The 144,000

[brotherly love]

I liked your interpretation.  I agree that the 144,000 may represent all of the redeemed people of God.  The ENTIRE New Jerusalem is "the wife" of "the Lamb". 

An Israelite man was FORBIDDEN by God's Law, to remarry a woman he had divorced.  A high priest was ONLY to marry a "virgin daughter of Israel".  He was forbidden to marry "a widow".

Jesus is our High Priest.  He is the High Priest of Israel (all 12 tribes).  He "divorced" the 10 Northern Tribes.  The 2 Southern Tribes were "widowed" when their LORD died.  How can those He divorced ever become part of His bride?   HOW?  The LORD wipes away "her" history - wipes clean her record of sins and divorce and widowhood.  That renders "her" a virgin - once again.  And "she" (redeemed Israel) can "marry" the High Priest - Jesus. 

Those who wanted relationship with God found it whether they were part of the 10 northern tribes or part of the 2 southern tribes at every time in history. Israel after the cross went worldwide to every tongue and nation

Edited June 23, 2015 by brotherly love

[8thdaypriest]

Those who wanted relationship with God found it whether they were part of the 10 northern tribes or part of the 2 southern tribes at every time in history. Israel after the cross went worldwide to every tongue and nation

Betrothal yes.  Marriage feast - not yet. 

[Martn]

On 6/22/2015 at 0:48 PM, JoeMo said:

If this happened at Jesus' resurrection, why does John (who wrote about it decades later) refer to it as a future event? 

I agree that it was a special resurrection; but so were the resurrections of several people that Jesus raised from the dead while He was alive. 

Where does it say that any of them were taken to heaven?  

If the creation of the earth really happened thousands of years ago, why does John (who wrote about it thousands of years later) mention it in his book of future events? Revelation 14:7.

Not everything in Revelation is a future event. 

Earth's creation is referred to in past tense.

Likewise John speaks of the first resurrection in PAST tense. Revelation 20:4. 

"Lived" and "reigned" are both past tense. (!)

Of course it is not limited to the past, for they "shall reign" as well, he says.

"Special" resurrection, you say. Doesn't say that anywhere in the text.

It would only be special if only a few were raised.

But instead, "many" were raised. Matthew 27:52.

A "great multitude" is what the word there implies.

Not just a few hundred, or a few thousand. But millions, possibly billions, from all the ages past.

If King David was not among them, what manner of men and women must these have been!

To imply, as you do, that such greatness later returned to the grave is unthinkable.

Where they went afterward, exactly, I cannot say. but die again they did not

This was the first mass resurrection in present earth history.

THE FIRST RESURRECTION. 

Paul says Jesus took them --with him.

Prophecies foretold it. History confirms it.

Preponderance of evidence, you say. How much would suffice?

Not "a thousand" texts would suffice!

I know. I've tried.

I have grown distrustful of the use of many words. (A ploy ever in use among dishonest men.)

But still I hold out hope.

Edited January 16, 2016 by MCBGM
kindness

[phkrause]

Here is another sermon by Pr Batchelor about the 144,000. I noticed the other post I had about this, doesn't load anymore, so not sure if it was the same as this one.