12 thoughts on “Jerusalem in the End Times

  1. Hi, Tim:

    Haven’t watched these videos yet, but Trump’s recent actions toward Jerusalem had me thinking last week about Israel and the end-times.

    I probably can’t sum up my thinking on the matter better than I did at the end of a blog then. After rehearsing my life-long support for the people of Israel, including an attempt to enlist in the Israeli Army at the start of the Six Day War (the war was over by the time I got a letter back from the Israeli Embassy), this:

    “I am nonetheless conflicted by Trump’s rash action today.

    And I have to say I’m greatly put on guard when a world-leader who’s established himself as a “man of lawlessness” (II Thessalonians 2:3) postures, for his own self-glorification, about the status of Jerusalem, the city of the Great King. “

  2. Jeff Weddle noted this recently on his blog:

    Speaker at Trump rally: the soon coming King is coming back to Jerusalem because President Trump declared Jerusalem to be capital of Israel

    God doesn’t need any human recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in order for Jesus to return.
    The throne of God’s Kingdom will be established in Jerusalem AFTER the King has returned to rule from there.

    At “best” the uproar throughout the middle east caused by Trump’s decision, has fed the kind of rage needed to inspire the gathering of the “nations to battle against Jerusalem” foretold by Zechariah.

  3. The idea that “Christians” can do anything politically beneficial to assist or bring about the return of the Lord is at best naïve.
    The political systems of this world are corrupt, and increasingly so – and it is into that deepening corruption that the Lord returns to intervene to put things right.

  4. I recommend starting at thirteen and a half minutes.

    This is on three verses Pawson found are always used as gospel — in books and so on. He talks about greater context and better understanding of the words (including just the words themselves, culture, geography, and more). One verse he says is not the gospel. Another he says is not, but I think he means not in the way it’s usually understood; which is what he then indicates. He also gives a mistaken number at one point, but that’s easy enough to work out — that it should be 68 to 2. This has to do with the third one, which is about water and the Spirit. [I can understand the water being seen as physical birth, but a water baptism at a later point also makes an impression on a person (while the Spirit is an absolutely essential additional birth).]

    It seemed that when I clicked to comment there were no other comments yet. I haven’t fully read the comments but, generally, they are along the line of concerns I have. I will share some pieces I’ve put together.

  5. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-recognizes-jerusalem-israels-capital-upending-u-s-policy-n827096
    At another blog, someone embedded the above link under a few of the words below:

    Of course since today President Donald Trump formally recognized that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state of Israel barely a week before Chanukah, I suppose this too is a sort of miracle and one relevant to the entire world.

    My response:

    From the linked article above (embedded from opening […]):

    ……

    After his remarks, Trump signed another six-month waiver to officially delay such a move — a document presidents have signed since 1995 as part of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The law technically initiated the process of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, but allowed the commander-in-chief to sign a six-month waiver leaving the embassy in Tel Aviv.

    ……

    Trump maintained he would “do everything in my power to help forge […] an agreement” and that the U.S. still supported a “two-state solution.”

    “We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders,” Trump said. “Those questions are up to the parties involved.”

    ……

    A $25 million (at least) supporter of Trump’s campaign for election in 2016 [while his campaign for 2020 is already officially underway, paying his legal fees and much more] was angry when Trump signed the same waver six months ago.

    Former diplomats have said that the United States could relocate the embassy [… via …] the American consulate in Jerusalem. [Delay is questionable, but might allow negotiation.]

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-signs-waiver-to-keep-us-embassy-in-tel-aviv/
    June of 2017 The US says its policy on Jerusalem hasn’t changed and that Jerusalem’s status must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians.

  6. Somewhere, I read that Trump instructed plans be drawn up for a building. I wonder as to whether he is wanting in on some real estate profit. A building already exists. Yet, he could be “buying time” (which would be me ascribing to him possible better motives than I think he usually has). He could also be rejecting any building that went up under the Obama administration (which is spiteful). There could be all kinds of reasons. And the big spectacle of a pronouncement seems to give him false credibility. It also could spark war, which might be desired… for a variety of reasons. What amazes me is how he has regularly said what other presidents have said, how he is for and has both now and during the campaign indicated he sees things along lines that have angered the pro-Israel crowd for decades. He has even been more clumsy about it.

    But he gets praised as a friend of israel. WHY!!!??

    There was one meeting, where he said the wrong things and got booed (during the campaign before he got elected). He was booed by a gathering of mostly Jewish people. But this never got “traction” in the community. Even when I shared it, it was ignored or called gossip.

  7. Follow-up notes. First, what I meant about Trump getting booed wasn’t simply that boos should prove anything alone. If concerned people had seen, or if they saw (as I did when it was live), what Trump had said, it would have (or should have) been clear how the normal reaction goes. I had seen it, and there was a reputable article describing the same things I saw (and heard).

    {Only in case anyone listened to the beginning thirteen-and-a-half minutes of the video I linked to above (which I suggested skipping actually), this would then be relevant: Mark 9

    Bring him to me.” 20 And they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 And it has often cast him into fire and into water, to destroy him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” 23 And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.”}

  8. {James 1 …testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.}

  9. I have “discovered” that I’ve been encouraged by the “Gospel” video (called Exposing Error by the words placed at the top of the frame, although I’m not sure that’s the best title). I found the part about Jesus not attending a rich [in money and status] church disorienting. I wondered what Mr. David (Pawson) was talking about or could possibly mean. I eventually grasped his metaphorical (which word he did not use but I am applying) intent. This was when he was saying that answering the “knock” of Jesus on the door is not Jesus knocking on your heart. It was not difficult to grasp that David was saying this is not a gospel message or verse on personal salvation. It was specifically the notion of Jesus attending the church that had me wondering if Mr. DP had lost a little sense. Stack that next to his insistence in the same presentation that the “d” at the end of “received” makes “all the difference” — and I’m gonna say paying attention to one’s own words might make a difference too. It’s at least a little humorous.

    So “received” came up when he was talking about those who had received Jesus; they had been given the right to become children of God. He emphasized that this is past tense and doesn’t apply to us now. We can’t receive Jesus (he said). People who interacted directly with him could — by taking him into their home, talking with him face-to-face, etc. This all led to him saying we now receive the Holy Spirit rather. And he liked this idea because it would mean people are hearing more about the Holy Spirit and not only believing in Jesus if we tell them to receive the Spirit to be children of God. That all, I find curious. And, like I said, I don’t know, I almost find it endearing that he said these sort of at-odds things.

    But here is my point. David Pawson said that Jesus is knocking in order to “attend” churches where people haven’t noticed he’s not there, or where he hasn’t been for a while. He will come in if one person let’s him in or brings him in; he will sup there. It has occurred to me that the Spirit could be in this concept. So I might go to a church where instead of looking for the right place I bring Jesus in.

  10. http://biblehub.com/revelation/3-20.htm
    So, I looked this up for the pronouns. I’m pretty sure this is singular. Jesus will sup with him. One of the versions says them, but I doubt it’s really plural. Nevertheless, if I’m there or wherever, Jesus will be with me. [And what is wrong with a place doesn’t have to be a reliance or emphasis on wealth. I actually don’t think I could stand that (even though I’m not poor).] {So, I actually think what Pawson said was incorrect. But it gave me an idea anyway.}

  11. At approximately fifteen minutes in here, I noticed that Pawson intended
    to say 68 to 1 (not 2) in the video I shared earlier (where I said he’d made a mistake).
    I suppose this is a detail I haven’t picked up on while reading scripture… that Nichodemus
    voted while Joseph of Arimathea “abstained” from voting on Jesus’ guilt or fate?

    David Pawson – The Wonders of Jesus’ Story – 4. His Burial

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s