced on this score myself, but have begun to suspect that (now I remember at least part of it!) “ALL is fulfilled” when “heaven and earth pass”, (Matt. 5:18 again) and then Rev. 21:1…

By: Triton

Triton — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:15:34 +0000

Sarcasm, or subtlety, Triton?
Lighthearted sincerity, I assure you. I’ve always appreciated your input at Vox Popoli and certainly wasn’t trying to be nasty or anything.
Some fall more into the category of how they probably WON’T develop (like a pre-Trib rapture, although – as a friend once noted – I could be pleasantly surprised
I would tend to agree.
I tend personally toward thinking we’ll have to “come out of her” before things get really bad in order to avoid being forced to take a chip or die.
I know you interpret “her” to mean secular government (or something along those lines), but I’m not convinced. I’ve seen equally powerful arguments for “her” being the Roman Catholic Church, in which case “come out of her” would have an entirely different meaning.
I’m still undecided, though, so if you have a case to make in that regard, I’d be interested in hearing it.
I do expect to see a physical “abomination of desolation” on a rebuilt temple at the three-and-a-half year point.
I’m not a preterist, but I do think the preterists are right about Daniel. I read a pretty good case for Daniel referring to first century events, but I can’t recall where I read it. I can’t even recall the argument; I just remember finding it convincing. Anyway, I’ll see if Google and I can scrounge it up if you’re interested.
Somewhere in there I picture the LQ riding a Beast of some kind, too, but I don’t know what to make of that.
I think she’s probably already riding something other than her husband, if you get my drift.
I tend to think that it’s still another thousand years (day or so) later until the Day of wrath that no flesh survives.
I’m afraid I’m drawing a blank here regarding the “no flesh survives” part. Could you provide a reference verse, please?

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:18:17 +0000

Sarcasm, or subtlety, Triton?
Jay’s eschewing of eschatology aside, I’m a bit reluctant to put too much weight on my own interp of prophecy either.
I DO, however, tend to have certain “probability projections” (how’s that for soft-pedalling?) for how I picture things might develop. Some fall more into the category of how they probably WON’T develop (like a pre-Trib rapture, although – as a friend once noted – I could be pleasantly surprised
I tend personally toward thinking we’ll have to “come out of her” before things get really bad in order to avoid being forced to take a chip or die. I do expect to see a physical “abomination of desolation” on a rebuilt temple at the three-and-a-half year point. (Somewhere in there I picture the LQ riding a Beast of some kind, too, but I don’t know what to make of that.)
As you and others have said, I wouldn’t be surprised to physically meet our King “in the air”, and then come back to live under His reign.
I tend to think that it’s still another thousand years (day or so) later until the Day of wrath that no flesh survives. But on that score I’m willing to be convinced (there’s plenty of time and figure there’s plenty of work for us good-and-faithful-servant wannabes in the meantime…

By: Triton

Triton — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:55:51 +0000

Excellent answer, Jay. I always appreciate it when a man can admit that he just doesn’t know. And I agree; eschatology is a difficult subject, and I am reluctant to hold too tightly to any particular theory.
I assume as well, but haven’t seen it stated here, that we all distinguish between the “Day of the Lord” which no flesh survives, and any Tribulation.
Why don’t you enlighten us, Mark, just to make sure we’re all on the same page.

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:42:35 +0000

How do you reconcile a God who spares the heathen at Sodom for the sake of ten men, but will not spare Christians from the Great Tribulation?
And if He does spare Christians at the end, what is the procedure, if not a pre-trib rapture?
Thanks for the clarification, Triton.
(I assume as well, but haven’t seen it stated here, that we all distinguish between the “Day of the Lord” which no flesh survives, and any Tribulation.)
I find Monte Judah’s take illustrative on the latter, and I know Jay has referenced similar patterns (as the fathers, so the sons…) before here.
Adonai fed His people in the wilderness before, after they “came out” – He can and I think will do so again. He will also “hide” us, and gather His people together again, presumably in spite of the “no one will be able to buy or sell” issues. How will certainly be interesting to see.
Like Jay, I’m a bit reluctant to speculate on specifics, other than the specifics of what His Word says we must do.

By: jay c

jay c — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:26:39 +0000

Mostly, I just put of reconciling any of it, assuming I just don’t have enough data yet. It’s one reason I’ve just danced around eschatology so far. If I dive in am I going to knock my head on the bottom of a wading pool or am I going to get sucked down in a maelstrom? God gave us information, so I’ll have to look at it more one of these days. Until then, I’ll just keep trying to live for him today.

By: Triton

Triton — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:33:30 +0000

Dang. Continued:
How do you reconcile a God who spares the heathen at Sodom for the sake of ten men, but will not spare Christians from the Great Tribulation?
And if He does spare Christians at the end, what is the procedure, if not a pre-trib rapture?

By: Triton

Triton — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:31:38 +0000

When Paul talked about being “caught up in the clouds”, I’m not sure he meant that literally. If he did, then I don’t think he meant that it was a permanent escape from earth.
Well, I interpret this one literally, though I agree that it is not a permanent escape since we’ll be here for the millennial reign. Basically, we go up to meet the Messiah in the air, then come back down again to enjoy (administer?) His rule. The debate is mostly in the sequencing of these events with regards to the eschatological judgments.
A post-trib rapture doesn’t violate the pattern terribly, but it doesn’t fit perfectly, either.
I agree, but would add that none of the scenarios I’ve seen fit as well as I would like. Hence, my reluctance to adhere to any particular theory with any zeal.
God allows the faithful to be persecuted, partially shelters them while he destroys their persecutors, and then sets them up to inherit what the unfaithful lost.
I’ll go along with that. The problem, though, is in determining the extent of the shelter during the Tribulation. A worldwide food shortage (Rev. 6:6), for example, would affect Christians just as much as anyone else. I’m not seeing a lot of “shelter” from God’s judgment in that kind of situation, you know?
Also, for the other judgments you mentioned, God gave explicit instructions to those He was going to save. We have no such instructions for avoiding the Tribulation. Though I suppose it’s possible that those instructions will be forthcoming just in the nick of time. But I’m not ready to construct a theory that depends on future revelation that may or may not occur.
And Triton, I’m not really sure what you mean here
You might want to read the comments from the previous post. I’m trying to reconcile a God who spares Sodom if only ten righteous men can be found with a God who will not spare millions or billions of Christians from the Great Tribulation.
This dilemma would seem to support a pre-trib rapture, and I wanted Jay’s opinion on it.
I’m not convinced that some folks who think that Yeshua died “so they could eat a ham sandwich” and have a ‘get out of hell, free’ card just for saying a sinner’s prayer once ever really “knew Him”. At least not the Savior who came not to change “one yod or tiddlte” until “heaven and earth pass” and said “If you love Me, keep My commands.”
Jay and I have already been over that, and I would prefer not to revisit it at this time. You can read my opinion here and here if you want. In the meantime, though, I’d like to limit this discussion to the dilemma I presented:
How do you reconcile a God who spares the heathen at Sodom for the sake of ten men, but will not spare

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:58:02 +0000

And Triton, I’m not really sure what you mean here:
…a scenario where Christians must endure the Tribulation doesn’t seem to square with God’s attitude regarding the folks from Sodom. I guess I’m just looking for a way to reconcile these events.
Abraham’s questioning of God had already established that S&G were pretty well bereft of the righteous. Lot clearly liked the city, and wasn’t anxious to go, but managed to “come out” eventually and be saved.
Maybe if I take the “harder line” my question about whether there’s anything to reconcile becomes more clear.
I’m not convinced that some folks who think that Yeshua died “so they could eat a ham sandwich” and have a ‘get out of hell, free’ card just for saying a sinner’s prayer once ever really “knew Him”. At least not the Savior who came not to change “one yod or tiddlte” until “heaven and earth pass” and said “If you love Me, keep My commands.”
Remember the old joke about the man in the flood who eventually died; the punch line is God saying, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter – what were you waiting for?”
The Hebrew concept of t’shuvah implies more than the modern translationn of ‘repent’. It means (get off your a__) to TURN as well as change your mind, something like the concept of by your works your faith is demonstrated. Even if He sends a boat, we have to be willing to get in it.
Sodom and Gomorrah were going down. The only question was whether His people would choose to “come out” first.