MsSophie
January 11th, 2008, 12:27 AM
I usually read Jack Kelley but in his latest commentary on Hebrews he wrote this which I don't understand:
Let's take a moment here to clarify the difference in destines between Israel and the Church. Whenever the Bible talks about the destiny of the Jews, it's always in the context of Earth. On the other hand the Church's destiny is clearly Heaven, or more accurately, the New Jerusalem. Although it takes some effort to see it, this difference is actually confirmed in Isaiah 65:17 and Rev. 21:1 where both a new Heaven and a new Earth are mentioned. (For the purposes of this discussion we'll ignore the controversies over when this will happen,Millennium or Eternity, and how it will happen, whether the old Heaven and Earth will be made new or whether both will be created new from scratch after the old are destroyed.)
If the writer to the Hebrews was telling us that since the beginning God's people have looked forward to dwelling in Heaven, why are both required? Where's the need for a new Earth?
Well, if you take all the passages from the Old Testament that speak of Israel's eternal dwelling place you have to conclude that it's on Earth. There are several of these in the Book of Isaiah (chapters 35 and 65:17-25 are a couple of good ones) but perhaps the clearest one is in Ezekiel 43:7 where after the 2nd Coming, upon entering the Temple in Israel on Earth for the first time in over 2600 years, God will say, "This is where I will live among the Israelites forever."
My point is this. Just because Abraham was looking forward to a city whose architect and builder is God, and just because the patriarchs were all looking for a better country, a heavenly one, doesn't mean it can't be on Earth. In fact it has to be in order to fulfill God's promises to them.
On the other hand, the Church is clearly promised that one day Jesus will return to Earth to take us to be with Him in the place He was about to go to when He made the promise, Heaven. (John 14:2-3) He didn't promise to return and stay with us here where we are, as His Father did with Israel. He promised to take us to be with Him there, where He was going to prepare a place for us. When He left Earth He went to Heaven and that's where He's been preparing our place. When He returns for us, He'll take us there. See the difference?
It sounds very much like he is saying when the new heavens and earth are created that the church and the Jews/Israel will not live together, that the Church will live in the new Heaven and the Jews will live on the new Earth.
Am I missing something? I thought in eternity we would all live together (Israel and the Church) on the new Earth.
Also this statement :
On the other hand, the Church is clearly promised that one day Jesus will return to Earth to take us to be with Him in the place He was about to go to when He made the promise, Heaven.
Isn't he speaking here of when Jesus takes the Church at the rapture? This sounds like he's combining theology on Heaven after the rapture and the final new earth and heaven.
Let's take a moment here to clarify the difference in destines between Israel and the Church. Whenever the Bible talks about the destiny of the Jews, it's always in the context of Earth. On the other hand the Church's destiny is clearly Heaven, or more accurately, the New Jerusalem. Although it takes some effort to see it, this difference is actually confirmed in Isaiah 65:17 and Rev. 21:1 where both a new Heaven and a new Earth are mentioned. (For the purposes of this discussion we'll ignore the controversies over when this will happen,Millennium or Eternity, and how it will happen, whether the old Heaven and Earth will be made new or whether both will be created new from scratch after the old are destroyed.)
If the writer to the Hebrews was telling us that since the beginning God's people have looked forward to dwelling in Heaven, why are both required? Where's the need for a new Earth?
Well, if you take all the passages from the Old Testament that speak of Israel's eternal dwelling place you have to conclude that it's on Earth. There are several of these in the Book of Isaiah (chapters 35 and 65:17-25 are a couple of good ones) but perhaps the clearest one is in Ezekiel 43:7 where after the 2nd Coming, upon entering the Temple in Israel on Earth for the first time in over 2600 years, God will say, "This is where I will live among the Israelites forever."
My point is this. Just because Abraham was looking forward to a city whose architect and builder is God, and just because the patriarchs were all looking for a better country, a heavenly one, doesn't mean it can't be on Earth. In fact it has to be in order to fulfill God's promises to them.
On the other hand, the Church is clearly promised that one day Jesus will return to Earth to take us to be with Him in the place He was about to go to when He made the promise, Heaven. (John 14:2-3) He didn't promise to return and stay with us here where we are, as His Father did with Israel. He promised to take us to be with Him there, where He was going to prepare a place for us. When He left Earth He went to Heaven and that's where He's been preparing our place. When He returns for us, He'll take us there. See the difference?
It sounds very much like he is saying when the new heavens and earth are created that the church and the Jews/Israel will not live together, that the Church will live in the new Heaven and the Jews will live on the new Earth.
Am I missing something? I thought in eternity we would all live together (Israel and the Church) on the new Earth.
Also this statement :
On the other hand, the Church is clearly promised that one day Jesus will return to Earth to take us to be with Him in the place He was about to go to when He made the promise, Heaven.
Isn't he speaking here of when Jesus takes the Church at the rapture? This sounds like he's combining theology on Heaven after the rapture and the final new earth and heaven.