Forgiveness of sins as a judicial release resulting in Justification and Regeneration

I believe that there is a forgiveness (remission) of sins that refers to being released from the "wages of sin" being "death." That release from death would require the reception of eternal life; and that of course, is a one-time transaction.   Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."   Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 speak of a "redemption" (GK: apolutrosis) which is the remission of sins: "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." That forgiveness is a one-time release from the wages of sin that necessitates regeneration, unlike other uses of forgiveness in Scripture that addresses the temporal consequences of sin.  It's like where Jesus said, "He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you." John 13:10

Why do we need eternal life?  Sin brought death.  If I'm released from the wages of sin, then I must be justified and given eternal life, or otherwise, I'm still under the wages of sin, being death.  This is how I understand forgiveness in some of its usages. 

Forgiveness in some Scriptures refer to this release from the wages of sin, which must result in eternal life, which is a one-time transaction.  This forgiveness is a redemption that we receive in Christ, through his blood, such as we read in Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14: "in whom we have redemption [apolutrosis] through His blood, the forgiveness of sins."  I believe this redemption which is the forgiveness of sins is being released from the wages of sin, and that requires the reception of eternal life, since death is the wages of sin.   I believe Romans 6:23 speaks of this: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Some references to forgiveness refer to being released from the temporal consequences of sin, but the loss of eternal life is not in view.   I believe there's a one-time type of forgiveness which releases from the eternal consequences of sin resulting in justification and regeneration, otherwise, we are still dead, eternally speaking. 

The death of Christ relates to releasing us from the consequences of sin, which is not just judicial forgiveness, but justification, regeneration, and existence in the kingdom and world to come.  

I also believe Christ paid the debt in full, but the release from the debt is conditional, because the status of an individual doesn't change until they meet that condition.  They are still unaccepted, alienated from God, and if they die that way, they go to the only place available to them, the "Lake of Fire." 

Jesus did the hard thing in that he met the righteous requirement for our sins to God's righteous satisfaction. Now, the easy thing can be done in releasing us from that obligation, but that release is made conditional by believing in Jesus for it.  I believe that release is forgiveness of sins, resulting in justification, regeneration, and finally, glorification in the resurrection--all these solve the consequences of sin. 

When we sin as a believer, we must acknowledge it to be forgiven, but this is temporal forgiveness.  If we don't acknowledge the sin, the consequence can continue, but with judicial forgiveness, the consequence is forever removed, otherwise, we would have to be justified and regenerated again after every sin.  Judicial forgiveness is a one-time transaction at salvation, resulting in justification and regeneration.  Fellowship forgiveness is not a one-time transaction.

At the Revealing of Christ, will there be some normalcy on earth?

In Luke 17.22-37, we still see some normalcy of life: "...in that day...as the days of Noah...and as the days of Lot ..." two will be together, at work, in the field, at home in bed, and then we read that "and one will be taken, one left."

 22 Then He said to the disciples, "The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 And they will say to you, 'Look here!' or 'Look there!' Do not go after them or follow them. 24 For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day. 25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:22-30

I believe the revealing of Christ is at the end of the "70th Week," being the end of the "great tribulation."  I believe this revealing is the "Day of the Lord."  I believe it is at the revealing that 2 reapings will take place: the 2 reapings/ harvests of Revelation 14:14-20 are back-to-back; the *first is of believers, being the rapture, while the second is of the unsaved, at the time of the revealing.

The second harvest is the Day-of-the-Lord-wrath that will come upon those who seem to be experiencing some degree of normalcy, according to the text referenced above.  The revealing will involve a harvest of those unsaved who are living in some degree of normalcy as referenced in Revelation 14:

"¹⁷ Then another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. ¹⁸ And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried with a loud cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, "Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe." ¹⁹ So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. ²⁰ And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses' bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs." Revelation 14:17-20

There appears to be a degree of normalcy for those who will follow the beast, because when Christ is revealed, it will be as in the days of Noah, for people were doing normal things when the flood came (or when Sodom was destroyed, as in the Luke reference above.)

I believe the trumpets and bowls mostly precede the revealing of Christ and the Day of the Lord, and though these things are judgments and wrath on the earth, there will still be some normalcy on the earth up to the revealing of Christ.  The revealing of Christ will be in connection with the 6th bowl.  The 6th bowl will involve the nations being gathered together for battle, which reveals that in spite of all the devastation that takes place on earth up to that time there is still the ability for nations to gather for war, and certainly there will be those who still have to labor, and even some will still be involved in marrying:  

^"12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. ¹³ And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. ¹⁴ For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
¹⁵ "Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame."
¹⁶ And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon." Revelation 16:12-16

Compare that with this:

"as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ³⁸ For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, ³⁹ and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ... if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, Matthew 24:37-43

*I believe this is a harvest that is the rapture, which precedes the wrath on the unsaved harvest: "14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped." Revelation 14:14-16

Babylon the Great as Jerusalem

The view that Jerusalem is Babylon the Great has its greatest weakness in that Jerusalem will exist during the Millennial Kingdom. 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

However, 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

Revelation 18.24 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 suggest the destruction is great.  It seems that, whether 1 or 2 stages of destruction, if it is Jerusalem, then it happens after the coming of Christ.  For Jesus returns to the mount of Olives, and Jews will be fleeing the city at that time. 

Does all that will happen 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 that destruction happens after the return of Christ at the Mount of Olives.  

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 everything 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, and Jerusalem will exist during the Millennial Kingdom.

The Islamic Empire representation in prophecy

There's a view that sees the 4th part of Nebuchadnezzar image in Daniel 2 as not the Roman Empire but the Islamic Empire.  The Roman Empire is skipped over.  The Islamic Empire shares a commonality with the empires that preceded Rome that are represented in the other parts of the image, being Greece, Medo-Persia, and Babylon. I suppose that same view would see the 4th beast in Daniel 7 as the Islamic Empire.  This view sees the 7th head in Revelation 13 and 17 as the Islamic Empire, and the 8th head, which is of the 7th, is the revived Islamic Empire or Caliphate.  The 6th head was Rome, but Rome is not represented in Daniel 2 and 7.   I do believe all these empires are specifically Mediterranean-world empires.  The Islamic empire view would see all these kingdoms as those which were the enemies of Israel.  Rome wasn't as much as a brutally destructive empire like those before and after.

The passing over of Rome in Daniel 2 and 7 is uncertain to me, but it is a little difficult on how to understand the destruction of Neb's image by the coming of Christ if Rome is the 4th kingdom.   I do see some attractiveness to the idea that the first coming of Christ is in view in Daniel 2, if you look at it as an "already, not yet," view of the kingdom--the kingdom started small at the first coming and will continue to grow until the second coming when the nations of the image are destroyed.   That view usually gets labeled as a preterist view, but it would still see Rome in view as the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2.  The view that Rome is in view usually believes in a revived Roman Empire, which some may see in the feet and toes of Neb's image.  Even in an Islamic view, you have a revived empire.  But is the revived empire the 7th head or the 8th?  It would have to be the 8th head, but what about the 7th head only continuing for "a short time," according to Revelation 7:10, because the Islamic Empire lasted hundreds of years, not a short time?   An Islamic revived empire could make sense, and it would seem more likely than a revived Roman empire, but the usual revived Roman empire is understood in some unified European sense like the European Union.   

I wonder if the Roman Empire and the Islamic/ Ottoman Empire could be linked together, so that the fourth part of the image of Daniel 2 and the 4th beast of Daniel 7 could be both the Empires, the Roman continuing under the Ottoman.

Wikipedia says:

After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the sultans of the Ottoman Empire laid claim to be the legitimate Roman emperors, in succession to the Byzantine emperors who had previously ruled from Constantinople. Based on the concept of right of conquest, the sultans at times assumed the styles kayser-i Rûm ("Caesar of Rome", one of the titles applied to the Byzantine emperors in earlier Ottoman writings) and basileus (the ruling title of the Byzantine emperors). The assumption of the heritage of the Roman Empire also led the Ottoman sultans to claim to be universal monarchs, the rightful rulers of the entire world.

The early sultans after the conquest of Constantinople–Mehmed II, Bayezid II, Selim I and Suleiman I–staunchly maintained that they were Roman emperors and went to great lengths to legitimize themselves as such. Greek aristocrats, i.e. former Byzantine nobility, were often promoted to senior administrative positions and Constantinople was maintained as the capital, rebuilt and considerably expanded under Ottoman rule. The administration, architecture and court ceremonies of the early post-1453 Ottoman Empire were heavily influenced by the former Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman sultan also used their claim to be Roman emperors to justify campaigns of conquest against Western Europe. Both Mehmed II and Suleiman I dreamt of conquering Italy, which they believed was rightfully theirs due to once having been the Roman heartland.

Maybe the 6th head in Revelation 13 is Roman and the Ottoman, and the 7th head is the first stage of the revival of the Ottoman, and the 8th if Revelation 17 is stage 2 of the Ottoman.

Elders: one or a plurality ?

One can make an argument for either view.  

You can find references in Scripture to a plurality of elders in a church.  James said if you are sick to "call for the elders of the church" (James 5:14).  Paul sent for the "elders of the church" of Ephesus (Acts 20:17).  Peter called himself an elder (1 Peter 5:1) among other elders: even if James was the "pastor" of the church in Jerusalem, he was one among other elders, and Peter says the elders are overseers and to pastor ("shepherd") the "flock of God" in an appropriate manner.

Some might argue that there was a plurality of assemblies in a given city, and though the city was referenced as the place of a particular church, there were potentially more than one assembly in that city; therefore, there would be more than one elder in a city.  So if the elders of the church came together from a certain city, they would be from several assemblies within that city, even though the church referenced is according to the city they are in, and not their specific assembly--such as "the church of Ephesus."

Some churches have one elder called "the pastor," while others  can allow for or have more than one elder.  (The designation "the Pastor" has become the common designation for the vocational lead elder, though "pastor" is more of a function, and elder is an office; "pastor" is used in a more technical sense for that office.)  Usually, the pastor role is supported financially, along  with maybe some other roles in the church, according to the need and ability of the church.  It is probably a rare thing if a church has a plurality of elders in which all are compensated and share an equal role.  Usually one elder is "the pastor," even if he is a kind of first among equals.  All elders are really "pastors" and teachers.  Tradition is long standing that one man leads the church.

I think a plurality of elders could take the burden off one man, even if one is the head elder.  I also think that since elders typically come from within the assembly, why shouldn't the one to be the vocational "pastor" not come from within the assembly? I think it would seem best if the pastor came from within the assembly instead of being stranger from without.  

If a church had a plurality of elders, there could be an accountability among the eldership.  I have heard over the years pastors saying they have no one in the church they can confide in or be encouraged by, so couldn't a plurality of elders meet that need? Though some might think this is problematic:  because of  the pastor's role and involvement with the assembly, he must avoid any conflict of interest (showing favoritism?) or keep some things absolutely private because of possible gossip, and therefore, he must go outside the assembly for the kind of input he needs.  

Elders should recognize and appoint (ordain) those within the congregation who desire the office.   There are some good reasons to raise up and keep your elders instead of them having to go out and find their own church--and thus be a stranger coming into a church ( it may not turn out well because he has unexpected beliefs that surface later).  

I don't think we should esteem the pastor as like an Old Testament prophet who is called from church to church to go preach the word as God leads him. He's an elder to shepherd, not an Old Testament prophet.

 So should there be one elder or potentially a plurality? It really depends on the size and needs of the assembly and the desire and qualifications of potential elders within the assembly.  The tradition will probably continue of there being one man who is "the pastor." And maybe that is best for practical reasons.   Scripturally, all the elders should be compensated, and there's no clear biblical support that it is a fully funded vocation, though it could be based on the size of the assembly, and yet, maybe for practical reasons, it is best to have a fully supported pastor, and the passing of time has made that evident.