Quote:
|
. . . for the time is at hand
|
As it has been for almost 2,000 years. I do not mean that as a dismissive statement. Rather, it seems to me that for it to have meaning, it must be more than just a declaration that we can read the signs and realize when that time actually is. Instead, it seems more like a statement that no matter when you are reading it, the time is at hand. The horsemen will be busily out doing their thing. Our time is always at hand, whether by natural death in some number of years, by various calamities sooner, or at the Second Coming if it is sooner. No matter which, for us, it is effectively "at hand." Even if we still have 50 years (from the perspective of a 20-to-40-year-old).
I see the signs, the pictures, in Revelation as reasons to be about the business of the Kingdom that is charged to me, not to stopping to read the tea leaves to determine whether I do or do not have more time.
As for prophecies about Israel, there surely are some that are unfulfilled. But I am a little uncertain how figuring them out will move them along. As for reading back to the statement that "they will prosper that love thee," there is a serious argument that this related to the theocracy that existed during the time of the OT and not necessarily applied to the present democracy that is today's Israel. In any case, we are so certain that the fact that Israel exists almost miraculously since 1948 (ish?) but feel the need to help it along afterward. So God is not necessarily in charge? The signs are supposedly pointing to His timeline, not ours. Just like He doesn't need Nee and Lee to bring in the Kingdom, neither does he need us to understand how He will work it out whenever it is to actually be worked out.
I mentioned the time between the '67 war and today because the whole idea of a generation (kind of important to literalists reading prophecy) is kind of messed up. Forget that the recreation of Israel goes back another 20 years.
The number of somewhat significant Protestant sects that arose when a declaration concerning the date of the return of Jesus failed to come to pass (and persisted afterward) is somewhat humbling. We have a propensity to be ready to forsake everything to run to the top of a hill wearing clean white robes rather than accept that even the erroneous thought on the subject should only drive us to more diligently do what we are charged to do.
And it really isn't to contemplate the meaning of prophecy.
My thoughts, like so many things that we have had to say about the teachings of Nee, Lee, and the LRC, arise from a desire to at least question whether we are reading everything in the best way. And since the deep chasing of prophecy is mostly an exercise of the last 200 or so years, I think it is at least worthwhile to question whether what we are reading. And maybe why.
You are free to limit the discussion of this topic to the positive consideration of more of the same. That's fine. I probably won't be around again soon enough to see your response. It is a shame that open discussion seems unwanted.