What is the river of life in Revelations

[Guest]

If it's ok with you, I'd rather not converse via linkage. In my opinion, it disrupts the flow of conversation. And let's face it, both of us could toss links back and forth, but neither is going to fully read the pages upon pages of stuff that's been written.

[Guest]

Ok, this is the part I wanted to be sure I had a correct understand of from a dispensational view. I have to say it's also one of the points that makes the least bit of sense to me, especially in light of Hebrews. From my understanding, even if there were a temple needed for God to dwell in (which I obviously do not think is taught), why would He ever reinstate a sacrificial system that Jesus brought an end to as the ultimate sacrifice for all times? Wouldn't that be yet another abomination?

Okay, very briefly, the instution of sacrifices would only be an abomination if they someone considered that sacrifices were actually atoning for sin. But Hebrews 10 makes clear that sacrifices were never able to atone for sins. This is why the early Jewish Christians including James and Paul continued to participate in the temple sacrifices (Acts 21:15-36). They knew the true significance of them.

Ely

[Guest]

Ok, this is the part I wanted to be sure I had a correct understand of from a dispensational view. I have to say it's also one of the points that makes the least bit of sense to me, especially in light of Hebrews. From my understanding, even if there were a temple needed for God to dwell in (which I obviously do not think is taught), why would He ever reinstate a sacrificial system that Jesus brought an end to as the ultimate sacrifice for all times? Wouldn't that be yet another abomination?

Okay, very briefly, the instution of sacrifices would only be an abomination if they someone considered that sacrifices were actually atoning for sin. But Hebrews 10 makes clear that sacrifices were never able to atone for sins. This is why the early Jewish Christians including James and Paul continued to participate in the temple sacrifices (Acts 21:15-36). They knew the true significance of them.

Ely

Hmm....

I've went back through that portion of Acts several times and read some commentaries on it, and after doing so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you'll excuse me being thick, explain to me what you mean by James and Paul "[knowing] the true significance of them [the sacrifices]," and what you believe to be going on in those passages in Acts.

[Guest]

James, Paul and all the Jews who believed are "zealous for the Law" and they "kept" the Law. This means that they continued to observe the Law, with all it's statutes, offerings, sacrifices, feasts, sabbaths and yes, sacrifices. We specifically see four men among them who had taken a vow and needed to be purified with an offering. Numbers 6 shows that this offering was of a male lamb. James advises Paul to provide the ram for them.

When I say that they knew the true significance, I guess I mean that they didn't look on these things as being obligatory or mandatory and they certianly didn't view them as being efficacious (if that's the right word). Also, many parts of the law pointed in some way to Jesus. Most obivously, Passover and Firsfruits was clearly a memorial of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus. Some folks find eschatological messages in the various feasts.

Is that a bit clearer?

[Guest]

I am amazed that no one has yet suggested that the River of Life is the Holy Spirit!

Consider:

Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"

But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:37-39

[Guest]

Paidion,

Whoo finally.. I believe very much that the water of life is the Holy Spirit. I did try to dance around it a bit to see if anyone saw it that way.

Jim

[Guest]

Paidion,

Whoo finally.. I believe very much that the water of life is the Holy Spirit. I did try to dance around it a bit to see if anyone saw it that way.

Jim

Heh, sorry guys. I aslo agree with your views...I guess I just got sidetracked with the "temple details." It's my own fault though, as I kind of derailed the thread when I asked Ely about his views.

Ely,

The way I've understood the passage in Acts you have outlined is a little different. It actually looks to me like there were so many Christian/Jew converts in Jerusalem that were still clinging to the Ceremonial Law, that James thought it would be best (in that case) for Paul to go through the ritual purifications and help out with the other "stuff" that was needed for the ones taking the Nazarite vows.

In other words, it kind of seems like Paul succumbed to the peer pressure, since he was in Jerusalem amongst thousands of fellow Jews who were weak in the Faith and couldn't let go of what amounted to old habits. Maybe that's not quite the correct way to put it, but if you have access to any of Matthew Henry's commentaries, he explains it much more thoroughly than I have.

In any case, I don't see how this points to any need for a future temple, but that's ok. It can be just another of the details that we can peaceably agree to disagree on until the Perfect comes to clear up everything!

[Guest]

It can be just another of the details that we can peaceably agree to disagree on until the Perfect comes to clear up everything!

Indeedy. Prepare to be proved wrong buddy 8)

[Guest]

Ok, this is the part I wanted to be sure I had a correct understand of from a dispensational view. I have to say it's also one of the points that makes the least bit of sense to me, especially in light of Hebrews. From my understanding, even if there were a temple needed for God to dwell in (which I obviously do not think is taught), why would He ever reinstate a sacrificial system that Jesus brought an end to as the ultimate sacrifice for all times? Wouldn't that be yet another abomination?

Okay, very briefly, the instution of sacrifices would only be an abomination if they someone considered that sacrifices were actually atoning for sin. But Hebrews 10 makes clear that sacrifices were never able to atone for sins. This is why the early Jewish Christians including James and Paul continued to participate in the temple sacrifices (Acts 21:15-36). They knew the true significance of them.

Ely

I have heard this point often but my question concerning it is--

If God did not forgive sin through the sinner repenting and offering the appropriate sacrifice under the OT sacrifical system, and then hold those sins against them at a future time because those sacrifices could not take away sin then God must have been pretending.

The answer of course is that the sacrifices of the OT were to be explained as to their real meaning by the priests, and it was to that explanation that the sinner was to place their trust in, otherwise they were placing their trust in animals and their blood which only fools did then as some today.

Why would we consider that genuine people of the OT times had no understanding any better than many blind people today who think that they eat Christ by partaking of a bickie.

The idea of the making of animal sacrifices in the millennium as memorials also suggests that the believer of such thinks that they would be required to remember Christ by at that time.


Even many today think that a bread and wine service is needed to remember Christ and His sacrifice. It is sad that they need such for that reason, and have nothing better to remind them by.

Pray tell me why the instructions of Paul concerning the gatherings of saints would change for the time of the millennium, when he has said that we ought follow him as he also follows Christ and that the same everlasting covenant now in effect remains in effect then also.

Rulership over nations is another matter.

Arthur.

[Guest]

Hi Arthur, and sorry for taking so long to reply (problems accessing this forum from my home pc). Okay, you said:

If God did not forgive sin through the sinner repenting and offering the appropriate sacrifice under the OT sacrifical system

I don't say this. I indeed believe that the one who sinned would be forgiven if they repented. I would also say that they would be forgiven whether or not they offered a sin offering (as was the case during the Assyriuan/Babylonian exile). As you said, the blood of bulls and goats did not take away sins. Rather, there was another basis on which sins where forgiven. As I understand it, Christ's work atoned for those sins commited under the first covenant (and before).

The idea of the making of animal sacrifices in the millennium as memorials also suggests that the believer of such thinks that they would be required to remember Christ by at that time.

Even many today think that a bread and wine service is needed to remember Christ and His sacrifice. It is sad that they need such for that reason, and have nothing better to remind them by.

I think I see what you're getting at. Are you saying that it's not a good thing to think something is obligatary? If so, I disagre. If we are required to do certain things in the Millenium, I won't have a problem with this. Actually, having been freed from our "sinful nature", we will want to fulfill any obligations with joy.

Also, the fact that partaking of the bread and wine is a way of remembering Christ does not mean it's the only way - it's just a way. And a way which is prescribed by Christ Himself.