1000 years of Revelation 20.

[Marty]

So, your firm in your belief that the 1000 years in Revelation 20 are literal?

So then we have a literal imprisonment of the devil for 1000 literal years also?
Question: This inmate, who will literally be in prison for 1000 years, is it a literal dragon, or a serpent? Or the devil?

Is the key to the prison literal? Well, of course it isn't, right? Since satan is a spirit, would a literal key do any good? I think not.
How about the chain used? Is it a literal chain? Again, I think not. What good would a literal chain do against Satan?

Or this prison that he is locked in is called the abyss; is it literal or physical? Well, it would be someplace, but I dont think it's a literal hole in the ground. It also cannot be literal.

So, let's review: The innmate, the key, the chain, and the prison itself are symbolic representations of different aspects of God's binding of Satan, but the prison sentence - the 1000 years must be taken literally? This whole thing sounds very inconsistent to me - sounds made up according to someone's personal choice.

As I said, you have a lot to prove here. I'm interested in seeing what you have to say.

Yes and other versions call it a bottomless pit how can a bottomless pit be literal that would be a hole

 

[CrowCross]

Primary fallacy:
Non sequitur. The conclusion does not logically follow the premise/ Symbolic imagery in apocaly0ptic literature does not equal a denial of historical or doctrinal claims in didactic or narrative texts.

Even more specific fallacy: false equivalence (category error). It treats two fundamentally different kinds of biblical content as if they belong to the same interpretive category. It assumes that if one element is symbolic, all elements across Scripture must be symbolic. Illogical.

Slippery slope fallacy/overgeneralization. The implicit argument is "Allow symbolism here then everything becomes nonliteral. Illogical.

I piled on the logical fallacies because I am not holding you to rule 4.4 regarding the need to address the called-out fallacies. It would go nowhere.

I believe your problem is...you assume everything in. Rev is symbolic.
Yes, some things are symbolic....when they symbols are mentioned like the light stands the symbolism is explained.
When you have the ability to speak to each of the bowl, scroll and trumpet judgements and tell all of us what those symbols are suppose to mean.....feel free to present them.
In fact I used a literal interpretation when I spoke of April 13, 2029....Is that Rev 8? Who knows. To be honest I'll have been taken away in the literal rapture prior to that event.
Now, if you want to make the white horse symbolic....then explain it then explain why the meaning of the white horse symbology is missing from 1 Thes 4:16ish.

The 1,000 year reign of Jesus is also literal. In this thread I presented several reasons why it is literal.

You're best reply is rule 4.4.

 

[CrowCross]

If it is figurative---there is no literal white horse. Therefore, neither Luke nor Paul mention a white horse.

Then riddle me this .....why didn't Luke or Paul mention the "symbolism" of the white horse you're so fond of?

I already know the answer. They are seperate events.

Rev 19 is a vision of what is going on in heaven using symbols OBVIOUSLY, and never says it is Jesus returning or that his horse's hooves touch the earth.

OBVIOUSLY????

In Rev 19 John see's the return of Jesus. It is a vision of reality...what's going to happen.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm sorry, but you are seripusly wrong here. But I know your wont agree. But by ammm means, show me in scripture these two returns that you mention above.

Been there done that.

You've seen the scripture. You've READ the scripture.

 

[CrowCross]

Dispensationalism does not work with these passages because dispensationalism is not biblical.

You're entitled to your opinion.

In fact I bet you don't even know the definition of dispensationalism.

 

[CrowCross]

So, your firm in your belief that the 1000 years in Revelation 20 are literal?

I have seen no reason to understand it otherwise.

So then we have a literal imprisonment of the devil for 1000 literal years also?

That is what the bible says. John wrote about it. I didn't. I simply read what John wrote.

Question: This inmate, who will literally be in prison for 1000 years, is it a literal dragon, or a serpent? Or the devil?

Is Jesus the Son, the Savior, the way, the gate, the lamb, the lion....and so on?

Is the key to the prison literal? Well, of course it isn't, right? Since satan is a spirit, would a literal key do any good? I think not.

Yes the key is a literal key...if not what is the symbolic meaning....provide biblical support for your answer pr please don't reply.
Is Satan just spirit? Were the angels that met Lot, ate with Lot, touched Lot....just spirits?

How about the chain used? Is it a literal chain? Again, I think not. What good would a literal chain do against Satan?

Do you think the pit is the same 3 dimensions + time that we know of?

Or this prison that he is locked in is called the abyss; is it literal or physical? Well, it would be someplace, but I dont think it's a literal hole in the ground. It also cannot be literal.

As mentioned above there is more to our 3 dimensions + time realm than you know.

So, let's review: The innmate, the key, the chain, and the prison itself are symbolic representations of different aspects of God's binding of Satan, but the prison sentence - the 1000 years must be taken literally? This whole thing sounds very inconsistent to me - sounds made up according to someone's personal choice.

Please support your symbolic reasoning with scripture.

As I said, you have a lot to prove here. I'm interested in seeing what you have to say.

You need to put away your Sunday school felt board stories you've been taught.

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross , I challenge you to come up with "just one parallel passage" to support a future interm binding of Satan.

2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 speaks of the imprisonment of angels.
There is also Luke 8:31.

They don't speak directly about Satan but they do speak of the fallen angelic host.

Isaiah 14:15 speaks of Satans final destination.

As an Amilennialist, I (and many others) can cite many parallel passages for the idea that, "as a result of the work of Christ," Satan has been restrained in the present age.

What you just said is that Satan has absolutly no effect on earth today.
Satan isn't killing nor destroying. Satan isn't roaming around like a roearing lion.

OK, whatever you say.

 

[CrowCross]

But just like in Revelation chapter 20 revelation chapter 19 does not show Jesus coming to the earth John in that verse only sees what is happening up in heaven

Ifyou read carefully it shows Jesus comes to earth.

The verse says Jesus...strike down the nations. Unless John is refering to the nations in heaven he means earth.
Verse 19 then mentions.....kings of the earth with their armies assembled to wage war against the One seated on the horse

 

[CrowCross]

Revelation 19 doesn’t show Jesus returning

See my response above.

 

[Marty]

Ifyou read carefully it shows Jesus comes to earth.

The verse says Jesus...strike down the nations. Unless John is refering to the nations in heaven he means earth.
Verse 19 then mentions.....kings of the earth with their armies assembled to wage war against the One seated on the horse

I have read it repeatedly very slowly and it doesn’t show Jesus coming to the earth

Sodom and Gomorrah were both destroyed without God coming to the earth too.

Does Jesus need to come to the earth to heal someone?

The bible reveals that the sword of Jesus mouth is His word not a literal weapon thus it is not a literal battle. Jesus word is all powerful it saves and judges and condemns

The bible teaches that nobody knows when the second coming is, if this was the second coming then how would the beast and his armies know to gather for the battle with Jesus?

 

[CrowCross]

I have read it repeatedly very slowly and it doesn’t show Jesus coming to the earth

OK, I disagree...I presented verses that even mentioned earth. So, I quess were done.

 

[TMSO]

You just demonstrated everything I said in the first paragraph of my post. Two peoples of God.

There is but one people of God, the Jews. The Gentiles were God's enemies. If you don't start with the right foundation, then you are mishandling the Bible. And it is simply... a foundation. The Gentiles, the enemies of God, but who, by the kindness of God, were included in the salvation provided in Christ, while the Jews became enemies for the sake of the gospel [being extended to the Gentiles]. At the end, the Jews will cease being enemies, and will draw near to God again and be saved. This will be the remnant elect of Israel within the nation of Israel.

Ethnicity and land prioritized. Focus on (eyes/heart) on national/ ethnic Israel instead of Christ. Separating the OT from its place in the Covenant of Redemption and severing its purpose from the story of redemption that is our Bible.

You do this more than I do. I see consistency between the Old and New Testament, where you put the New Testament in front of the Old. Consider the consistency of the whole story of the Bible. It is like an epic novel. You basically have three main characters, two of which are groups. God, Israel/the Jews, and then Gentiles. The conflict of the story is sin and what that does to the relationship between God and the two other characters. The prologue to the story runs from Adam and Eve all the way up to Abraham. Or call it book one, with Abraham starting book two. Book two is about Israel's tumultuous relationship with Jehovah, her husband. Israel, a people chosen by God to be a part from the Gentiles, that is to be a holy nation... set apart. The end of the book ends with the rejection of the Messiah and Christ's death, the birth of the Jewish church, and AD 70. A cliffhanger. An intermission in the story of Israel/the Jews, as the Gentiles take the stage in book three. In book three, the chosen people of God are in exile and under punishment by God for their rejection. With this, the once enemies of God, the Gentiles, are drawn near to God through Christ. He extends welcome into the church along with the believing Jews. Meanwhile the nation of Israel continues to languish under, to take an idea from James I believe, the chastisement of God. As Paul said, God has not rejected Israel. Those whom God loves, He chastises.

As our story of redemption continues in book three, God has put the Jews aside under a partial blindness and hardening, while He is gathering in the Gentiles... "until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in". At that point, God will bring His chastisement of Israel to an end with the second coming of Christ, and the end of Gentile domination. The one's God saves of Israel are the 1/3rd remnant God speaks of in Zechariah. All the rest are dead/damned. At this time Israel sees the actual fulfillment of the covenants made, which are temporal. We call it the millennial kingdom, or messianic kingdom. It is the fulfillment of all the foreshadowing of the first book of the trilogy, the first part of the story. The church will be around as well (obviously), but the focus of this time is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. They will all be there.

Consider part of the Old Testament prophecies say that during this time, it will be almost unheard of for someone to die before the age of 100. Unheard of. Since people will still be mortal, you have the usual possibilities for dying (I'm sure if a building falls on your head, you will still die), and sin will still be around, though rare, and immediately punished. Families will turn in their children for sin. This is also where Satan gathers his army for THE final battle before we enter eternity. So the epilogue of book three is the millennial kingdom followed by the final war and entry into eternity with the NHNE.

Notice the progressive consistency from beginning to end.

 

[TMSO]

That is exegetically selective using a passage but leaving out its conclusion i.e. the Canaanite woman. The conclusion is Jesus saying to her,"O woman, great is your faith!"

No, I don't believe I left that out, unless I forgot to put it in. Why does Jesus say, "great is your faith". Well, first check out the definition of faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Forward looking. So even if Jesus isn't the Messiah of the Gentiles, even if Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, her faith is the forward looking hope that the Gentiles ALSO will benefit/be blessed by Jesus. You are talking about something that can be seen, while the woman is believing there is evidence of something she cannot see. And she has an assurance in her hope that Jesus is who she is looking for, and He will heal her daughter.

The passage does not teach different standards of salvation for Jews vs. Gentiles. It demonstrates the priority of Israel in redemptive history and the inclusion of Gentiles through faith. One forward flowing redemption.

I never said it stands for standards. It is also not a chronological priority. Jesus isn't picturing it that way at all. It is a snapshot in time. The Jews are those eating the bread at the table, and the Gentiles are the puppy dogs/family pets, eating the crumbs that fall from the table. They are bread crumbs, as those at the table are eating bread. Enough crumbs and the dog at a whole loaf. It isn't speaking of standards, but priority. It is also not talking about redemptive history, but any point in time, as Paul puts it. Salvation is first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. When Paul entered each city, the first thing he did was look for the Jews. Then he would go to the Gentiles. (Usually after the Jews rejected him.)

It is factually incorrect about faith and healing patterns. What actually governs the narratives is not ethnicity but faith that is often present and sometimes implicit, compassion and divine initiative, the revelatory purpose of the miracle. There is no consistent ethnic-based rule such as you present.

If you look at when the Jews come for healing at hte beginning of Jesus ministry, they came, and He healed. Later, He would look for belief/faith, which, I would say should not be an issue. He has been amongst the people for some time, so there should be belief/faith in the people. There was one who came, and Jesus actually scolded him. What faith did he present? Help me with my unbelief. Then, towards the end of his ministry, he would take the person away from the crowds to heal them. And you can look that up. For the Gentiles, consider the Roman Centurion. The Jewish leaders came to Jesus, sold this Centurion to Jesus with all kinds of statements of his kindness and love for the Jewish people. What did Jesus do? He got up to go with them. He didn't ask what the Centurion believed. He was stopped and then given the whole line about the Centurion also being one with people under him who he would command to do things and it would be done. Jesus never asked for anything. The Centurion gave freely and showed his faith.

Your statement is theologically confused. It mistakes redemptive-historical priority for ontological difference. It does not successfully challenge my core claim, and it does not establish its own.

No. My belief is that the priority existed from the beginning and continues to today, even if people don't follow it. Hence a proper view on Israel being the one's who should be the mission field, and then everyone else, as a priority, that is first. It isn't going and finishing, it is that Israel should be the first place we go, and then, while that is going on, everyone else. And it goes along with Israel's priority in judgment, wrath, curses, salvation, and blessing. They don't get to say, this is the only time there is priority, only with the good. They are priority in the good and the bad. This is because they were first and foremost the chosen people of God, with all the rights and priviliges that come with it. And also the curses, judgment, etc. This is what is meant by priority. It is due to their place before God.

 

[TMSO]

Your claim that the account of the "children's bread" (Matt 15:21-28 reflects Jesus' messianic role is historically directed to Israel is valid. And regarding the "crumbs" and the "little dogs", if when you say it speaks of the "universality of the gospel" you mean the overflow of grace to the Gentiles you are partly correct, and would be completely correct except for the fact that you are overreaching and smuggling in a conclusion that the text does not require.

It is required or you are no longer being consistent. Yes it speaks to the universality of the gospel through the overflox. Remember, Paul said that Gentiles are basically tacked on. They were grafted into the tree (new covenant) due to the KINDNESS of God. Consider Paul leaning towards the Gentiles being an afterthought. That isn't what Paul is doing, but the nuance of what that means should temper your understanding of what Paul was saying. We were not a part of the tree, but part of another wild, uncultured tree. Outside the covenants of God. Foreigners and strangers. Yet God, of His mercy and grace, brought us in and grafted us into the tree that was the Jewish birthright. At first the Mosaic covenant, reserved for Jews, ethnic. (Outside of proselytes). Natural branches of the tree. The CUT OUT for unbelief. The Gentiles, by God's grace and mercy, grafted in. As long as we continue in HIs kindness, according to Paul, we continue in the tree. If not, we too will be cut off. Speaking to priority again, only the Jews get to be grafted in AGAIN, and that if they turn from unbelief to belief. That possibility is not offered to the Gentiles.

What Jesus' commendation to the woman "great is your faith" shows Gentiles are not excluded and faith, not ethnicity, is decisive. The "two peoples" being dealt with separately and in different ways that your post presents is not in the text. It assumes that "first to Israel" makes a separation in redemption. It is the gospel that comes to Israel first, in order (sequence) not redemption itself. IOW, Matt 15 is not a division. And it most definitely is not "Jesus' Messianic role isolated to Israel". His earthly ministry was focused on Israel, but his messianic identity and mission were never limited to Israel.

I'm not sure how you are not understanding what I am saying. (I am not talking about accepting, but understanding.) It is like a fountain tower of glasses. The fluid is poured into the top stack, and then they overflow into the next, and so on and so forth. The priority was the top glass/glasses. The bottom glasses may not even fill up. (Hence bread at the table, crumbs on the floor). Jesus Messianic role is SOLELY to Israel. There is no shadow of a doubt in how the Bible speaks to this. God had pilate put a sign on Jesus cross. What did God have recorded there so it would be recorded for all time to point out the foolishness of the Jews through a Gentile? "King of the Jews". While Pilate meant to ridicule the Jews for putting Jesus to death by pointing out that Jesus was the king of the Jews, God meant it for a purpose. He being Messiah was solely for the Jews, as Messiah does not mean Savior, it means King. He is the Savior of the Gentiles.

"Judgment is first to the Jew---wrath is first to the Jew---it covers everything" is an overgeneralization and a misuse of Romans 2:9 which is context-specific (judgement according to works), not a universal structuring principle for all theology. There is no consistent biblical pattern where every divine action is always "Jew first, then Gentile".

It is not. THe main use is for those Gentiles who would usurp the blessings of Israel, but reject the curses and judgments that come along with it. And it is against the Jews who would only take this part, and ignore what comes with it. Don't read too much inot it. It is simply stating that while salvation (a great blessing) is first to the Jew then the Gentile, it doesn't mean all the wrath and judgments are on the Gentiles, and not the Jews. No, these are also first to the Jew. It has to do with their position as first. So in consideration, salvation is first to the Jew, judgment is first to the Jew, I tossed in wrath just to show that Paul was no at all limiting it to blessings. At the front of the line, these consideration go through the Jews first. Again, it is because of their position before God.

Even within the Gospels the Magi (Gentiles) worship him (Matt 2). The centurion's faith is praised (Matt 8). He predicts Gentiles joining the kingdom (matt 8:11). "Isolated" suggests exclusion but the NT presents priority-with-intended-expansion.

No one is sure who the magi are. Some believe that they are descended (not physically, but positionally and ideologically) from Daniel, who was the head of the magi under Nebuchadnezzar and others. It does speak to extension, however, not chronological, but priority. If there were a Jewish person standing in a room, and a Gentile, you should first go to the Jewish person, then to Gentile, paying respect to the position of the Jewish person before God. You don't ignore anyone. It simply has to do with priority.

Do not overthink it. It doesn't happen this way, but Paul emphasized it because his take on scripture was consistent. That is what should be taken from this. The consistency of scripture, and the need for a consistent hermeneutic.

 

[Arial]

It is required or you are no longer being consistent.

What is required?

Yes it speaks to the universality of the gospel through the overflox.

I agreed with that. So?

Remember, Paul said that Gentiles are basically tacked on.

That is not what Paul is basically saying. That is nothing more than the strange way you look at it, which does not take into consideration God and who he is, at all. As though he said, "Well that didn't work so I will do this instead." It distinctly divides redemption into two categories of people with one being better than the other in God's eyes. You are promoting the very thing Paul is warning the Gentiles not to do, only in reverse. That being, that the Jews are more loved by God, more important to God, and he just tacks on some Gentiles to make them jealous. You forget or do not consider that at its heart; redemption is about giving a people to Christ. The ones Jesus dies to redeem.

Paul leaning towards the Gentiles being an afterthought. That isn't what Paul is doing, but the nuance of what that means should temper your understanding of what Paul was saying.

If that is not what Paul is doing, and you are right, he is not, then why would such a nuance even exist? And how could it have any meaning. All you have disclosed there is your own leanings and a penchant of interpreting Scripture according to those leanings.

We were not a part of the tree, but part of another wild, uncultured tree. Outside the covenants of God. Foreigners and strangers. Yet God, of His mercy and grace, brought us in and grafted us into the tree that was the Jewish birthright.

What exactly is that birthright in your opinion?

Christ did not bring anyone into the old covenant. He did not graft Gentiles into the old covenant. He grafted them into the people of God. Under the old covenant the descendants of Jacob, and all Gentiles who took God as their God instead of the pagan gods they only knew, were the people of God----a covenant people. Covenant is the key word when speaking of the people of God. It isn't the old covenant which became obsolete, but a new covenant. And this new covenant does not have national/ethnic boundaries.

 

[Arial]

Arial said:

What Jesus' commendation to the woman "great is your faith" shows Gentiles are not excluded and faith, not ethnicity, is decisive. The "two peoples" being dealt with separately and in different ways that your post presents is not in the text. It assumes that "first to Israel" makes a separation in redemption. It is the gospel that comes to Israel first, in order (sequence) not redemption itself. IOW, Matt 15 is not a division. And it most definitely is not "Jesus' Messianic role isolated to Israel". His earthly ministry was focused on Israel, but his messianic identity and mission were never limited to Israel.

@TMSO SO replied:

I'm not sure how you are not understanding what I am saying. (I am not talking about accepting, but understanding.) It is like a fountain tower of glasses. The fluid is poured into the top stack, and then they overflow into the next, and so on and so forth. The priority was the top glass/glasses. The bottom glasses may not even fill up. (Hence bread at the table, crumbs on the floor). Jesus Messianic role is SOLELY to Israel. There is no shadow of a doubt in how the Bible speaks to this. God had pilate put a sign on Jesus cross. What did God have recorded there so it would be recorded for all time to point out the foolishness of the Jews through a Gentile? "King of the Jews". While Pilate meant to ridicule the Jews for putting Jesus to death by pointing out that Jesus was the king of the Jews, God meant it for a purpose. He being Messiah was solely for the Jews, as Messiah does not mean Savior, it means King. He is the Savior of the Gentiles.

I will address that by quoting two sections. Even though it does not actually deal with my content which is showing your overreach and bringing conclusions into the text that are not there. The text being Matt 15 and the little dogs. Instead of considering what I said, you appealed to my "lack of understanding" what you are saying. I understand perfectly what you are saying which is the very reason I am countering it with the things I counter it with. Try addressing the counter argument.

Jesus Messianic role is SOLELY to Israel. There is no shadow of a doubt in how the Bible speaks to this. God had pilate put a sign on Jesus cross. What did God have recorded there so it would be recorded for all time to point out the foolishness of the Jews through a Gentile? "King of the Jews".

Jesus' earthly mission was addressed to the Jews. That is not the extent of his Messianic role and cannot be because he is the Messiah. His Messianic role never ends. And the reason his earthly mission was addressed to the Jews is because he came as a Jew according to promise and to fulfill all perfect righteousness of the Law--qualifying him for substitutionary atonement. And not just for the Jews but for all who trust in him alone for salvation. For those who believe him (not just believe in him). The passage in Matt 15 makes that very clear as I said in the post you are skirting around. The Gentile woman was included through faith not ethnicity.

Jesus is not saying he came only for Israel. He is saying salvation is through faith, not through possession of the Law or a nation or ethnicity---just as it was in the OT. It was never through the covenant Law. He is in fact pointing out to the religious Jews that they are wrong in that belief and always have been. Why are you standing on that side of the fence?

As for your illustration of the Gentiles placing "King of the Jews" on Jesus, and then saying that is proof that the Jews are of first importance to God always, is a giant leap without consulting hermeneutics, exegesis or Scripture.

 

[Arial]

What did God have recorded there so it would be recorded for all time to point out the foolishness of the Jews through a Gentile? "King of the Jews". While Pilate meant to ridicule the Jews for putting Jesus to death by pointing out that Jesus was the king of the Jews, God meant it for a purpose. He being Messiah was solely for the Jews, as Messiah does not mean Savior, it means King. He is the Savior of the Gentiles.

That deserves a response all on its own.

That division of Messiah being King and for only Jews and Christ being the savior of Gentiles is entirely foreign to the NT.

Scripture explicitly unites "Messiah" and "Savior".

Luke 2:11 "Savior...who is Christ (Mesiah) the Lord". And this is announced within Israel, not restricted away from it.

Jesus is explicitly called Savior of the world, not of Gentiles only.

The apostles preach one Lord for both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 10:12; Acts 4:12).

Messiah means anointed one which includes kingship, but the OT expectation also includes. deliverance from sin, restoration, covenant fulfillment.

Jesus is ruler (king) and Savior for Israel (Acts 5:31). Even for Jews Messian is not merely a political king but a saving king.

Your view creates an unbiblical split in Christ's identity. If taken seriously it implies Jews relate to Jesus as King and Gentiles relate to Jesus as Savior. The NT insists both groups relate to the same Christ (Messiah) in the same way (Eph 2:14-16).

Your view denies Jesus' ascended position as King and by extension, as High Priest. Or do you say that too is only for the Jews?

 

[Marty]

OK, I disagree...I presented verses that even mentioned earth. So, I quess were done.

But you didn’t present revelation verses that mention Jesus on the earth

Revelation 9
9 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the keyto the shaft of the Abyss

Revelation 21
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bridebeautifully dressed for her husband

You see these verses show when things come down from above the verses in chapter 19 don’t

 

[CrowCross]

But you didn’t present revelation verses that mention Jesus on the earth

Revelation 9
9 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the keyto the shaft of the Abyss

Revelation 21
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bridebeautifully dressed for her husband

You see these verses show when things come down from above the verses in chapter 19 don’t

All I can do is repost what i said...

Ifyou read carefully it shows Jesus comes to earth.

The verse says Jesus...strike down the nations. Unless John is refering to the nations in heaven he means earth.
Verse 19 then mentions.....kings of the earth with their armies assembled to wage war against the One seated on the horse

Those are the verses you need to address Marty.

 

[Arial]

Why does Jesus say, "great is your faith". Well, first check out the definition of faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Forward looking. So even if Jesus isn't the Messiah of the Gentiles, even if Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, her faith is the forward looking hope that the Gentiles ALSO will benefit/be blessed by Jesus. You are talking about something that can be seen, while the woman is believing there is evidence of something she cannot see. And she has an assurance in her hope that Jesus is who she is looking for, and He will heal her daughter.

There is a enormous amount of presumption there, even going so far as to declare what was in the woman's mind. And all of it with poor or non-existent consideration to proper hermeneutics and no exegesis but pure eisegesis and a misrepresentation of what I said because you responded to only the opening of my post and not the body of it. So I will have address that when you decide to come to it.

Here you make an assumption that is nowhere found in Scripture. That Jesus is not Messiah to he Gentiles. At what point did the one and only Messiah become not the Messiah?

I am not talking about something that can be seen (although it can be seen now in the pages of Scripture). The Canaanite woman saw who Jesus is. That even though Jesus came as a Jew in his earthly ministry, he is who he is. Given what she said it is likely that she recognized what the majority of the Jews did not. That Jesus was God in the flesh. She addresses him as Lord, Son of David (a royal title for Messiah in the Scripture of the day). She worships him. She asked him to do what only God can do cast out demons and heal. When Jesus said it was not right to take the children' bread and throw it to the dogs, he was testing her faith not saying that he was Messiah only to the Jews. And he was demonstrating the Jews exactly what the woman professed. The woman recognized that even though he came to the Jews, who he was and what he brought would fall to the Gentiles as well. She recognized what you do not.

I never said it stands for standards.

I didn't say you did. I said your view presents different standards for salvation. One because of ethnicity and the other because you get "tacked on" (your words). One side gets a King. The other gets a Savior.

It is also not a chronological priority. Jesus isn't picturing it that way at all. It is a snapshot in time. The Jews are those eating the bread at the table, and the Gentiles are the puppy dogs/family pets, eating the crumbs that fall from the table.

What is the bread? No one was at the table, and no one was eating bread.

Enough crumbs and the dog at a whole loaf. It isn't speaking of standards, but priority. It is also not talking about redemptive history, but any point in time, as Paul puts it. Salvation is first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. When Paul entered each city, the first thing he did was look for the Jews. Then he would go to the Gentiles. (Usually after the Jews rejected him.)

It is speaking of priority in steps, not of priority of value.

And every page in the Bible is redemptive history. The Bible is not the story of Israel, it is the story of redemption and the Redeemer. Israel is part of the story.

Let me ask you this, and please answer. How could there be a new covenant if there were not first an old covenant?

Let's consider for the sake of brevity two steps. Israel will be step one. The advent of Christ, his life, death, resurrection and ascension. How could there be a step two unless it followed step one? And let's add a third step, the consummation of redemption as we see in Rev 21. How could there be step three without first step one and then step two?

And another question(s). What does this mean? Gen 3: 14-15 The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field. on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he will crush your head and you shall bruise his heel"

Why is it that the entire Bible moves chronologically forward through history from that point?