The burdens and yoke of the local Church

Jesus said, "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Matthew 11:30 This probably speaks of discipleship, which should come after one believes in him for salvation--which I believe he invited to earlier: "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28. It's the ambitions of man that places an unnecessary burden on others to build that organization manifested in the local church.

The local church puts burdens on people that I think encourage people to stay away. The expectations, traditions and programs, can be an unnecessary burden. They require commitment to be maintained. But are they necessary? Those who don't attend regularly or don't help in the maintenance of these things may still expect them when they attend, so someone must maintain them. But do they really need to?

The church is the people. Bigger buildings and programs will have their attraction, but the burden to maintain them is usually put on a few. People may not come if you don't have the facilities and programs, but they won't come if you put the maintenance of the operation on them as well.

The purpose of the gathering is to build one another up and to stir one another up: Hebrews 10:26; Ephesians 4:11-16. If people don't want to come for this purpose, then why try to draw them in with those things that a few are burdened to maintain?

Jesus' yoke and burden are easy and light through the enabling that comes through abiding in the word of God and through a simplicity of believers assembling together to edify one another through the roles they have. But it doesn't seem to work quite this way, because of the expectation and traditions of the maintenance of property, programs, and the vocational staff. I don't think this will change, and so the burdens will continue, because of the usual expectations and traditions.

Known to God (God's knowledge and Man's free will)

Concerning God's knowledge and will and man's free will, I take a simple position that...God knows what man will do, and God knows what He will do.

I also like to say that free will is *figured in* to what God will do.  I don't think it's necessary to think God doesn't know everything, even though it may seem to support at least a soft determinism, God knows what our free will actions will be.  And if this means that the future is fixed, because God knows what we will do, and what He will do, well then, it must be. 

If one suggests that God chooses not to know everything, so that free will is truly free will, then we have a problem with when God chooses to know anything about someone, because if the cutoff point is before one comes to saving faith, then nothing can be known about them at some point prior to and after their salvation, because to be ignorant of their future salvation would require Him to know nothing about them, less that ignorance be violated (and free will would seem to be fixed).   How could this even work?  If God knows the future, he must know our free will choices and the outcomes.

James said concerning God...

"Known to God from eternity are all His works."  Acts 15.18

Concerning future actions of men, we have some of these examples prophesied, revealing that God knows...

Moses said concerning Israel... 

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed. And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you." Debut 4:26-27

Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders, "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." Acts 20.29-30

Jesus said to Peter, "'when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.' This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God." John 21.18-19 

Invitation to the The Rest

Jesus said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Jesus gives the invitation for spiritual rest--to come to him for that eternal life that is free, received through believing in Him as the Christ, the Son of God who saves from the wages of sin through believing in him for it.

The "heavy laden" would seem to reference the burden placed on the people by the religious leaders, making the way of eternal life dependent on one's ability to meet the demands that the leaders set.

We see a similar invitation to salvation in the book of Revelation: "And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely."  Revelation 22.17

The way of eternal life is received through faith in Christ alone for it.  The "rest" is the ceasing from the labors that were an impossible burden, that could not give life, in which there was no rest.  But in Christ, there is rest, and He invites all to come to him for eternal life and rest.

Repentance and faith, must both exist?

I understand faith (to believe) as being convinced or persuaded that something is true.  Repentance is a resolve to think or do differently.   

I believe it can be said that faith precedes repentance, for one must believe the message that causes them to resolve to think or do differently.  An example is the Ninevites who believed Jonah's message and then repented. One text says they believed, and another says they repented.  They did both, because they believed the message of Jonah, and then they repented, which then resulted in them changing their behavior.

But one can believe something and not repent.  One could believe the message they hear but not resolve to think or do differently.  An example would be that one could hear the warning that a hurricane is coming their way, but they do not resolve to leave their home.   It's not that they don't believe the message, it's just that they are not going to do anything about it.  It could be that they are not convinced it is a threat, but in that case, it's another issue to be believed.  And that is something to consider when it comes to the relationship between faith and repentance.  It depends on what is being believed or not believed.  The repentance depends on what is being believed.  I think one could believe something that doesn't result in a change of thought or behavior, for whatever reason.

So repentance to involve belief, but belief, it seems, doesn't necessarily involve repentance.

Let the dead bury their own dead

 Then He said to another, "Follow Me."

But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."

 Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God." Luke 9:59-60

This seems rather harsh.  The usual explanation is that Jesus was saying let the unsaved-- who are spiritually dead--bury those who are physically dead.

I once read of another view in which there was a custom that after a year had passed in which a deceased person was in a sepulcher, a relative would then officially bury them.  I don't know if this was a common practice in Jesus' day, or if it was even what he was referring to.

I think that in some way Jesus was saying that, depending on the circumstances, one will have to allow others to take care of certain things of a temporal nature when you need to take care of certain things of eternal nature or significance.  We have to discern what has priority.

Anoint the most Holy being fulfilled after 70 Weeks

Seventy weeks are determined

For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy. 

Daniel 9:24

It could be that the 2300 days of Daniel 8 are a time reference for when the Millennial temple is built, but I am back and forth over what applies to Antiochus IV in the past and what applies to the Antichrist in yet future.  

Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, "How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?"

And he said to me, "For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed." 

Daniel 8:13-14

"Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end."

...And he said, "Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be. 

Daniel 8:17-19

²³ "And in the latter time of their kingdom,
When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
A king shall arise,
Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes.
²⁴ His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power;
He shall destroy fearfully,
And shall prosper and thrive;
He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people.
²⁵ "Through his cunning
He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule;
And he shall exalt himself in his heart.
He shall destroy many in their prosperity.
He shall even rise against the Prince of princes;
But he shall be broken without human means.
²⁶ "And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future." 

Daniel 8:23-26

For the longest time, I believed most of Daniel 8 was fulfilled in the past (though Antichrist seems in view in 8.23-25). 

Not too long ago, I concluded it could be all in the future, but recently listening to Joel Richardson and Chris White on Daniel 8, I found myself going back to my old view, that most is fulfilled in the past.   

I could see the 2300 days being the time reference from the abomination of desolation in the Tribulation Temple to the time of the Millennial Temple being built.

I was also thinking, possibly, just as the temple Antiochus desecrated was eventually cleansed, that the tribulation temple would be cleansed first after the end of the 70th Week and used until the Millennial temple is constructed.  

The Antiochus view of the 2300 days is that it is both evening and morning added together, and that would be 1150 days from his desecration of the temple until it was cleansed.  The antichrist view is that it is 2300 days after the abomination until it is cleansed, which is another 1140 days after the 1260 day Great Tribulation.  Why that many days to cleanse the temple?  That would probably work better with the time to build the millennial temple.  I think it is thought that the millennial temple will stand in another spot than where the temple mount is in old Jerusalem.

The 7 heads of the beast and the image and beasts of Daniel

Two of the 7 heads of Revelation chapters 13 & 17, according to the "traditional" view, are Egypt and Assyria.  That view understands that Daniel was only seeing the kingdoms from his time and forward in Daniel chapters 2 and maybe 7?  Those 2 nations, like those that follow, are considered Mediterranean-world powers during the time of Israel as God's people?  And so those 2 would be of the 5 who have fallen, according to Revelation 17.10. 

Maybe the 4th beast of Daniel 7 is the 6th, 7th, and 8th head of Revelation 17, and the 4th kingdom (legs, feet, toes of the image) of Daniel 2 represents the same heads of Revelation 13 & 17.  The 7th and 8th heads would be two latter phases, the first phase being for a short time and followed by a second phase (in the second half of the "Week") after the Antichrist is revealed. 

The 4 beasts of Daniel 7 could correspond with the 4 sections of the image in Daniel 2 as distinct kingdoms, but the 4th section and 4th beast represent both a transitioning empire from the Roman to the Ottoman Empires, but a confederacy of nations in the latter ten-horned kingdom.  Also, from a vision perspective, in Daniel 7, the first 3 beasts were spatially  "before" the 4th beast, for Daniel saw them all before him in the vision.  Though maybe they all have some future existence in some sense, since the fall of an authority doesn't mean the geography and people of that authority no longer exists, and even the authority may still exist in a lesser extent.  When Babylon was the reigning authority, and had authority over Jerusalem, during the time of the Babylonian captivity, Egypt still existed, and many Jews fled there. 

To be Perfect

Matthew 5.48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

To be perfect can mean to be complete or whole, lacking nothing.  James 2.4 "But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing."

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." Matthew 19.21

 To be perfect is to be lacking nothing.  And thus to be like our heavenly Father who lacks nothing.

Is Jerusalem Babylon the Great?

The destruction of Babylon the Great has a finality to it: "Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore." Rev18.21

I can see several reasons to identify Jerusalem as Babylon the Great.  Revelation refers to Jerusalem as "the great city" that is "spiritually" "called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Rev11.8
Rev18.24 tells us that in Babylon the Great was "found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth."
Jesus said, ""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her." Mat23.37 "it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem." Lk13.33

Reference is made of "the great city" being divided into 3 parts by an earthquake. Rev16.19 This would seem to be Jerusalem.  The same verse then says, "and great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." Are 2 cities in view or one here?

The "woman" (and "harlot") is later identified as Babylon the great and is called "that great city." Rev17.18 Are all references to "the great city" the same?

Zechariah speaks of how God will make Jerusalem a "cup of drunkenness" for all the surrounding people, 12.2." This sounds a little like Rev18.3, but in Zechariah, the nations will gather against Jerusalem, while in Rev18, the kings and merchants of the earth have benefitted from Babylon the Great.  "For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury."

Zechariah 12 speaks of God making it difficult for the nations who gather against her.  God will restore Jerusalem. "And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it." 12.3
This sounds like God will not let the nations destroy the city.  We know that the 10 kings of the beast's kingdom will destroy Babylon the Great: "And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled." Rev17.16-17. God will cut in pieces those who would heave Jerusalem away, but God puts in the hearts of kings to destroy Babylon the Great.  Can God both protect and destroy Jerusalem?

We also read that Jerusalem will be "inhabited again, in her own place." Zech12.6 The word "again" and "own place" doesn't work well with the fact Babylon the Great will be destroyed and never inhabited.  The only way it can work for Jerusalem to be Babylon the Great is that the Jerusalem of Zechariah will be in another place, and her "own place" is not her former place. 

One other issue is the timing of the destruction of Babylon the Great.  There is the belief that it goes through 2 stages of destruction, first by the 10 kings, and then later by God.  Maybe the destruction by the kings doesn't render it uninhabitable, but the warning to flee from her seems to do suggest the destruction is great.  It seems whether 1 or 2 stages of destruction, it happens after the coming of Christ.  Jesus returns to the mount of Olives, and Jews will be fleeing the city at that time. Does all that happens at the coming of Christ fit with Jerusalem being Babylon the Great?  Zech14: "For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south....".  This doesn't seem to fit with the destruction of Babylon the Great in Revelation 18, unless it happens after that time.  It seems difficult to reconcile the destruction of Babylon the Great with everything that will happen in Jerusalem in Zechariah.  It seems like to make every thing fit time wise would require the destruction of Babylon the Great by the 10 kings to be after Jesus returns according to the scene of Zechariah 14. 

Body Parts Removal

...it is more profitable for you that one of your members [body parts] perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 

Matthew 5:29

Jesus said some very hard things.  He said:  If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Matthew 5:29-30

These words reveal the seriousness of sin, so serious that if sin sends you to Hell, and it is caused by a body part, then remove that body part.  It would be better to miss a body part, to avoid sin, than to be cast into Hell with that body part that causes the sin.   

We know elsewhere in Scripture that removing body parts is not God's solution to our sin problem, but what Jesus said reveals the seriousness of the sin problem, and his words should cause one to seek what that solution is.  The solution is in Jesus dying on the cross to bear the penalty (consequences) that our sins required.  But that solution will not be meaningful until one sees the seriousness of sin and its consequences.  God has provided for the consequences of sin in the person and work of Christ.  That provision promises salvation (forgiveness of sins, justification, and eternal life) to all who believe in Jesus for it.  Through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;  and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.   Acts 13:38-39