[Update Ocotber 2020: I'm semi retracting this post, if Hor and Kadesh-Meribah are both in the area of Petra then the Israelites were right be the modern border of Israel and Jordan and so this detail of Numbers doesn't mean as much as I thought.]
Thursday, November 30, 2017
I just read an article saying Joktan never went to Arabia
http://www.eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm
I've talked about descent from Joktan before. On my Revised Chronology blog in the Queen of Sheba post, and the post about the Magi coming from Arabia. And on my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty blog talking about Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia and Feminism in Pre-Islamic Arabia. But this is a good opportunity to put my thoughts on this on record here.
This article first of all ignores that the Tower of Babel incident clearly took place before the events of Genesis 10, it's a prequel, and not it's the only place where Genesis is not strictly chronological, just look at Genesis 25. But this site argues Joktan's clan must have broke off and headed East before the others reached Shinar.
It is the Sheba descended from Cush who wound up East of the Euphrates, in India, (The name of the Indian deity Shiva no doubt comes from Sheba). In India there are mountains called the Hindu Kush and there was an ancient Kushan empire. The Sheba and Dedan from Cush were sons of Ramah. In Indian mythology there was also a Rama who had two sons, but their names were changed to Kusha and Lava.
The Dedan in Arabia was most certainly the Dedan of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah, because we know that Dedan was located firmly within what was promised to Abraham, and is fairly consistent with where Josephus says the sons by Keturah were settled. The Abrahamic Sheba is the one I'm most uncertain where to place.
The Cushite Havilah is probably in the Near East but further north.
Many of the Arabian tribes descended from Joktan are known as Qahtanite tribes. Mount Shepher is mount Zafar in Yemen. The Yemeni Hadramaut kingdom descended from Joktan's son Hazarmaveth.
Joktan had 13 sons. So I'm fine with arguing they aren't limited to Arabia, that some went to Africa via Havilah. And some may have become Native Americans, giving Joktan's name to the Yucatan peninsula.
Many Mormon scholars have a theory that the Jared who founded the Book of Mormon's Jaredites is the same as Jerah son of Joktan. I think that could be what Smith intended given how he played with Biblical names. The unnamed brother was probably meant to be the firstborn Almodad since he seems to be depicted as having Firstborn authority.
I don't believe the Book of Mormon however. What I do believe is Native Americans came here via Asia and Alaska. I also believe the deported northern Israelites contributed a great deal to the populations of Asia east of the Euphrates and the Native Americans.
So as far as this article's desire to make a point out of how massive the populations of the far east are. Rebecca was told she'd be an ancestor of Thousands of Millions (that's Billions), Reuben was told in Deuteronomy 33 that his men would not be few. And Ephraim was told he would become the fullness of the nations.
The Pre-Babel language was obviously Hebrew.
I've talked about descent from Joktan before. On my Revised Chronology blog in the Queen of Sheba post, and the post about the Magi coming from Arabia. And on my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty blog talking about Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia and Feminism in Pre-Islamic Arabia. But this is a good opportunity to put my thoughts on this on record here.
This article first of all ignores that the Tower of Babel incident clearly took place before the events of Genesis 10, it's a prequel, and not it's the only place where Genesis is not strictly chronological, just look at Genesis 25. But this site argues Joktan's clan must have broke off and headed East before the others reached Shinar.
Some Bible scholars have offered an opinion that Joktan migrated into ArabiaNow I do agree about there being Cushites in Arabia. The problem here is they ignore Ophir, there is no Ophir among the descendants of Cush, and Arabain traditions frequently linked Ophir to Sheba and Havilah. And The Bible does the same.
because two of his sons, Sheba and Havilah, have the same names as two tribes
in Arabia. But those Arabian tribes are of Cushite descent in the lineage of Ham
and are not in the lineage of Shem at all (see Gen. 10:6-7). Arabia is part of the
migration route to Africa, the land of Cush; therefore the first peoples in Arabia
were Cushite, in the lineage of Ham.
(Many Biblical names may occur multiple times in the different genealogies but
that does not confirm a genealogical kinship; only the context can indicate that.)
It is the Sheba descended from Cush who wound up East of the Euphrates, in India, (The name of the Indian deity Shiva no doubt comes from Sheba). In India there are mountains called the Hindu Kush and there was an ancient Kushan empire. The Sheba and Dedan from Cush were sons of Ramah. In Indian mythology there was also a Rama who had two sons, but their names were changed to Kusha and Lava.
The Dedan in Arabia was most certainly the Dedan of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah, because we know that Dedan was located firmly within what was promised to Abraham, and is fairly consistent with where Josephus says the sons by Keturah were settled. The Abrahamic Sheba is the one I'm most uncertain where to place.
The Cushite Havilah is probably in the Near East but further north.
Many of the Arabian tribes descended from Joktan are known as Qahtanite tribes. Mount Shepher is mount Zafar in Yemen. The Yemeni Hadramaut kingdom descended from Joktan's son Hazarmaveth.
Joktan had 13 sons. So I'm fine with arguing they aren't limited to Arabia, that some went to Africa via Havilah. And some may have become Native Americans, giving Joktan's name to the Yucatan peninsula.
Many Mormon scholars have a theory that the Jared who founded the Book of Mormon's Jaredites is the same as Jerah son of Joktan. I think that could be what Smith intended given how he played with Biblical names. The unnamed brother was probably meant to be the firstborn Almodad since he seems to be depicted as having Firstborn authority.
I don't believe the Book of Mormon however. What I do believe is Native Americans came here via Asia and Alaska. I also believe the deported northern Israelites contributed a great deal to the populations of Asia east of the Euphrates and the Native Americans.
So as far as this article's desire to make a point out of how massive the populations of the far east are. Rebecca was told she'd be an ancestor of Thousands of Millions (that's Billions), Reuben was told in Deuteronomy 33 that his men would not be few. And Ephraim was told he would become the fullness of the nations.
The Pre-Babel language was obviously Hebrew.
Monday, November 27, 2017
More speculation on The Little Horn
This Daniel 7 speculation could be made compatible with the Daniel 7 theory I posted a couple days ago. But it arguably works better in the context of the theory before that. And should definitely be compared with my last post on The Little Horn.
It derives from one of my earliest Lost Tribes posts. Where I suggested that the Fourth Beast proper is Edom but the Horns are Ephraim. That drew on connections between Edom and Ephraim made in Obadiah, and also Amalek being in Mount Ephraim during the Midianite oppression. And in the context of Daniel 2 that sees the Iron as Edom and the Miry Clay as Ephraim.
Now initially the main reason I had for associating the number 10 with Ephraim was that Jeroboam was given 10 Tribes. But I've noticed something else compelling.
In Deuteronomy 33 Moses gives Blessings to the Tribes of Israel, like Jacob did in Genesis 49. Verses 13-17 are the blessing for Joseph, one of the longer ones. This is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine taught in Rabbinic Judaism. Other aspects of this blessing I may talk about in future posts, but here I'm going to focus on a specific part of verse 17.
In the prior Little Horn post, one theory I suggested was seeing the Little Horn as The United States of America. And I have a prior post about America possibly being Manasseh.
But I also talked about seeing it as Modern Greece. On my Revised Chronology blog, I talked about possible links between ancient Greece and Northern Israelites, I may talk about that more in the future. That speculation has included specific figures of Greek mythology who might have been based on Jehu, a king who first arose in Gilead. But also the possibly of the Dorians coming from Dor, a city linked to Manasseh and Asher.
As far as the recent theory about the Fourth Beast being Arabia and Islam. The Little Horn being Jordan fits well, a recently created nation at the same time as modern Israel. It includes the core of ancient Edom and most of the land of the Trans-Jordan Tribes, in fact the capital of modern Jordan is arguably land given to Gilead in-spite of it's modern name making us think of Ammon. And Jordan also originally had the West Bank territories, which included Shechem, Samaria and Tirzah. And all Palestinians technically have Jordanian citizenship.
When it comes to Genesis 48, people talk a lot about Ephraim, but I think we might be overlooking Manasseh.
It derives from one of my earliest Lost Tribes posts. Where I suggested that the Fourth Beast proper is Edom but the Horns are Ephraim. That drew on connections between Edom and Ephraim made in Obadiah, and also Amalek being in Mount Ephraim during the Midianite oppression. And in the context of Daniel 2 that sees the Iron as Edom and the Miry Clay as Ephraim.
Now initially the main reason I had for associating the number 10 with Ephraim was that Jeroboam was given 10 Tribes. But I've noticed something else compelling.
In Deuteronomy 33 Moses gives Blessings to the Tribes of Israel, like Jacob did in Genesis 49. Verses 13-17 are the blessing for Joseph, one of the longer ones. This is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine taught in Rabbinic Judaism. Other aspects of this blessing I may talk about in future posts, but here I'm going to focus on a specific part of verse 17.
"his horns are like the horns of Aurochs: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."Mostly the numbers here are seen as just about how Ephraim has or will have a larger population then Manasseh. Genesis 48 says Ephraim would become a multitude of nations (or the fullness of them) while Manasseh would simply be one great people. But what I notice is this is specifically about the Horns of Joseph. If each Horn is a "thousands", then Ephraim is 10 and Manasseh is 1, making a total of 11.
In the prior Little Horn post, one theory I suggested was seeing the Little Horn as The United States of America. And I have a prior post about America possibly being Manasseh.
But I also talked about seeing it as Modern Greece. On my Revised Chronology blog, I talked about possible links between ancient Greece and Northern Israelites, I may talk about that more in the future. That speculation has included specific figures of Greek mythology who might have been based on Jehu, a king who first arose in Gilead. But also the possibly of the Dorians coming from Dor, a city linked to Manasseh and Asher.
As far as the recent theory about the Fourth Beast being Arabia and Islam. The Little Horn being Jordan fits well, a recently created nation at the same time as modern Israel. It includes the core of ancient Edom and most of the land of the Trans-Jordan Tribes, in fact the capital of modern Jordan is arguably land given to Gilead in-spite of it's modern name making us think of Ammon. And Jordan also originally had the West Bank territories, which included Shechem, Samaria and Tirzah. And all Palestinians technically have Jordanian citizenship.
When it comes to Genesis 48, people talk a lot about Ephraim, but I think we might be overlooking Manasseh.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Another variation of the Seven Heads of Daniel 7 view.
I laid out my view of the Seven Heads of Daniel 7, and then improved it a bit in my Basra post. This view is predicated on saying seven heads are implied in Daniel 7, 3 beasts with 1 head each and 1 beast with 4 heads.
The most controversial aspect of that was making Rome the seventh head instead of the 6th, defining it as yet future in John's time because it hadn't taken Babylon yet. And that still may be the best way of looking at Daniel 7. But I have recently devised a variation that keeps the basic premise but returns Rome to being the 6th and then present head.
Basically, it makes Rome not the 4th Beast anymore but the fourth head of the Leopard. The Leopard and his heads I associate with Javan and his four Sons, and there have long been reasons to justify associating Kittim with Rome. Rome was very influenced by Greece. In the Eastern Empire Greek was always the more popular language, and after the western Empire fell the Eastern Empire eventually even flat out made Greek it's official Language. So Rome as it was to it's Eastern conquests including Judea, was always very Greek, Paul used Greek and Gentile interchangeably even though he wrote during the Roman period.
My initial form of this Daniel 7 view was based on it being Babylon/Shinar's POV of history, for this we return to the focal point being the Land/Erets of Israel.
The Four Heads of the Leopard are thus Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Caesars.
Naturally, the fourth beast/seventh head must thus be the Islamic Empire. Chris White bases his objection to Islam as the 7th head mainly on saying you can't possibly define Islam as having a short reign. However in this theory, that's where the Horns come in.
Just as the Four Horns in Daniel 8 represent a Kingdom being divided. The 10 Horns/Toes represent Islam being divided. Initially it was just a split in two, the Sunni/Shia split, hence the Two Legs of the Statue in Daniel 2. But has since fractured even more.
It was a united Islam that had a comparatively short reign over the Eretz of Israel. It was the second Caliph who captured Judea, and then the Split was cemented as soon as the fourth died. All of the first five were people who knew Muhammad, meaning this all happened in the course of one lifetime.
If I'm going to look for a specific individual to identify with the Seventh Head, it would be Ali ibn Abu Talib based on what I've discussed elsewhere.
This does not necessarily prove an Islamic Antichrist view, it makes Islam relevant, but I still feel the Eight King of Revelation 17 is one of the first 5, not the seventh.
How should we define the Fourth Beast in terms of the Table of Nations? Since we know the first three are Asshur, Madai and Javan?
The thing is Arabia was a very ethnically mixed region. The word Arab is in the Hebrew texts spelled the same as the Hebrew word for an ethnically mixed person (sometimes translated Mongrel), when Israel is called a "Mixed Multitude" at the Exodus "Mixed" is also Arab there. And it's the same when Daniel 2:41 describes the toes of the Statue as "Iron mixed with Miry Clay".
Arabia had Cushites and possibly also Mizraimites from Ham, and also I think some Canaanite presence, particularly the Sinites. From Shem it had the Joktanites, the tribes of Ishmael the firstborn of Abraham, and also Abraham's sons by Keturah, by the time of Joseph Midianite and Ishmaelite became interchangeable. The Trans-Jordan tribes were often in conflict with Ishmaelites as 1 Chronicles 5 shows. And I think 1 Chronicles 4 shows Simeon migrated to some Ishmaelite lands, and I think the clan of Jamin specifically went to Yemen and provided Yemen it's name. My defining Arabia as being not just the whole peninsula but also everything between the Jordan and Euphrates rivers, also puts within it Moab, Ammon, and Edom, including the Amalekites who are linked to both Seir and Kadesh.
Edom is perhaps the most important. Removing Rome as the Fourth Beast would destroy my support for seeing Edom as Rome, because the foundation of that was largely how the Fourth Beast's unique fate of being completely destroyed with no national identity left in the Messianic Era, is outside Daniel given only to Edom and Amalek, some cities may be described similarly but no other whole nation. We see this in Balaam's Prophecies and in Obadaiah. Jeremiah 46-49 also foretells judgment on several nations, but with Edom lacking a promise of restoration. Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36 also seem to see Edom as the last Nation to be destroyed before The Messianic Era begins.
And it's possible Edom could be linked to more of Arabia then is traditionally assumed. Where you place Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea inevitably effects your view of how far Edom's borders stretch, and I've gone back and forth between a few theories that place Sinai at least pretty far away. And his having a grandson named Teman can justify linking Edom to Yemen. Genesis 14 links the Amalekites to the same region Ishmael would later settle.
It's also interesting thematically how all the passed over First Born lines from Abraham can be linked to Arabia. Ishmael's status is the one tied directly to Islamic theology. But Esau was also originally considered the firstborn of Isaac. And then the fact that some Tribes of Israel can be linked Arabia, they include Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob, and eastern Manasseh who was the firstborn of Joseph. Perhaps the Little Horn is an attempt by Satan to create an heir to all these lines?
It also could be viable to in Daniel 2 see the Iron as the peoples of Arabia and the Miry Clay as the Ottomans.
The most controversial aspect of that was making Rome the seventh head instead of the 6th, defining it as yet future in John's time because it hadn't taken Babylon yet. And that still may be the best way of looking at Daniel 7. But I have recently devised a variation that keeps the basic premise but returns Rome to being the 6th and then present head.
Basically, it makes Rome not the 4th Beast anymore but the fourth head of the Leopard. The Leopard and his heads I associate with Javan and his four Sons, and there have long been reasons to justify associating Kittim with Rome. Rome was very influenced by Greece. In the Eastern Empire Greek was always the more popular language, and after the western Empire fell the Eastern Empire eventually even flat out made Greek it's official Language. So Rome as it was to it's Eastern conquests including Judea, was always very Greek, Paul used Greek and Gentile interchangeably even though he wrote during the Roman period.
My initial form of this Daniel 7 view was based on it being Babylon/Shinar's POV of history, for this we return to the focal point being the Land/Erets of Israel.
The Four Heads of the Leopard are thus Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Caesars.
Naturally, the fourth beast/seventh head must thus be the Islamic Empire. Chris White bases his objection to Islam as the 7th head mainly on saying you can't possibly define Islam as having a short reign. However in this theory, that's where the Horns come in.
Just as the Four Horns in Daniel 8 represent a Kingdom being divided. The 10 Horns/Toes represent Islam being divided. Initially it was just a split in two, the Sunni/Shia split, hence the Two Legs of the Statue in Daniel 2. But has since fractured even more.
It was a united Islam that had a comparatively short reign over the Eretz of Israel. It was the second Caliph who captured Judea, and then the Split was cemented as soon as the fourth died. All of the first five were people who knew Muhammad, meaning this all happened in the course of one lifetime.
If I'm going to look for a specific individual to identify with the Seventh Head, it would be Ali ibn Abu Talib based on what I've discussed elsewhere.
This does not necessarily prove an Islamic Antichrist view, it makes Islam relevant, but I still feel the Eight King of Revelation 17 is one of the first 5, not the seventh.
How should we define the Fourth Beast in terms of the Table of Nations? Since we know the first three are Asshur, Madai and Javan?
The thing is Arabia was a very ethnically mixed region. The word Arab is in the Hebrew texts spelled the same as the Hebrew word for an ethnically mixed person (sometimes translated Mongrel), when Israel is called a "Mixed Multitude" at the Exodus "Mixed" is also Arab there. And it's the same when Daniel 2:41 describes the toes of the Statue as "Iron mixed with Miry Clay".
Arabia had Cushites and possibly also Mizraimites from Ham, and also I think some Canaanite presence, particularly the Sinites. From Shem it had the Joktanites, the tribes of Ishmael the firstborn of Abraham, and also Abraham's sons by Keturah, by the time of Joseph Midianite and Ishmaelite became interchangeable. The Trans-Jordan tribes were often in conflict with Ishmaelites as 1 Chronicles 5 shows. And I think 1 Chronicles 4 shows Simeon migrated to some Ishmaelite lands, and I think the clan of Jamin specifically went to Yemen and provided Yemen it's name. My defining Arabia as being not just the whole peninsula but also everything between the Jordan and Euphrates rivers, also puts within it Moab, Ammon, and Edom, including the Amalekites who are linked to both Seir and Kadesh.
Edom is perhaps the most important. Removing Rome as the Fourth Beast would destroy my support for seeing Edom as Rome, because the foundation of that was largely how the Fourth Beast's unique fate of being completely destroyed with no national identity left in the Messianic Era, is outside Daniel given only to Edom and Amalek, some cities may be described similarly but no other whole nation. We see this in Balaam's Prophecies and in Obadaiah. Jeremiah 46-49 also foretells judgment on several nations, but with Edom lacking a promise of restoration. Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36 also seem to see Edom as the last Nation to be destroyed before The Messianic Era begins.
And it's possible Edom could be linked to more of Arabia then is traditionally assumed. Where you place Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea inevitably effects your view of how far Edom's borders stretch, and I've gone back and forth between a few theories that place Sinai at least pretty far away. And his having a grandson named Teman can justify linking Edom to Yemen. Genesis 14 links the Amalekites to the same region Ishmael would later settle.
It's also interesting thematically how all the passed over First Born lines from Abraham can be linked to Arabia. Ishmael's status is the one tied directly to Islamic theology. But Esau was also originally considered the firstborn of Isaac. And then the fact that some Tribes of Israel can be linked Arabia, they include Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob, and eastern Manasseh who was the firstborn of Joseph. Perhaps the Little Horn is an attempt by Satan to create an heir to all these lines?
It also could be viable to in Daniel 2 see the Iron as the peoples of Arabia and the Miry Clay as the Ottomans.
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Biblical Egypt might not be Egypt
[This is a defunct theory now. See this post https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-tribes-of-mizraim.html]
Sunday, November 12, 2017
The Second Resurrection
I did a post on The First Resurrection already. I've updated that post fairly recently, so if you only read it when it was new, you might want to read it again.
Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events. But what Revelation 20 says does not support this. Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment. And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.
Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.
Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time. But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that. Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.
The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this. The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable. This is also about the Second Resurrection.
Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated. The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.
This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology. And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.
Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events. But what Revelation 20 says does not support this. Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment. And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.
Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.
Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time. But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that. Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.
The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this. The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable. This is also about the Second Resurrection.
Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated. The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.
This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology. And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Who is The Bride of Christ?
I did a post defending The Church as the Bride of Christ once. My views on a number of things have changed since then, mainly my becoming less Dispensational. I now believe The Church is grafted into Israel. Though I do still believe there are probably some unique promises for Church Age believers.
So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then. I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride. And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.
Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21. And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church. One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church. I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.
I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars. Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes. They simply wouldn't care.
But now to how I'm more open.
The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities. Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God. And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church.
In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber. Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here. What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.
I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together. My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate. The Children may then equate to the Inner Court. Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests. There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows. Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.
I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen]. The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.
Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21. It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel. It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17. Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.
In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17. A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.
It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.
Update: Types
Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament. I think he said there are at least 7 once. But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.
Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.
With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother. Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.
Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.
Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.
Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile. Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite. And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem. Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.
Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.
Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively. And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.
Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba. The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir. What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding. Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel. Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin. But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.
So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story. Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech. The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.
So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.
Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.
Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.
Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.
Methodius's writings we don't have in full. This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib. But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do. (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).
So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational. But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture. However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.
Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.
All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.
Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue. But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.
Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law. At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife. Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.
However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.
Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently. Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.
Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.
Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.
2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues. First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from. Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.
The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.
Some things about the word order are not what I expected either. The Young's Literal Translation reads.
Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.
So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then. I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride. And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.
Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21. And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church. One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church. I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.
I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars. Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes. They simply wouldn't care.
But now to how I'm more open.
The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities. Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God. And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church.
In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber. Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here. What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.
I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together. My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate. The Children may then equate to the Inner Court. Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests. There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows. Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.
I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen]. The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.
Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21. It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel. It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17. Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.
In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17. A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.
It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.
Update: Types
Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament. I think he said there are at least 7 once. But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.
Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.
With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother. Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.
Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.
Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.
Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile. Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite. And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem. Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.
Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.
Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively. And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.
Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba. The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir. What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding. Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel. Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin. But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.
So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story. Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech. The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.
So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.
Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.
Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.
Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.
Methodius's writings we don't have in full. This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib. But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do. (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).
So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational. But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture. However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.
Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.
All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.
Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue. But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.
Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law. At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife. Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.
However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.
Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently. Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.
Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.
Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.
2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues. First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from. Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.
The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.
Some things about the word order are not what I expected either. The Young's Literal Translation reads.
for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order. For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.
Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Eden, Sinai and Iraq
I’m abandoning some of my past speculation about the locations of Kadesh-Barnea and Mt Sinai. I still think Sinai was in Arabia not the traditional Sinai Peninsula. But it’s a broad definition of Arabia that includes all of the Arabian Peninsula and everything between the Jordan and Euphrates Rivers. I now think the Kadesh of the wilderness (or one at least if there were two) was Petra, a theory Josephus expressed and is supported by some today, including many who still support Jabal El-Lawz.
Ezekiel 28:13-14 associates the Garden of Eden with the Holy Mountain of God. Many use this to support making Eden a location in Judea, like Moriah or Zion. But the first Holy Mountain of God in The Bible was Mt Sinai. Perhaps this location was consistently God’s main earthly dwelling place until the construction of the portable Tabernacle in the days of Moses. The exact phrase "Mountain of God" or "Mount of God" (both the same in the Hebrew) is used outside Ezekiel only of Sinai/Horeb.
This is a good place to remind people that the Garden was probably gone in the Post-Flood world.
Eden was in Mesopotamia. Search every appearance of the name Eden in The Bible, you’ll find many references ignored in the Garden debate because they are clearly about a Mesopotamian location during the Neo-Assyrian period. I’ve already addressed those who are confused by thinking Cush only refers to Africa. The Cush of Mesopotamia was probably Kish and/or the core cities of Nimrod’s Empire, the “Land of Nimrod” of Micah. Though some have also suggested connecting it with the Kassites.
The Gihon Spring in the City of David is not a river. Plenty of names are used of more than one location in The Bible, that Gihon has nothing to do with Eden.
Locating where the Sumerian mythology counterpart of the Garden was is complicated by it coming to share a name with a civilization Sumer traded with, Dilmun, possibly located in Bahrain. What I can gather of it independent of that, seemingly implies a place close to Eridu, where the Abzu Temple was. Dilmun is called a Mountain at least once.
Another name for Mt Sinai was Horeb. The spelling in the Hebrew is the same as the word for Sword used in Genesis 3:24 in reference to the Flaming Sword. Part of the word play of that verse is that word being a bit of a homophone for Cherub, a word also used in Ezekiel 28’s discussion of the Molech of Tyre.
The name of Sinai itself is possibly etymologically related to the name of the connected Wilderness of Sin. Which may come from the Sinite tribe of Canaan, possibly the same as the Sinim of Isaiah 49:12. The Sinites aren’t one of the Canaanites who show up again in Joshua and Judges. Genesis 10:18 says the Canaanites did spread beyond what we properly call Canaan. So some could easily have gone to modern Iraq, Sinim is defined as a land Israel is returning from.
Sin was the Akkadian (a Semitic language) name for the Mesopotamian Moon god, named Nanna by the Sumerians. In the past I’ve desired to question the traditional identification of the Ur of Genesis 12 with the Ur of Sumer. But given how Terah, the name of Abraham’s father, could be interpreted as a variation on the Hebrew word for the moon, Yerah. Him moving from Ur to Harran is interesting, the older and later centers of Mesopotamian moon worship. Acts 7 clarified that God first spoke to Abraham before they left for Harran. Did even Abraham also first encounter Yahuah at Mt Sinai?
Yahuah is obviously not a Moon god, he forbids moon worship. But it’s possible His preference for a Lunar calendar in His worship may have caused some polytheists to presume Him to be one. Pagans who encountered the Israelites never denied the existence of their God, just His Superiority. I’ve discussed before an apparent phonetic similarity between the name Yah and the name of a moon god worshiped in Kemet. So it may be Sin became a name for a moon god from being linked to the Mountain of Yahuah. Or that mountain and wilderness was named after Sin because people erroneously thought the God dwelling there was a moon god.
The Sinai is Yemen theory draws a lot on Teman being a name for Yemen, and Habakkuk 3:3 seemingly using Teman as a synonym for Sinai. But Biblically other uses of Teman are usually about Edom. The location of Kadesh may be more what that verse had in mind. And Edom could have controlled more than we usually think. Something worth keeping in mind when I bring up Bozrah later. As well as considering how Seir fits into Sinai’s location.
Shiite Muslims seem to view Mesopotamia as equally or even more holy than Arabia. It has a lot to do with Ali’s association with the region, but they have justifications for making it older. Karbala, Kufa and Samarra are among particular cities they revere. Basra is mainly a Shiite city as well.
Sunni Muslims typically say that Mecca doesn’t just go back to Abraham and Ishmael, but all the way back to being the first Holy Mosque built by Adam. But the fourth Shiite Imam Zayn al-Abidin said.
“God chose the land of Karbalā’ as a safe and blessed sanctuary twenty-four thousand years before He created the land of the Ka'bah and chose it as a sanctuary. Verily it (Karbala) will shine among the gardens of Paradise like a shining star shines among the stars for the people of Earth.”.
If there was more than one Kadesh of the wandering, and one needs to be made much closer to Sinai than Petra. There are a lot of places in Jordan, Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia to choose from. Maybe Tema, which was an Ishmaelite settlement, and later become another Holy Place of the Akkadian moon god Sin. However I think most scholars underestimate how far they could travel in 11 days.
One proposed location for the Garden of Eden is Basra. A city I have argued could be Eschatological Babylon.
I have argued that The Woman’s hiding place in the Wilderness is the same Wilderness as Exodus and Numbers, and possibly a return to Sinai.
Later however I argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and the Woman of Revelation 13 could be the same. In that the main thing holding me back was that this would make my Sinai being where the Woman returns and the Babylon being in Iraq position probably not compatible anymore. But did suggest they could be reconciled by expanding the scale of the wandering. And even suggested that the Bozrah of Micah could be a by name prophecy of the Basra of Iraq. Either way the Hebrew name Bozrah seems to refer to more than just one location.
Paul is speaking mostly symbolically not Literally when he calls Torah based religion mount Sinai in Galatians 4. But perhaps it does have a literal application Eschatologically?
Paul is speaking mostly symbolically not Literally when he calls Torah based religion mount Sinai in Galatians 4. But perhaps it does have a literal application Eschatologically?
This view can be compatible with a traditional identification of Misraim with Kemet (modern Egypt), including maybe Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke’s Red Sea crossing site. Israel had over a month to get to Sinai. But I should mention I have been considering the alternate Misraim in Arabia view, and will post on it in the future.
Likewise with the traditional location for Midian, many think Sinai wasn’t as close to where Jethro lived as is commonly assumed. At the same time expanding Midian is viable, they had five Kings after all.
The only thing is I don’t have is a specific mountain to identify with Sinai/Horeb. I think it’s modern Iraq, probably to the south. West of the Euphrates, or at least west of where the Euphrates was at the time. But maybe a bit too far from the rivers to fit what many consider Mesopotamia proper. Looking at the modern maps, maybe a location in Kuwait could fit?
Saturday, November 4, 2017
The Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30
Deuteronomy 30 is considered the first and most important Prophecy of Israel's return to her Promised Land. Other Prophecies we turn to from Prophets like Isaiah are arguably just elaborating on that.
Some think this can apply to 1948 and what's been going since. I long ago sorta agreed with that, but have during the time I've written on this blog been inclined to agree with those who say it obviously can't fit, and my mind as of this post hasn't entirely changed on that, but.......
Nehemiah chapter 1 quotes Deuteronomy 30, as having already being fulfilled by the return from the Babylonian Captivity.
Unless you want to reject the Canonocity of Nehemiah, (which I know of people who would, but I'm not addressing this post to them,) you have to accept this as correct. Now another Captivity happening under Rome is why we know there is another return from Captivity coming. But Deuteronomy 30 has been fulfilled at least once already.
Doesn't matter how at face value laughable it seems. Critics of Christianity mock plenty of the New Testament's claims of Old Testament fulfillment. But good Christians should accept and defend those no matter what. From Peter applying the end of Joel 2 to Pentecost, to the claim that Jesus was a Nazarite because he was from a town called Nazareth. I've gone out of my way on this blog to defend the New Testament's quotations of Isaiah 7 and 8. But the Acts 2 reference is more comparable here, yet equally criticized by some, as it's about a stage in God's Covenant relationship with His People.
Christians can believe there is a second fulfillment coming, that may be grander then the first, as I certainly do with Joel and Pentecost in my view of Revelation 6-7. But we can't question the accuracy of the cited fulfillment. We use Scripture to Interpret Scripture.
That means Nehemiah has destroyed much of the argument that it's absurd to apply these Prophecies to 1948. It's no longer true that it has to be something obviously Supernatural, and that no Gentile human governments can be the means by which God does it.
I would argue the Anglican British Government (and the Rothschilds if you insist on overstating their involvement) come closer to being worshipers of The God of The Torah then the devout Mithra worshiping Cyrus, or the Zoroastrians who made the later decrees.
But the main reason I can argue 1948 fits better is that it more naturally fits the idea that they're returning from all over the world, from it's very edges, from many nations. While in Nehemiah's day at face value it seems like a return from just one nation. Perhaps we could infer these decrees also became a rallying cry to Israelites who wound up in other regions for whatever reason, but if so that was only a small part of it. The prophecies specify people returning by Ships, they specify Israelites returning from Ethiopia, and somehow even people returning by air (but not all of them, that will be important later). Those details fit 1948 and since, but are harder to apply to Nehemiah's time.
Rob Skiba, one of the main people I'm responding to here, is totally against viewing that return as including the Northern Kingdom's exiles. Though Chris White and Chuck Missler argue it did, that Babylon inherited Assyria's captives. However Assyria never kept them in Assyria in the first place, and Ezra and Nehemiah's long lists of returning clans includes no references to Joseph, Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Gad or Naphtali. Asher wasn't part of the Assyrian deportation in the first place which is why Anna was in Judea. Yet again the people saying clearly 1948 can't fulfill these are basing it partly on asserting modern Jews are only from the Southern Kingdom.
The only thing one could argue that Return had that today's doesn't is returning in obedience.
Christians typically assume they can't be returning in obedience unless they've accepted Yeshua/Jesus as their Messiah. But to a Jew that's a non issue, and they would be offended if you told them otherwise. Fortunately I've become a Universalist. I do believe the culmination of all this involves Jesus being recognized as The Messiah, but at the start of the process I know there are other ways to be obedient. So I won't offend Jews by telling them God's Promises to them doesn't apply till they accept Jesus.
Now there is a strictly Hebrew Bible basis for questioning the obedience of modern Israel that some have made, and that's how they aren't even really trying to govern themselves by the Torah. Some online today limit Canon to only The Torah, they reject Nehemiah so I can't really respond to them here. Ironically in this case it's being a Paulian Evangelical Universalist Christian that makes it easier to defend Israel here. To me Paul's declaration that we aren't under The Law anymore doesn't apply just to Christians, Jesus saved and liberated everyone. And as a civil Government the Torah is utterly unworkable in the modern world.
But if I were a citizen of modern Israel, there are plenty of policies of the modern government I would object to.
So the question becomes, was Israel in perfect obedience in Nehemiah's day? By some priorities they were more so then modern Israel. But no, they certainly still had issues that the Prophets from that time period like Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi were addressing.
But they no longer had the main problem that lead to the Captivity, their tendency to fall into Idolatry was cured. Whether or not modern Israel still has the same issues as first Century Judaism would be a complicated debate, but since most Modern Jews aren't Sadducees, I think a good case can be made that they don't, from a Christian, Rabbinic or Karaite perspective.
So it is my view that 1948 was the beginning of the restoration of Israel, but it's not complete yet. Ezekiel 37 clearly isn't fulfilled until the Resurrection. The time between the Decrees of Cyrus and Nehemiah was longer then between 1948 and now, and Nehemiah's decree was only the beginning of another phrase.
The issue of Israel's return is also part of the Rapture debate. You see to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same as Israel's return, hence the emphasis on saying it must be a supernatural return. Ignoring the clear references to many returning by "Ships of Tarshish".
The Church is New Jerusalem/Yahuah-Shammah. But we're not all there is to Israel, there is still the land allotted to the Tribes, the Levites, the Priests and the Prince, which are all separate from Yahuah-Shammah. It's after the Rapture that Israel is protected in the Wilderness.
Post-Tribbers deny that we are actually taken to Heaven at the Rapture. Jesus clearly said in Mark 13:27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.". But more importantly then that, Revelation 13 says the Best will Blaspheme "Them that dwell in Heaven", chapter 14 has the Resurrected 144 Thousand on the Heavenly Zion. New Jerusalem doesn't descend until after the Millennium and Gog and Magog and the White Throne Judgment.
Some think this can apply to 1948 and what's been going since. I long ago sorta agreed with that, but have during the time I've written on this blog been inclined to agree with those who say it obviously can't fit, and my mind as of this post hasn't entirely changed on that, but.......
Nehemiah chapter 1 quotes Deuteronomy 30, as having already being fulfilled by the return from the Babylonian Captivity.
Unless you want to reject the Canonocity of Nehemiah, (which I know of people who would, but I'm not addressing this post to them,) you have to accept this as correct. Now another Captivity happening under Rome is why we know there is another return from Captivity coming. But Deuteronomy 30 has been fulfilled at least once already.
Doesn't matter how at face value laughable it seems. Critics of Christianity mock plenty of the New Testament's claims of Old Testament fulfillment. But good Christians should accept and defend those no matter what. From Peter applying the end of Joel 2 to Pentecost, to the claim that Jesus was a Nazarite because he was from a town called Nazareth. I've gone out of my way on this blog to defend the New Testament's quotations of Isaiah 7 and 8. But the Acts 2 reference is more comparable here, yet equally criticized by some, as it's about a stage in God's Covenant relationship with His People.
Christians can believe there is a second fulfillment coming, that may be grander then the first, as I certainly do with Joel and Pentecost in my view of Revelation 6-7. But we can't question the accuracy of the cited fulfillment. We use Scripture to Interpret Scripture.
That means Nehemiah has destroyed much of the argument that it's absurd to apply these Prophecies to 1948. It's no longer true that it has to be something obviously Supernatural, and that no Gentile human governments can be the means by which God does it.
I would argue the Anglican British Government (and the Rothschilds if you insist on overstating their involvement) come closer to being worshipers of The God of The Torah then the devout Mithra worshiping Cyrus, or the Zoroastrians who made the later decrees.
But the main reason I can argue 1948 fits better is that it more naturally fits the idea that they're returning from all over the world, from it's very edges, from many nations. While in Nehemiah's day at face value it seems like a return from just one nation. Perhaps we could infer these decrees also became a rallying cry to Israelites who wound up in other regions for whatever reason, but if so that was only a small part of it. The prophecies specify people returning by Ships, they specify Israelites returning from Ethiopia, and somehow even people returning by air (but not all of them, that will be important later). Those details fit 1948 and since, but are harder to apply to Nehemiah's time.
Rob Skiba, one of the main people I'm responding to here, is totally against viewing that return as including the Northern Kingdom's exiles. Though Chris White and Chuck Missler argue it did, that Babylon inherited Assyria's captives. However Assyria never kept them in Assyria in the first place, and Ezra and Nehemiah's long lists of returning clans includes no references to Joseph, Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Gad or Naphtali. Asher wasn't part of the Assyrian deportation in the first place which is why Anna was in Judea. Yet again the people saying clearly 1948 can't fulfill these are basing it partly on asserting modern Jews are only from the Southern Kingdom.
The only thing one could argue that Return had that today's doesn't is returning in obedience.
Christians typically assume they can't be returning in obedience unless they've accepted Yeshua/Jesus as their Messiah. But to a Jew that's a non issue, and they would be offended if you told them otherwise. Fortunately I've become a Universalist. I do believe the culmination of all this involves Jesus being recognized as The Messiah, but at the start of the process I know there are other ways to be obedient. So I won't offend Jews by telling them God's Promises to them doesn't apply till they accept Jesus.
Now there is a strictly Hebrew Bible basis for questioning the obedience of modern Israel that some have made, and that's how they aren't even really trying to govern themselves by the Torah. Some online today limit Canon to only The Torah, they reject Nehemiah so I can't really respond to them here. Ironically in this case it's being a Paulian Evangelical Universalist Christian that makes it easier to defend Israel here. To me Paul's declaration that we aren't under The Law anymore doesn't apply just to Christians, Jesus saved and liberated everyone. And as a civil Government the Torah is utterly unworkable in the modern world.
But if I were a citizen of modern Israel, there are plenty of policies of the modern government I would object to.
So the question becomes, was Israel in perfect obedience in Nehemiah's day? By some priorities they were more so then modern Israel. But no, they certainly still had issues that the Prophets from that time period like Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi were addressing.
But they no longer had the main problem that lead to the Captivity, their tendency to fall into Idolatry was cured. Whether or not modern Israel still has the same issues as first Century Judaism would be a complicated debate, but since most Modern Jews aren't Sadducees, I think a good case can be made that they don't, from a Christian, Rabbinic or Karaite perspective.
So it is my view that 1948 was the beginning of the restoration of Israel, but it's not complete yet. Ezekiel 37 clearly isn't fulfilled until the Resurrection. The time between the Decrees of Cyrus and Nehemiah was longer then between 1948 and now, and Nehemiah's decree was only the beginning of another phrase.
The issue of Israel's return is also part of the Rapture debate. You see to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same as Israel's return, hence the emphasis on saying it must be a supernatural return. Ignoring the clear references to many returning by "Ships of Tarshish".
The Church is New Jerusalem/Yahuah-Shammah. But we're not all there is to Israel, there is still the land allotted to the Tribes, the Levites, the Priests and the Prince, which are all separate from Yahuah-Shammah. It's after the Rapture that Israel is protected in the Wilderness.
Post-Tribbers deny that we are actually taken to Heaven at the Rapture. Jesus clearly said in Mark 13:27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.". But more importantly then that, Revelation 13 says the Best will Blaspheme "Them that dwell in Heaven", chapter 14 has the Resurrected 144 Thousand on the Heavenly Zion. New Jerusalem doesn't descend until after the Millennium and Gog and Magog and the White Throne Judgment.
Friday, November 3, 2017
Dispensations and Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism has become a name for a very particular view on Biblical History/Prophecy in terms of God's Covenants with humanity, that is virtually inseparable from the Pre-Trib Rapture (and to an extent political Zionism).
I ultimately am not a Dispensationalist, even though I may agree with them on a few things over those who insist NOTHING changed at The Cross or Pentecost.
The word Dispensation does appear in the Bible, in Ephesians 3:2 for example. But often words like Age, Eon, Aion, or Olam might better fit what people mean by Dispensation.
Other Eschatological models involve God dividing history into different Ages as well. All of them to some degree really.
Conventional Preterism's problem is that it's largely based on saying the Age of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, didn't end till 70 AD. So they can make the "Church Age" synonymous with the Millennium and/or New Jerusalem. But Paul taught in places like Ephesians 3 and Galatians 3 that the age of The Law was already past and we were already in the next Age, the Age of Grace, and did so in letters known to be written well before 66 AD.
Likewise Jesus said the Law and the Prophets were until John (The Baptist). Now I've seen some Preterists respond to that by acting like the Old Covenant can't end till the Blood of the New Covenant was shed, but that is silly. The age of the Israelites being slaves in Egypt ended a few months before the Mosaic Covenant was made at Sinai. A new Covenant can't be made till the old one is severed. And I believe John died six or seven months before Jesus, probably in Tishri, around the same time of year he was conceived. Just as John's birth and conception were six months before Jesus.
The Temple rituals were still being carried out for 40 years after the deaths of Jesus and John. But the Talmud records that those offerings were no longer being accepted for 40 years before The Temple was destroyed.
Josephus in Wars of the Jews also records the Divine Presence leaving The Temple before 70 AD, but I think it was longer before then Josephus and his interpreters realized, Josephus didn't witness it directly. Some of what Josephus describes happening in the Nisan before that fit what the above Talmud passage places 40 years before, mainly the not being able to keep doors shut. Something similar is also placed on the day Jesus died in one of those alternate Hebrew versions of Matthew the early church fathers quoted.
Now for those Torah centric Hebrew Roots people who are offended by suggesting The Law will end. The Torah never said it would be forever, that is a translation error.
The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood, The Sabbath and the Holy Days is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13. Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.
In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to directly call God Eternal.
Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17. And again in Genesis 5. And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6. If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life. Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it completely illogical.
Exodus 19:5-6 foretells there will be a time when all of the Nation will be Yahuah's Priests. The temporariness of The Torah is implied in The Torah.
I ultimately am not a Dispensationalist, even though I may agree with them on a few things over those who insist NOTHING changed at The Cross or Pentecost.
The word Dispensation does appear in the Bible, in Ephesians 3:2 for example. But often words like Age, Eon, Aion, or Olam might better fit what people mean by Dispensation.
Other Eschatological models involve God dividing history into different Ages as well. All of them to some degree really.
Conventional Preterism's problem is that it's largely based on saying the Age of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, didn't end till 70 AD. So they can make the "Church Age" synonymous with the Millennium and/or New Jerusalem. But Paul taught in places like Ephesians 3 and Galatians 3 that the age of The Law was already past and we were already in the next Age, the Age of Grace, and did so in letters known to be written well before 66 AD.
Likewise Jesus said the Law and the Prophets were until John (The Baptist). Now I've seen some Preterists respond to that by acting like the Old Covenant can't end till the Blood of the New Covenant was shed, but that is silly. The age of the Israelites being slaves in Egypt ended a few months before the Mosaic Covenant was made at Sinai. A new Covenant can't be made till the old one is severed. And I believe John died six or seven months before Jesus, probably in Tishri, around the same time of year he was conceived. Just as John's birth and conception were six months before Jesus.
The Temple rituals were still being carried out for 40 years after the deaths of Jesus and John. But the Talmud records that those offerings were no longer being accepted for 40 years before The Temple was destroyed.
We read in the Jerusalem Talmud:And I know the Talmud gives it's own reason for this not making it about Jesus, but it's still there, exactly the right time frame.
"Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open" (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE] A similar passage in the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ['For the Lord'] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
Josephus in Wars of the Jews also records the Divine Presence leaving The Temple before 70 AD, but I think it was longer before then Josephus and his interpreters realized, Josephus didn't witness it directly. Some of what Josephus describes happening in the Nisan before that fit what the above Talmud passage places 40 years before, mainly the not being able to keep doors shut. Something similar is also placed on the day Jesus died in one of those alternate Hebrew versions of Matthew the early church fathers quoted.
Now for those Torah centric Hebrew Roots people who are offended by suggesting The Law will end. The Torah never said it would be forever, that is a translation error.
The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood, The Sabbath and the Holy Days is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13. Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.
In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to directly call God Eternal.
Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17. And again in Genesis 5. And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6. If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life. Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it completely illogical.
Exodus 19:5-6 foretells there will be a time when all of the Nation will be Yahuah's Priests. The temporariness of The Torah is implied in The Torah.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Biblical Synecdoches and the Canaanites
Synechdoche according to Wikipedia.
I want to purpose a possible example most people aren't likely to think of.
Genesis 10:15-18 lists 13 sons or tribes of Canaan.
1 Kings 11 mentions only The Sidonians and the Hittites (Sidon and Heth). I wonder if they have become Synechdoches for all the Canaanites. Sidon the northern ones (Phoenicians as the Greek knew them) and the Hittites the southern ones, particularly those based in the Negev. Not unlike how for the Israelites of the region, Ephraim represents the Northern tribes and Judah the south.
This is a good time for me to talk about how the "Hittites" of Anatolia who are a common subject of Archeology, I do not believe are the Biblical Hittites. The Anatolians were Indo-Europeans who did not worship the Canaanite pantheon. 1 Kings 11 kind of implies the Hittites were closer to Solomon then the Sidonians, not further. Which would agree with other Biblical passages associating them with the area of Hebron, and also seemingly close to Edom. The "Hittites" of Anatolia may have come from Chittim son of Javan son of Japheth.
"A synecdoche (/sɪˈnɛkdəkiː/, si-NEK-də-kee; from Greek συνεκδοχή, synekdoche, lit. "simultaneous understanding")[1] is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa.[2] A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts. Examples from common English expressions include "bread and butter" (for "livelihood"), "suits" (for "businessmen"), and "boots" (for "soldiers") (pars pro toto), or conversely "America" (for "the United States of America") (totum pro parte).[3]"The most well known Biblical example of one is Paul using "Greeks" in certain contexts where he clearly means all of the Gentiles. Chuck Missler likes to show off his knowing this term on that subject.
I want to purpose a possible example most people aren't likely to think of.
Genesis 10:15-18 lists 13 sons or tribes of Canaan.
And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.The last five of them never really appear as a Tribe later in The Bible, not even during the Conquest of Canaan. A few are echoed in place names, Arvad, Hammath, the wilderness of Sin. And even of the first six, the two that are named here as individuals rather then tribes are mentioned the most. The remaining four don't seem to be factors much anymore after David finally subdues all of the promised land.
1 Kings 11 mentions only The Sidonians and the Hittites (Sidon and Heth). I wonder if they have become Synechdoches for all the Canaanites. Sidon the northern ones (Phoenicians as the Greek knew them) and the Hittites the southern ones, particularly those based in the Negev. Not unlike how for the Israelites of the region, Ephraim represents the Northern tribes and Judah the south.
This is a good time for me to talk about how the "Hittites" of Anatolia who are a common subject of Archeology, I do not believe are the Biblical Hittites. The Anatolians were Indo-Europeans who did not worship the Canaanite pantheon. 1 Kings 11 kind of implies the Hittites were closer to Solomon then the Sidonians, not further. Which would agree with other Biblical passages associating them with the area of Hebron, and also seemingly close to Edom. The "Hittites" of Anatolia may have come from Chittim son of Javan son of Japheth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)