Past or Future?

[wstruse]

Richard,

Thank you for your response. In response to my #2 you stated:

Exactly correct, but again, we must understand that Scripture explicitly uses Mount Zion as a symbol of the Chuch, the New Jerusalem:

Hebrews 12:22-23 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The quote from Isaiah 2 is speaking about the Temple which is 'in Jerusalem and Judah'. The destination of the nations is the "house of God" from where they will hear the "words" of YHWH.

Exactly correct, but again, we must understand that Scripture explicitly uses Mount Zion as a symbol of the Chuch, the New Jerusalem:

Exactly correct. And where is that place? It is Mount Zion, the New Jeruselam, the Church of God where Christ the Lamb rules the hearts of all believers, teaching them His Ways and leading them to the fount of living waters. It's all about Christ and His Gospel.

Precisely correct. It was through the Apostle and Prophets of Christ that the Word of YHVH - the 66 Books of the Christian Bible - went forth.

Isaiah 2 specifically speaks of a temple in Judah and Jerusalem from which the word of YHWH goes forth. This is not the same as the statements of Revelation. Revelation 21 clearly states there is – no – temple in the New Jerusalem, because YHWH and Yashua are the Temple of it.

I should add that the New Jerusalem is on a new earth because the 'first earth were passed away'. Also this New Jerusalem comes after a 1000 years of Yashua’s reign on earth.

Revelation 21:22-23 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Isaiah 2:1-4 KJV ¶ The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of YHWH'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of YHWH, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


Revelation 21:1-4 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

As explained by Joe (TheForgiven) God has taught us the meaning of those weapons and tools. We all know that the Sword represents the Word of God, which we use on a daily basis to "till the soil" in preaching and to "trim the branches" in our administration of our congregations so they bear more fruit.

Now concerning your understanding of the nations beating their 'swords into plowshares'. If this is a reference to the 'word of God' then why do the nations need to change their swords to plowshares and pruninghooks. If the swords is the 'word of God' then why will the 'nation shall not lift up 'the word of God' against nations'? If the sword is a reference to the 'word of God' then 'war' should also be a reference to the usage of the 'word of God'. If this is the case then why won’t the nations 'learn war any more'? I do not see how Isaiah 2 can be interpreted in this way. I believe Isaiah 2 and Revelation 21 are speaking of two different eras or 'ages' separated by a 1000 years.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

[TheForgiven]

Isaiah 2 specifically speaks of a temple in Judah and Jerusalem from which the word of YHWH goes forth. This is not the same as the statements of Revelation. Revelation 21 clearly states there is – no – temple in the New Jerusalem, because YHWH and Yashua are the Temple of it.

I should add that the New Jerusalem is on a new earth because the 'first earth were passed away'. Also this New Jerusalem comes after a 1000 years of Yashua’s reign on earth.

These are the distinct teachings of the Futurist interpretation. But the temple of Christ is the body of believers.

I just can't for the life of me see why people have such a hard time with that.

John 2:21
But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

Paul refers to the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus referred to His own body as a temple of His Spirit. But after Jesus ascended on High, His Spirit now dwells in the hearts of believers for generations past. This salvation came forth from all Israel, for salvation is of the Jews.

Simple and easy. Our bodies are the living temples of the Holy Spirit. He reigns on earth through us, and sits in His perpetual temple; His place of rest.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

Thank you for your response. In response to my #2 you stated:

The quote from Isaiah 2 is speaking about the Temple which is “in Jerusalem and Judah”. The destination of the nations is the "house of God" from where they will hear the "words" of YHWH.

Hey there wstruse,



I think it is important for us to step back and review the general rules of interpretation here. It is common for the TYPE to contain specific details relating to actual literal situations such as a geographical location that have no direct correspondence in the ANTITYPE. For example, we know with total certainty that literal Mount Zion in the land of Judah was a TYPE of the Church and New Jerusalem, because that is what the Bible tells us:

Hebrews 12:22-23 But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

To suggest that the ANTITYPE must match every incidental detail of the TYPE is a fundamental hermeneutical error. Yes, Christ is the Lamb of God, but no, he does not have hooves.

It is this fundamental principle that we are discussing. It is pointless to argue for the literal fulfillment of every incidental detail if the prophecy is typological or speaking in symbolic terms. Therefore, if you want to prove your point, you will need to prove that the prophecy is not typological or symbolic of the things of the Gospel.

I hope you understand what I am getting at. If God intended the prophecy to be interpreted literally, then the literal details such as geographical location will be literally fulfilled. But if He inteded the prophecy as a symbolic representation of Christ and the Gospel and the Church and all that, then it would be wrong to insist on a literal fulfillment of the incidental details.

Isaiah 2 specifically speaks of a temple in Judah and Jerusalem from which the word of YHWH goes forth. This is not the same as the statements of Revelation. Revelation 21 clearly states there is – no – temple in the New Jerusalem, because YHWH and Yashua are the Temple of it.

There is no EXTERNAL Temple - but obviously there is a "Temple" because the text says that the Lord and the Lamb "are" the Temple. And in the same book we see that the believers are built INTO the Temple:

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

See that? The symbols all overlap. The believers are "pillars" in the "Temple" in the New Jerusalem where the will be "no temple" because God "is the Temple" It seems pretty obvious to me that this is all symbolic language. The New Jerusalem IS the Church, the Body of Beleivers, the Bride of Christ, as it is written:

Revelation 21:9-10 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

It really can't get any plainer that that, can it? To take these symbols and turn them into literal descriptions of literal buildings made of dead stuff seems to be missing the point entirely.

I should add that the New Jerusalem is on a new earth because the “first earth were passed away”. Also this New Jerusalem comes after a 1000 years of Yashua’s reign on earth.

There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that says Jesus will reign for a thousand years on earth. Rev 20 says nothing of where He reigns, and we know from the rest of the Bible that He currently is reigning in heaven. And there is no passage other than Rev 20 that speaks of a thousand year reign anywhere no heaven or earth, so any interpretion is highly speculative and can not be taught as doctrine because every fundamental doctrine must have at least two or three passages bearing witness. This is God's Own standard that He reiteratively taught in His Own Word. If He wanted us to teach a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth as DOCTRINE, He would have established it much more firmly in Scripture.

Now concerning your understanding of the nations beating their “swords into plowshares”. If this is a reference to the “word of God” then why do the nations need to change their swords to plowshares and pruninghooks. If the swords is the “word of God” then why will the “nation shall not lift up “the word of God” against nations”? If the sword is a reference to the “word of God” then “war” should also be a reference to the usage of the “word of God”. If this is the case then why won’t the nations “learn war any more”? I do not see how Isaiah 2 can be interpreted in this way. I believe Isaiah 2 and Revelation 21 are speaking of two different eras or “ages” separated by a 1000 years.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

Those are good questions. I think the answer is pretty clear. Yes, the Word of God is likened to a weapon, but that is a metaphor and metaphors change depending on context. God's Word is also likened to water that washes us clearn, and to a fire that burns, and so forth. In Isaiah 2, the context is the change from warfare (contending with unbelievers) to agriculture (growing disciples) under the peaceful rulership of Christ the Prince of Peace).

Thanks for working with me on this wstruse. I very much appreaciate your input.

Richard

PS: I would very much like to get a response concerning the fact that its pretty obvous nobody will be literally beating their swords into plowshares. Do you agree that language is obviously symbolic?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I moved my conversation with Brother Les concerning the identity of the disciple that Jesus loved over to the Biblical Studies forum. Here's the link:

Who was the Disciple that Jesus Loved?

RAM

[wstruse]

Hello Joe,

You stated the following:

Simple and easy. Our bodies are the living temples of the Holy Spirit. He reigns on earth through us, and sits in His perpetual temple; His place of rest.

I would agree that the believers physical bodies are the 'temples of the Holy Spirit.'

You said: 'He reigns on earth through us and sits in His perpetual temple'. This is what the Scripture says:

1 Peter 3:22 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Revelation 21:1-4 KJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Its not until after the 1000 years that the city of God comes down from heaven and God dwells with us. Cleary verse 4 has not been fulfilled yet. We still have tears, death, sorrow, crying, and pain. These 'former things' brought about by the sin of Adam are still with us. This pain and travail was still evident at the time of Paul, years after Yashua’s resurrection. If I understand you correctly you believe this pain and travail ended sometime between the time of Paul and 70 AD. What has changed since the time of Pual? What caused the pain, travail and sorrow to end? According to Revelation 21 when God dwells with us there will no longer be tears, pain, death, or crying. If according to your interpretation He reigns through us when we become believers why was Paul who was a believer still in both spiritual and physical pain and travail?

Romans 8:19-23 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

2 Corinthians 11:27-28 27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

Romans 7:20-25 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

1 Thessalonians 4:12-14 of nothing. 13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.


Warm Regards,

Wstruse

[wstruse]

Hello Richard,

I hope you understand what I am getting at. If God intended the prophecy to be interpreted literally, then the literal details such as geographical location will be literally fulfilled. But if He intended the prophecy as a symbolic representation of Christ and the Gospel and the Church and all that, then it would be wrong to insist on a literal fulfillment of the incidental details.

This statement of yours sums up the debate quite well. I do believe that Isaiah 2 will be fulfilled literally.

In Isaiah 2, the context is the change from warfare (contending with unbelievers) to agriculture (growing disciples) under the peaceful rulership of Christ the Prince of Peace).

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


Richard I really don’t know what to say to your quote above. If you really believe this is an accurate and legitimate rendering of Isaiah 2 then there I don’t see how any argument I could
come with will change your mind. Please understand I say that with the utmost respect. I just don’t know how to argue with your reasoning on this verse

And there is no passage other than Rev 20 that speaks of a thousand year reign anywhere no heaven or earth, so any interpretion is highly speculative and can not be taught as doctrine because every fundamental doctrine must have at least two or three passages bearing witness. This is God's Own standard that He reiteratively taught in His Own Word. If He wanted us to teach a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth as DOCTRINE, He would have established it much more firmly in Scripture.

I hope you can appreciate my reservations then concerning the belief that Yashua returned around 70 AD and that the resurrection took place. To my knowledge there is not even one written or eyewitness account to these must wonderful events. The New Testament is full of detailed eyewitness accounts to Yashua’s fulfillment of the Torah and the Prophets. The New Testament is full of eyewitness accounts of how Yashua symbolically fulfilled the Passover, Firstfruits and the Pentecost 'shadow' pictures. Yet, prophecies of equal import are fulfilled without a single witness. I find this incongruent and irreconcilable. How could the 'blessed hope' have taken place without a trace.

I hope you know that appreciate your input and your perspective on this issue. I just don’t see the congruency that you do on either a micro or a macro scale.


You asked me:

PS: I would very much like to get a response concerning the fact that its pretty obvous nobody will be literally beating their swords into plowshares. Do you agree that language is obviously symbolic?

I absolutely believe that this is to be taken literally. When Isaiah 2 is fulfilled mankind will no longer need or make weapons of war with which we destroy or injure our brother. The energy and money that goes into making weapons of war will instead be used to make tools of agriculture. The very idea of offensive weapons is a truly sad testimony to mankind’s fallen state.


I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

[basilfo]

.......... To my knowledge there is not even one written or eyewitness account to these must wonderful events. The New Testament is full of detailed eyewitness accounts to Yashua’s fulfillment of the Torah and the Prophets. The New Testament is full of eyewitness accounts of how Yashua symbolically fulfilled the Passover, Firstfruits and the Pentecost 'shadow' pictures. Yet, prophecies of equal import are fulfilled without a single witness. I find this incongruent and irreconcilable. How could the 'blessed hope' have taken place without a trace.

Hi Wstruse,

I'm assuming you believe that some of the NT was written after 70AD. If so, by your own logic, wouldn't there be a 'trace' of the very significant event - the destruction of the temple and holy city? I believe the lack of even a single mention of that destruction as a past event is strong evidence to a pre-70AD authorship of the entire NT. This would explain the absence of 'eyewitness accounts' you are asking for.

Could it be possible also that many of these fulfillments were not visible in our realm, but only in the spiritual realm? Where, for example, does Scripture state that the resurrection would be visible on earth? Is it not souls moving from 'rest' (Dan 12:13)

Dan 12:13 "But you, go [your way] till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

to be with God in heaven?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard,

I hope you understand what I am getting at. If God intended the prophecy to be interpreted literally, then the literal details such as geographical location will be literally fulfilled. But if He intended the prophecy as a symbolic representation of Christ and the Gospel and the Church and all that, then it would be wrong to insist on a literal fulfillment of the incidental details.

This statement of yours sums up the debate quite well. I do believe that Isaiah 2 will be fulfilled literally.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Richard I really don’t know what to say to your quote above. If you really believe this is an accurate and legitimate rendering of Isaiah 2 then there I don’t see how any argument I could come with will change your mind. Please understand I say that with the utmost respect. I just don’t know how to argue with your reasoning on this verse .

I receive your disagreement with no sense of disrespect. I very much appreciate your kind and thoughtful posts. But I am not able to understand why you reject the prophecies as symbolic becuase you didn't actually explain your reasoning. It seems you think that they are so "obviously literal" that it doesn't require any proof at all. I think that is a mistake because the NT shows that many of the most significant prophecies of the OT were intended by God to be interpreted symbolically.

Now don't get me wrong ... the interpertation I offered concerning the swords and plowshares was just a suggestion to show how the literal interpretation was not the only possibility. I was not arguing that it is the only possibility. The one thing that we both can agree on is that the swords and plowshares are SYMBOLIC - a point I'll expand upon below.

I hope you can appreciate my reservations then concerning the belief that Yashua returned around 70 AD and that the resurrection took place. To my knowledge there is not even one written or eyewitness account to these must wonderful events.

Jesus Christ is in heaven right now in His resurrected spiritual body, correct?

Why would you have any problem believing that He gave resurrection bodies to all the believers that are there with Him now?



This is the most common misunderstanding I have encountered. Folks seem to think that the resurrection had to be something "earthly" and visible down here when in fact it is a heavenly thing, as Paul explained:

2 Corinthians 5:1-4 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

See that? It seems that Paul was expecting a resurrection spritual body as soon as he died, when he would be "clothed upon" with a "house" (BODY) in heaven when he would be "absent" from his earthly body and "present with the Lord" in his "heavenly body."

The New Testament is full of detailed eyewitness accounts to Yashua’s fulfillment of the Torah and the Prophets. The New Testament is full of eyewitness accounts of how Yashua symbolically fulfilled the Passover, Firstfruits and the Pentecost 'shadow' pictures. Yet, prophecies of equal import are fulfilled without a single witness. I find this incongruent and irreconcilable. How could the 'blessed hope' have taken place without a trace.

I hope you know that appreciate your input and your perspective on this issue. I just don’t see the congruency that you do on either a micro or a macro scale.

I very much appreciate you point of view, and think continued conversation will help you and me and everyone else who is participateing or just reading along.

PS: I would very much like to get a response concerning the fact that its pretty obvous nobody will be literally beating their swords into plowshares. Do you agree that language is obviously symbolic?

I absolutely believe that this is to be taken literally. When Isaiah 2 is fulfilled mankind will no longer need or make weapons of war with which we destroy or injure our brother. The energy and money that goes into making weapons of war will instead be used to make tools of agriculture. The very idea of offensive weapons is a truly sad testimony to mankind’s fallen state.

I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

I understand you think that the "beating swords into plowshares" is a SYMBOL of world peace. But it is most definitely NOT literal. And you proved this by asserting that the "beating of swords" was really just a figure of speech meaning that the "energy and money that goes into making weapons of war" will be redirected to peaceful endeavors. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that literal swords will be literally beaten into literal plowshares. It is a figure of speech, which by definition is a non-literal expression.


So its not literal, right? You believe it is a symbol of external world peace. I believe it is a symbol of the peace wrought by Jesus Christ on the cross:

Ephesians 2:14-18 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

We both believe that the swords and plowshares are SYMBOLS - we are not that far apart. I merely believe that the symbols were fulfilled in the Gospel, you believe they are yet to be fully fulfilled.

Talk more soon, my brother,

Richard

[eliyahu]

Could it be possible also that many of these fulfillments were not visible in our realm, but only in the spiritual realm? Where, for example, does Scripture state that the resurrection would be visible on earth? Is it not souls moving from 'rest' (Dan 12:13)
Dan 12:13 "But you, go [your way] till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."
to be with God in heaven?

What about when Jesus said that His coming would be, not a secret only known of in "inner rooms" or "in the desert," but that he would be "like lighting that flashes across the sky from one end to the other." IN other words, everyone will be aware of it and know. It will be an obvious event. No one will argue that it did not happen like many believers today do.

[eliyahu]

Now don't get me wrong ... the interpertation I offered concerning the swords and plowshares was just a suggestion to show how the literal interpretation was not the only possibility. I was not arguing that it is the only possibility. The one thing that we both can agree on is that the swords and plowshares are SYMBOLIC - a point I'll expand upon below.

Jesus Christ is in heaven right now in His resurrected spiritual body, correct?

Why would you have any problem believing that He gave resurrection bodies to all the believers that are there with Him now?
This is the most common misunderstanding I have encountered. Folks seem to think that the resurrection had to be something "earthly" and visible down here when in fact it is a heavenly thing, as Paul explained:

2 Corinthians 5:1-4 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

See that? It seems that Paul was expecting a resurrection spritual body as soon as he died, when he would be "clothed upon" with a "house" (BODY) in heaven when he would be "absent" from his earthly body and "present with the Lord" in his "heavenly body."

the "spiritual body" is evidently quite tangable and substantial as demonstrated by Jesus' resurrected body. So that notion is clear. Paul's expectation of a resurrected "spiritual" body would mean that, if it happened in 70 AD, there would have been a mass exodus into the sky of all the living believers who "were alive and remain"ed untill "the coming of the Lord" when they would "meet the Lord in the air and be with Him forever."

So its not literal, right? You believe it is a symbol of external world peace. I believe it is a symbol of the peace wrought by Jesus Christ on the cross:

Ephesians 2:14-18 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

We both believe that the swords and plowshares are SYMBOLS - we are not that far apart. I merely believe that the symbols were fulfilled in the Gospel, you believe they are yet to be fully fulfilled.
Richard

Ephesiands 2 is specifically talking about the new Spiritual unity between Jewish believers and the now "clean" Gentile believers in Messiah. These passages cannot be applied to the rest of our world, politics, or anything else at all. Paul did not ever cite the "plow shears into pruning hooks" verse at all. I think that your taking the farming imagry to mean "growing disciples" is really taking the passage way too far out of context. In fact, any "peace" that allows for global wars and genocides, etc, is just a terribly eccentric fantasy to try to convince people of. No disrespect Richard. In fact, Ephesians 2:14-18 directly borrows language from Gen 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This is evident in "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility" Also remember John 10:16 "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." And "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." is explained as being drawn from "And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near." The latter passage is a qutoe from Isa 57:19 "Peace, peace, to the far and to the near,' says the Lord, 'and I will heal him." Isaiah's passage is not about the church age now.