When prophecies like Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 16 were foretelling the coming Babylonian Captivity of Jerusalem, they compared and contrasted it to the Assyrian Captivity of Samaria. The thing I note about this is that Judah ultimately had two captivities and returns, while Samaria has thus far had one Captivity and not yet a return.
Meanwhile I also feel many difficult to fully understand Prophecies are implying a conflict between Ephraim and Judah in the End Times. From Isaiah 28, (and possibly Isaiah 7-11 which may or may not have Eschatological significance). And Jeremiah 4, and Zechariah 9-11. Like how they were often at war during the divided Kingdom period.
Which is a problem for how Two House Theology and British Israelism like to see the Eschatological role of Ephraim. I should also point out that Mormonism teaches a form of Two House Theology.
I'm not a Dispensationalist as that is usually defined, I agree that The Church is grafted into Israel. But we're not grafted into a specific Tribe, Ezekiel 37 says Joseph and Judah both have companions joined to them.
Now people might ask, if the "Lost Tribes" returning is a part of the End Times, where is it in Revelation?
Well it's in Chapter 16, in the Sixth Bowl of God's Wrath. The Euphrates River is dried up to make way for the Kings of the East, East of the Euphrates is where Assyria first took them. But it also describes people coming from all four corners of the Earth, just as Israel was ultimately scattered to all four corners. And they are gathered at Megiddo, Northern Kingdom territory, in the valley of Jezreel which had been one of their capitals.
I think it's possible part of the point of The Millennium is so the Northern Kingdom can have a second Captivity.
Chris White talks about reasons that the Antichrist could resemble the Rabbinic expected Messiah Ben-Joseph, an idea that some Hebraic style Christians have also accepted. But does so leaving the Lost Tribes aspect of that doctrine completely out of it.
I've been talking a lot about The Antichrist possibly ruling from Egypt. How can that and a false Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant go together?
Well between lots of maps online confusing the Brook of Egypt with The Nile, thus expanding Israel's rightful borders to include much of Egypt. And fringe history theories hijacking legit Revised Chronology research to say many Kings of Israel and Judah were really Pharaohs of Egypt. And people trying to claim The Great Pyramid was built to honor Yahuah. And my arguments that some nations believed to be of the Lost Tribes may really be of Exiled Egyptians (or perhaps both). And Hosea foretelling that Ephraim would return to Egypt. And that Jeroboam was a vassal of Shishak. And Leviticus 24 talks about a Blasphemous Israelite who's mother was Danite and Father was an Egyptian There is a lot to work with.
But also that Joseph himself, viewed as the first type of Messiah Ben-Joseph, was essentially placed Second in Command of Egypt by Pharaoh. I think there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle I'm still trying to put together. And Joshua 10:41 says Joshua conquered all the way to Goshen. Either that's a different Goshen, or he conquered the same land they had lived in as slaves. Whichever answer is true, a Messiah Ben-Joseph wanna be claiming to b a new Joshua could well use the latter interpretation.
Showing posts with label Desolation of Jerusalem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Desolation of Jerusalem. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
The 390 years and 40 years of Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 4:4-6.
Still, it remains popular for variations of both Zionism and British Israelism & Two House theology to insist the 390 years points to some relatively modern event. This is done by misusing Leviticus 26. Problem is Leviticus 26 is about the Jubilee, and it uses Times as a synonym for Years like Daniel and Revelation do for certain prophecies. If Leviticus 26 has any eschatological significance, it is in terms of expanding the "Tribulation period" from the usual expected seven years to a full Jubilee. Or perhaps a Jubilee separating the end of the Millennium and descent of New Jerusalem. And that is something I may talk about more in the future.
But for now, I want to talk about how these time periods were fulfilled if they indeed began rather then ended with their captivities. Perhaps as a second fulfillment.
The Babylonian captivity is commonly refereed to as 70 years. Chuck Missler has talked about how there were really two overlapping periods of 70 years, 608-538 BC and 588-518 BC. The Captivity and the Desolation of Jerusalem. From that however, I notice it becomes possible also to say that there were 40 years from the final Captivity of Judah, to the initial decree to rebuild it issued by Cyrus and return from Captivity under Zerubabel and Jeshua. So Ezekiel's 40 years for Judah was fulfilled without needing to multiply anything by 70.
[Update January 23rd 2017: Well my generally solid math skills totally betrayed when I made this and allowed me to think 588-538 BC was 40 rather then 50 years. That puts a hole in this premise. But given that later then the Temple's destruction many Judeans fled to Egypt as Jeremiah records. And Ezekiel also talks about a 40 year Captivity of Egypt. Maybe that's how the 40 years for Judah can fit?]
722 BC being the usual date for the final fall of Samaria, makes 390 years later the year 332 BC.
That is the year Alexander The Great first came to the land of Israel and Judah. Early in that year he finished besieging Tyre, and by the end he'd entered Egypt. So anything he is recorded as doing in the lands of the 12 Tribes before going to Egypt would have happened in 332 BC.
Much is made about Josephus account of Alexander's activities in this year in Antiquities of The Jews Book 11 Chapter 8. Many say Josephus made it all up, but I believe the account is true. And I certainly believe Josephus over The Talmud which gets the High Priest wrong. Alexander was shown Daniel's Prophecies of him like how Cyrus was shown Isaiah 44 and 45. And he honored Yahuah in The Temple in Jerusalem.
Less talked about however is what Josephus tells us about Alexander and the Samaritans, chiefly in section 6. Josephus does so from a perspective of hostility towards the Samaritans. It was a bit more complicated then his relationship with The Jews. But most importantly the building of the Samaritan Temple was sanctioned by Alexander, that happened earlier in Section 4.
Jesus of course agreed with the account in 2 Kings 17 that the Samaritans descended from Gentiles, when he called them not Israelites. But some remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh may have intermingled with them.
Could Macedon have been another nation descended form the Lost Tribes? Dan is linked to Greece in Ezekiel 27, and I've argued that possibly is backed up by Daniel 8. I've also argued for linking Asher, Western Manesseh, and Zebulun & Isshacar to Celtic tribes, and Macedon had a Celtic element. The Slavic elements of modern Macedonia come from Slavs migrating south during medieval times and later.
Joel 3 also refereed to Judeans being sold into slavery to Greeks. And God says that from there God shall raise them up to bring Judgment to Tyre and Sidon and Philista. Alexander besieged Tye and Gaza, and totally destroyed the latter.
Most historians and archeologists think the earliest Macedonian King likely to be historical was Perdiccas I. Dates for him vary but he seems to emerge around 700 BC. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom.
Whether the ancient Macedonians counted as fellow Greeks was a mater of controversy, it seems most Greeks didn't want to claim them till after Alexander became so important to Greek History. Yet The Bible agrees with calling them Greeks at least in the context of Daniel 8.
Zechariah 9-11 is like 12-14, three Chapters that are all one Prophesy. It's perhaps even more confusing to interpret, many isolated verses are important and well known, but how they all fit together is difficult.
Zechariah 9 also alluded to The Resurrection in verses 11 and 12. And I have argued Alexander was among those Resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53, without mentioning Zechariah 9.
Chuck Missler has argued much of Zechariah 9 could be about Alexander The Great, Greece is mentioned. But Ephraim is mentioned as well, and others have seen this Prophecy as being important to figuring out how Joseph and Judah will finally be reunited. Britam sees the later part as a double fulfillment Prophecy about both the Maccabean revolt and a future Messiah Ben Joseph.
Zechariah 9:13
John R. Salverda has attempted to argue legends about Sisphus in Greek mythology are partly inspired by Joseph of Genesis. He and Britam in general make lots of Arguments I would not support. But his argument that Ephyra, the name of a couple of ancient Greek cities, could be linked to Ephraim is interesting, given how Ephraim is technically a plural or dual form, the singular would be close to Ephyra or Ephrya. Ephrath was the feminine plural. One Ephyra was a city of Epirus, the homeland of Alexander's mother Olympias.
Salverda's arguments also bring up the possible Salmoneus and Solomon connection, which I mentioned in my last Song of Solomon post.
But just as Cyrus decree was only the beginning of Judah's return from Captivity, so 332 BC was only the beginning of Ephraim's.
Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.I've talked on another blog about how I feel these time-periods make most sense as ending with the Captivity of Judah, rather then beginning with a Captivity. And I've mentioned on this blog before how this does NOT support the Historicist Day=Year theory logic because a period of Days did still happen.
Still, it remains popular for variations of both Zionism and British Israelism & Two House theology to insist the 390 years points to some relatively modern event. This is done by misusing Leviticus 26. Problem is Leviticus 26 is about the Jubilee, and it uses Times as a synonym for Years like Daniel and Revelation do for certain prophecies. If Leviticus 26 has any eschatological significance, it is in terms of expanding the "Tribulation period" from the usual expected seven years to a full Jubilee. Or perhaps a Jubilee separating the end of the Millennium and descent of New Jerusalem. And that is something I may talk about more in the future.
But for now, I want to talk about how these time periods were fulfilled if they indeed began rather then ended with their captivities. Perhaps as a second fulfillment.
The Babylonian captivity is commonly refereed to as 70 years. Chuck Missler has talked about how there were really two overlapping periods of 70 years, 608-538 BC and 588-518 BC. The Captivity and the Desolation of Jerusalem. From that however, I notice it becomes possible also to say that there were 40 years from the final Captivity of Judah, to the initial decree to rebuild it issued by Cyrus and return from Captivity under Zerubabel and Jeshua. So Ezekiel's 40 years for Judah was fulfilled without needing to multiply anything by 70.
[Update January 23rd 2017: Well my generally solid math skills totally betrayed when I made this and allowed me to think 588-538 BC was 40 rather then 50 years. That puts a hole in this premise. But given that later then the Temple's destruction many Judeans fled to Egypt as Jeremiah records. And Ezekiel also talks about a 40 year Captivity of Egypt. Maybe that's how the 40 years for Judah can fit?]
722 BC being the usual date for the final fall of Samaria, makes 390 years later the year 332 BC.
That is the year Alexander The Great first came to the land of Israel and Judah. Early in that year he finished besieging Tyre, and by the end he'd entered Egypt. So anything he is recorded as doing in the lands of the 12 Tribes before going to Egypt would have happened in 332 BC.
Much is made about Josephus account of Alexander's activities in this year in Antiquities of The Jews Book 11 Chapter 8. Many say Josephus made it all up, but I believe the account is true. And I certainly believe Josephus over The Talmud which gets the High Priest wrong. Alexander was shown Daniel's Prophecies of him like how Cyrus was shown Isaiah 44 and 45. And he honored Yahuah in The Temple in Jerusalem.
Less talked about however is what Josephus tells us about Alexander and the Samaritans, chiefly in section 6. Josephus does so from a perspective of hostility towards the Samaritans. It was a bit more complicated then his relationship with The Jews. But most importantly the building of the Samaritan Temple was sanctioned by Alexander, that happened earlier in Section 4.
Jesus of course agreed with the account in 2 Kings 17 that the Samaritans descended from Gentiles, when he called them not Israelites. But some remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh may have intermingled with them.
Could Macedon have been another nation descended form the Lost Tribes? Dan is linked to Greece in Ezekiel 27, and I've argued that possibly is backed up by Daniel 8. I've also argued for linking Asher, Western Manesseh, and Zebulun & Isshacar to Celtic tribes, and Macedon had a Celtic element. The Slavic elements of modern Macedonia come from Slavs migrating south during medieval times and later.
Joel 3 also refereed to Judeans being sold into slavery to Greeks. And God says that from there God shall raise them up to bring Judgment to Tyre and Sidon and Philista. Alexander besieged Tye and Gaza, and totally destroyed the latter.
Most historians and archeologists think the earliest Macedonian King likely to be historical was Perdiccas I. Dates for him vary but he seems to emerge around 700 BC. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom.
Whether the ancient Macedonians counted as fellow Greeks was a mater of controversy, it seems most Greeks didn't want to claim them till after Alexander became so important to Greek History. Yet The Bible agrees with calling them Greeks at least in the context of Daniel 8.
Zechariah 9-11 is like 12-14, three Chapters that are all one Prophesy. It's perhaps even more confusing to interpret, many isolated verses are important and well known, but how they all fit together is difficult.
Zechariah 9 also alluded to The Resurrection in verses 11 and 12. And I have argued Alexander was among those Resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53, without mentioning Zechariah 9.
Chuck Missler has argued much of Zechariah 9 could be about Alexander The Great, Greece is mentioned. But Ephraim is mentioned as well, and others have seen this Prophecy as being important to figuring out how Joseph and Judah will finally be reunited. Britam sees the later part as a double fulfillment Prophecy about both the Maccabean revolt and a future Messiah Ben Joseph.
Zechariah 9:13
When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.Could this be poetically linking Greece to Ephraim similarly to how Zion is to Judah?
John R. Salverda has attempted to argue legends about Sisphus in Greek mythology are partly inspired by Joseph of Genesis. He and Britam in general make lots of Arguments I would not support. But his argument that Ephyra, the name of a couple of ancient Greek cities, could be linked to Ephraim is interesting, given how Ephraim is technically a plural or dual form, the singular would be close to Ephyra or Ephrya. Ephrath was the feminine plural. One Ephyra was a city of Epirus, the homeland of Alexander's mother Olympias.
Salverda's arguments also bring up the possible Salmoneus and Solomon connection, which I mentioned in my last Song of Solomon post.
But just as Cyrus decree was only the beginning of Judah's return from Captivity, so 332 BC was only the beginning of Ephraim's.
Friday, January 13, 2017
My view on Modern Israel in Bible Prophecy
I don't believe in traditional Dispensationalism, or Two House Theology, or Catholic and Mainline Protestant understandings of "Replacement Theology". So what do I think about Modern Israel?
I agree that most of the Bible Prophecies that Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists want to cite as being about 1948 like Isaiah 11:11 are clearly about something far more Supernatural and Messianic, where they return in belief. However I disagree with Rob Skiba that they are about the Millennium. I think they are about the New Heaven and New Earth and the descent of New Jerusalem.
Well, Ezekiel 37 is an exception, that is the one directly linked to the Resurrection, so that is possibly about the Millennium, though I think it may be possible it'll take the entire Millennium for all of it to be fully fulfilled. And then Ezekiel 38 is about what happens between the end of the Millennium and the White Throne Judgment. And then Ezekiel 40-48 are about the New Heaven and New Earth.
Psalm 48 is about New Jerusalem. I've already argued that Isaiah 65-66 define themselves as being about the New Heaven and New Earth. Leviticus 26&Deuteronomy 29 is where Bible Prophecy about the regathering of Israel begins, they I have come to view as not fully finally fulfilled until the descent of New Jerusalem.
I have talked before about how The Millennium is not as Utopic as people are assuming it will be. For Believers it'll certainly be better then the world is now. But most of the World will be obeying Jesus out of Fear not Love during this time. This is where I think Zechariah 14 ends.
The Rothschild involvement in the 1948 birth of modern Israel is grossly overstated by Conspiracy Theorists. Some of them financially supported it, but they were not the masterminds of it. And to this day some Rothschilds are still Anti-Zionists.
Anti-Zionist Christians like to say it can only be God doing it if it's blatantly Supernatural. And when we remind them about Cyrus they dismiss that by saying that God would tell his people through his Prophets if he was going to do it that way. Well I'm a Continuationist, and the fact is throughout the 19th and early 20th Century many Christians seemed to know the time of Israel's return was approaching, and history vindicated them.
God tells us it was Him who scattered them, even though to terrestrial eyes it was Gentile Nations. So who says their return can't be done the same way?
The Roman Captivity was very much a repeat of the Babylonian Captivity, right down to events playing out on the same days. Chad Schafer has been talking a lot about Egypt's overlooked significance to the Roman Captivity, well Egypt was very vital to the Babylonian Captivity as well. Jeremiah tells us that many Jews went to Egypt after Jerusalem fell, and that is part of why Egypt was carried away into Captivity by Babylon.
So it makes sense that the Return from the Roman Captivity would be very similar to the return from the Babylonian Captivity. Truman however was not the Cyrus of 1948 like he sought to claim to be, he had nothing to do with making it happen. Great Britain was in the role of Cyrus, and it's King at this time interestingly had Arthur in his full name. Great Britain cemented their status as a modern successor to Rome when they defeated Napoleon and erected the Wellington Arch. Just as Cyrus had taken the throne of Nebuchadnezzar.
However another layer of Typology is that I see the Seven Years King David ruled from Hebron as a type of the Seven Year period over which much of Revelation will play out. And the time David Ruled from Zion and Jerusalem a type of the Millennium, and the early Reign of Solomon, when he was doing well, as a type of the full Messianic Kingdom. In which context it's interesting to remember that before that was the reign of King Saul.
Could Modern Israel's destiny be to become the House of Saul to the Returning Jesus's David? It's interesting that the current Prime Minister is named Benjamin, after Saul's Tribe. I also alluded to reasons based on Jeremiah 6 for associating modern Israel with Benjamin in a Revelation 12 theory I came to last year. In which case it's interesting that Ishbosheth ruled in the Trans-Jordan, near Mount Hermon.
The secular Capital of Modern Israel is Tel-Aviv. The Ancient City that Tel-Aviv is adjacent to is Joppa/Jaffa. Acts 9:32-28 refers to Lydda as being nigh to Joppa. Lydda is in the Hebrew Bible Lod which is identified as a town of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).
It's interesting that most Ahskenazim (and to a lesser extend many Shephardi) families that claim descent from David, do so via Rashi who did so via Hillel The Elder. Hillel claimed through his mother descent from David's son Shaphatiah by Avital. But Tribal Identity was traditionally determined paternally, and Hillel's father was a Benjamite, since he was born in Babylonia he may have come from the same Benjamite clan that Esther and Mordecai did, which came from a relative of Saul. Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson, Paul claimed to have studied at his feet, and we know Paul was a Benjamite and originally a namesake of Saul, could Paul have been a relative of the House of Hillel?
The Khazar myth about where the Ashkenazim come from can be easily debunked, like in this video by Chris White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDWUZ6EqWHc
I agree that most of the Bible Prophecies that Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists want to cite as being about 1948 like Isaiah 11:11 are clearly about something far more Supernatural and Messianic, where they return in belief. However I disagree with Rob Skiba that they are about the Millennium. I think they are about the New Heaven and New Earth and the descent of New Jerusalem.
Well, Ezekiel 37 is an exception, that is the one directly linked to the Resurrection, so that is possibly about the Millennium, though I think it may be possible it'll take the entire Millennium for all of it to be fully fulfilled. And then Ezekiel 38 is about what happens between the end of the Millennium and the White Throne Judgment. And then Ezekiel 40-48 are about the New Heaven and New Earth.
Psalm 48 is about New Jerusalem. I've already argued that Isaiah 65-66 define themselves as being about the New Heaven and New Earth. Leviticus 26&Deuteronomy 29 is where Bible Prophecy about the regathering of Israel begins, they I have come to view as not fully finally fulfilled until the descent of New Jerusalem.
I have talked before about how The Millennium is not as Utopic as people are assuming it will be. For Believers it'll certainly be better then the world is now. But most of the World will be obeying Jesus out of Fear not Love during this time. This is where I think Zechariah 14 ends.
The Rothschild involvement in the 1948 birth of modern Israel is grossly overstated by Conspiracy Theorists. Some of them financially supported it, but they were not the masterminds of it. And to this day some Rothschilds are still Anti-Zionists.
Anti-Zionist Christians like to say it can only be God doing it if it's blatantly Supernatural. And when we remind them about Cyrus they dismiss that by saying that God would tell his people through his Prophets if he was going to do it that way. Well I'm a Continuationist, and the fact is throughout the 19th and early 20th Century many Christians seemed to know the time of Israel's return was approaching, and history vindicated them.
God tells us it was Him who scattered them, even though to terrestrial eyes it was Gentile Nations. So who says their return can't be done the same way?
The Roman Captivity was very much a repeat of the Babylonian Captivity, right down to events playing out on the same days. Chad Schafer has been talking a lot about Egypt's overlooked significance to the Roman Captivity, well Egypt was very vital to the Babylonian Captivity as well. Jeremiah tells us that many Jews went to Egypt after Jerusalem fell, and that is part of why Egypt was carried away into Captivity by Babylon.
So it makes sense that the Return from the Roman Captivity would be very similar to the return from the Babylonian Captivity. Truman however was not the Cyrus of 1948 like he sought to claim to be, he had nothing to do with making it happen. Great Britain was in the role of Cyrus, and it's King at this time interestingly had Arthur in his full name. Great Britain cemented their status as a modern successor to Rome when they defeated Napoleon and erected the Wellington Arch. Just as Cyrus had taken the throne of Nebuchadnezzar.
However another layer of Typology is that I see the Seven Years King David ruled from Hebron as a type of the Seven Year period over which much of Revelation will play out. And the time David Ruled from Zion and Jerusalem a type of the Millennium, and the early Reign of Solomon, when he was doing well, as a type of the full Messianic Kingdom. In which context it's interesting to remember that before that was the reign of King Saul.
Could Modern Israel's destiny be to become the House of Saul to the Returning Jesus's David? It's interesting that the current Prime Minister is named Benjamin, after Saul's Tribe. I also alluded to reasons based on Jeremiah 6 for associating modern Israel with Benjamin in a Revelation 12 theory I came to last year. In which case it's interesting that Ishbosheth ruled in the Trans-Jordan, near Mount Hermon.
The secular Capital of Modern Israel is Tel-Aviv. The Ancient City that Tel-Aviv is adjacent to is Joppa/Jaffa. Acts 9:32-28 refers to Lydda as being nigh to Joppa. Lydda is in the Hebrew Bible Lod which is identified as a town of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).
It's interesting that most Ahskenazim (and to a lesser extend many Shephardi) families that claim descent from David, do so via Rashi who did so via Hillel The Elder. Hillel claimed through his mother descent from David's son Shaphatiah by Avital. But Tribal Identity was traditionally determined paternally, and Hillel's father was a Benjamite, since he was born in Babylonia he may have come from the same Benjamite clan that Esther and Mordecai did, which came from a relative of Saul. Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson, Paul claimed to have studied at his feet, and we know Paul was a Benjamite and originally a namesake of Saul, could Paul have been a relative of the House of Hillel?
The Khazar myth about where the Ashkenazim come from can be easily debunked, like in this video by Chris White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDWUZ6EqWHc
[Update: or this one from Casual Historian.]
There is a small truth to it in that yes some Khazars intermarried into Jewish families, so many Ashekanazim may have some Khazars in their ancestry, but that does not contradict also descending from Jews who were in Israel at the Time of Christ.
Some like Britam and Veilikovsky (in Beyond the Mountains of Darkness) have sought to claim Lost Tribes descent for the Khazars. But I find it more interesting that Benjamin had a son named Rosh (Genesis 46:21), and that the name of Rosh can also be linked to the same region as Meshech and Tubal, which is the land where the Khazars emerged, between the Black and Caspian Seas (something Chris White has also talked about).
I obviously disagree with the aspects of Velikovsky's argument that involve reinterpreting where Assyria first took them, I've built much of this Blog on that they were taken to parts of eastern Iraq and northern Iran. But it's also possible that just as some remnants of the northern Tribes existed in Judah, that some Benjamites might have been among those deported when Samaria fell. When the division first happened the border was mostly Benjamite territory on Judah's side. But later there were times were Israel was winning in it's wars with Judah and so the border moved further south.
There is at least one website out there seeking to argue the Spanish came from Benjamin. What they wound up making is a strong argument for the Shaphardi Jews coming chiefly from Benjamin, but Shaphardi Jews are genetically distinct from the gentile populations of Spain in-spite of how much they may look the same. Another connection between Benjamin and Spain is Paul himself who in Romans expressed a desire to go to Spain which later traditions say he did.
The term Mizrahi Jews refers to Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia, and the Mountain Jews also associated with the same region as the Khazzars and Rosh. Also the Oral Traditions of the Mountain Jews claim they came specifically from Jerusalem.
As far as the Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia go, we know the family of Esther and Mordechai dwelt there coming from a relative of Saul. And that the Descendants of Hillel were based there during the time the Babylonian Talmud was composed. The Exilarchs (traditionally descendants of David via Zerubabel) were also in Iraq for a long time. But the Rabbinic Jewish traditions about them skip right form when the TNAK ends to the time of Hadrian, maybe their claimed David descent was not unlike Hillel's. At any-rate most families today claiming descent from the Exilarchs do so via a lot of intermingling with the descent from Rashi.
Temani/Yemenite Jews I theorize mainly descend from Simeon (probably from the clan of Jamin) Simeon and Levi were both destined to be scattered among the other tribes.
I also see a poetic logic in the early Jewish Communities of Rome (who existed at least as early as the first Pentacost) coming from Benjamin. Given the wolf association of both.
I think some remnant of Judah may exist among them. But mostly I think Judah went to Africa after 70 AD. Though I also think the descendants of the half-siblings of Jesus, and of Jesus Apostles, inevitably became absorbed into gentile populations.
David promised Johnathon Ben Saul that his seed would be preserved. And we see him keep that later when he spared Johnathon's son Mephibosheth from the killing of descendants of Saul done to appease the Gibeonites. Often such promises correlate to that line having a role to play in Eschatology.
Benjamin was the only son born in the Promised Land. Maybe that is a reason for it to make sense he would be the only one who's Nation at the time of the Regathering would be already in Israel.
Some like Britam and Veilikovsky (in Beyond the Mountains of Darkness) have sought to claim Lost Tribes descent for the Khazars. But I find it more interesting that Benjamin had a son named Rosh (Genesis 46:21), and that the name of Rosh can also be linked to the same region as Meshech and Tubal, which is the land where the Khazars emerged, between the Black and Caspian Seas (something Chris White has also talked about).
I obviously disagree with the aspects of Velikovsky's argument that involve reinterpreting where Assyria first took them, I've built much of this Blog on that they were taken to parts of eastern Iraq and northern Iran. But it's also possible that just as some remnants of the northern Tribes existed in Judah, that some Benjamites might have been among those deported when Samaria fell. When the division first happened the border was mostly Benjamite territory on Judah's side. But later there were times were Israel was winning in it's wars with Judah and so the border moved further south.
There is at least one website out there seeking to argue the Spanish came from Benjamin. What they wound up making is a strong argument for the Shaphardi Jews coming chiefly from Benjamin, but Shaphardi Jews are genetically distinct from the gentile populations of Spain in-spite of how much they may look the same. Another connection between Benjamin and Spain is Paul himself who in Romans expressed a desire to go to Spain which later traditions say he did.
The term Mizrahi Jews refers to Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia, and the Mountain Jews also associated with the same region as the Khazzars and Rosh. Also the Oral Traditions of the Mountain Jews claim they came specifically from Jerusalem.
As far as the Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia go, we know the family of Esther and Mordechai dwelt there coming from a relative of Saul. And that the Descendants of Hillel were based there during the time the Babylonian Talmud was composed. The Exilarchs (traditionally descendants of David via Zerubabel) were also in Iraq for a long time. But the Rabbinic Jewish traditions about them skip right form when the TNAK ends to the time of Hadrian, maybe their claimed David descent was not unlike Hillel's. At any-rate most families today claiming descent from the Exilarchs do so via a lot of intermingling with the descent from Rashi.
Temani/Yemenite Jews I theorize mainly descend from Simeon (probably from the clan of Jamin) Simeon and Levi were both destined to be scattered among the other tribes.
I also see a poetic logic in the early Jewish Communities of Rome (who existed at least as early as the first Pentacost) coming from Benjamin. Given the wolf association of both.
I think some remnant of Judah may exist among them. But mostly I think Judah went to Africa after 70 AD. Though I also think the descendants of the half-siblings of Jesus, and of Jesus Apostles, inevitably became absorbed into gentile populations.
David promised Johnathon Ben Saul that his seed would be preserved. And we see him keep that later when he spared Johnathon's son Mephibosheth from the killing of descendants of Saul done to appease the Gibeonites. Often such promises correlate to that line having a role to play in Eschatology.
Benjamin was the only son born in the Promised Land. Maybe that is a reason for it to make sense he would be the only one who's Nation at the time of the Regathering would be already in Israel.
Monday, January 25, 2016
The Eschatological significance of The Spring Feasts
It is popularly said the Spring Feast of Leviticus 23 were fulfilled in the First Advent and the Fall Feasts will be the Second Advent. And that is mostly true, but the Fall Feasts do come up in the Gospel narrative.
Jesus' Crucifixion is the most important fulfillment of Passover. But I think it has post shadowings as well as foreshadowings. In the Book of Acts, Passover (incorrectly translated Easter once in the KJV) and Unleavened Bread continue to come up well after the Pentecost on which The Church was born.
This is a follow up of sorts to my recent post on the Fall Feasts. That was focused on the Midway Point, this post will deal with how the Week begins and ends. So like The Godfather Part II it is a prequel and a sequel at the same time.
I shall interpret the time periods from Revelation 11-13 (I'll mention Daniel's too, but I no longer feel Daniel's need to be Eschatological). The math I did with my current 2030-2037 theory in mind, but I did similar calculations before with other years. I encourage you to do your own calculations.
Revelation 11:1-2 says Jerusalem will be trodden under the foot of the Gentiles for 42 months. Many have come up with all kinds of convoluted explanations of what that means, but using Scripture to interpret Scripture this is explained by Luke 21:24 as clearly an expression of military occupation.
"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." and the next verse is the Second Coming and The Rapture. Luke 21:20 through the first part of this verse I believe was fulfilled in 70 AD and Revelation 11 is the last part of the times of the gentiles. But if it has a second fulfillment in the End Times, I believe it is at the start of the week not the midway point.
After the Two Witnesses are resurrected and ascend into heaven the people of the city (who we were told at the start are mostly gentiles) will believe and praise God, then the Last Trumpet sounds. That is when the Fullness of the Gentiles are come in (Romans 11:25).
The 42 months I don't think necessarily need to be fulfilled to the day, they're broadly the same time period as the 1260 days but different in the specifics. 42 months before Yom Teruah takes us to (assuming there is a second Adar in there) the New Moon of Nisan three and a half years before. Allowing wiggle room the siege could happen a little before or after.
The possibly that something will happen in the last month before the Week begins is logical, in the last month of the year the Barley Harvest is what lets Israel know the next New Moon will be the New Year. Ezra 6:15 tells us the Second Temple was finished on the 3rd of Adar. It is possible the Third Temple will be finished right before the Week begins, but I also think it possible it could last awhile before it begins.
The Two Witnesses will be killed three and a half days before Yom Teruah. 1260 days before that takes us to about, depending on when the proceeding Barley Harvest is, either the 7th of Nisan or 7th of Iyar. Ezra 3:8 tells us Iyar was when Zeubabel and Jeshua began their work, they are considered types of the Two Witnesses so the Witnesses beginning their ministry in Iyar makes sense. The 7th of Nisan is traditionally conjectured from the narrative of Joshua to be when his two spies were sent into Jericho, they too are types of the Witnesses.
I've argued before that the 1290 days are the first half of the Week not the second as usually assumed. I've gone back and forth on if the Abomination of Desolation should begin or end it. Either way what does happen at the beginning is the sacrifice and oblation being taken away.
If the 1290 days end on Yom Teruah then they could begin about either the 10th of Nisan or exactly a month before. I could also see when they end being 10 days before or 10 days after. If the earlier month for this is what happens it'd be the same with the Two Witnesses, and visa versa. The 10th of Nisan I think will be important either way.
My theory on the first 6 seals is they happen very quickly in the Nisan that begins the Week. The White Horseman might be the Antichrist before his death, or might be an anitchrist and/or a decoy antichrist. Christians who want to co-opt the Rabbinic concept of Messiah Ben-Joseph as someone separate from Jesus could easily see that figure in the White Horseman. The other three horseman will ride at about the same time, maybe as his allies or maybe as his enemies.
Whatever identity for him is true, I think he'll have his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on the 10th of Nisan. Maybe as someone many Jews and Christians will accept as a Messiah, or maybe as a conqueror. And then maybe given a Crown on the 14th of Nisan. And maybe killed on either the 14th or 26th of Nisan. Cause either way for most of the first half of the Week the First Beast isn't a factor.
The Fifth Seal is a heavenly event, it shows all Martyrs of the Church, not just victims of a specific persecution. But it's opening could still correlate to a specific persecution, like the one Jesus described in Matthew 24:9-14.
I've argued before that the Sixth Seal will open on the 14th of Nisan based on it's connection to Acts 2 and Joel 2 making the Earthquake and Darkness when Jesus was on The Cross it's near fulfillment.
I had argued then the 144,000 are sealed in Revelation 7 on Pentecost, I still feel they're connected to Pentecost but they're also called the First fruits in Revelation 14 so I now think their sealing will begin on First Fruits.
In one Seventh Trumpet post I talked about how Jewish custom has the Last Trump on Yom Teruh and the First Trumpet on Pentecost. Connecting Trumpets to Pentecost is justified by Exodus 19-20 where in the third month when the Decalogue was given on Pentecost the Trumpets were sounded.
I think on the Pentecost following the start of the Week the 144,00 will be saved sparking a massive revival, the latter rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a repeat of the Pentecost of Acts 2. Their Prayers will fill the golden Censor in the Heavenly Temple, it'll be thrown into the Earth causing more Earthquakes and thunder and lighting. Then the Trumpets will be given to their Angels and the first will sound burning up the green grass and trees right as the Harvest season is starting.
I have no theories yet on when the 2nd-4th Trumpets will sound. I have a post where I discus the timing of the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets. Where I conjecture the Five Months the locust torment men will end on the 17th of Nisan, the day Jesus Rose, and Haman was hanged.
The text of Daniel 12 does not in any explicit way link the end of the 1290 days to the Sacrifices being restored. It could be they're are restored 2300 mornings and evenings (1250 days, about 37 lunar months, 3 years) after their taken away, like Daniel tells us was the case with Antiochus' Abomination. But in this case that wouldn't end on Hanukkah but in the Nisan that starts year four of the week. Or perhaps they never will be restored.
If one insists the 1290 days need to be the second half. If they begin on Yom Teruh they could end on the last day of Unleavened Bread, if they begin on Yom Kippur they could end on the New Moon of Iyar. Either way fitting what I already suspect that when the Week is over the Israelites won't be able to observe Passover at the proper time and will need to delay to Second Passover. If they begin three and a half, seven or ten days before Yom Teruah. Still not quite allowing everything to be cleansed in time for a proper Passover.
The 42 months the Beast is allowed to continue, if they begin in early Tishri or late Elul would end in about Adar, again not needing to be fulfilled to the day. Purim is when the sons of Haman were hanged.
The 1260 days Israel (The Woman) is in the wilderness begins right after The Rapture, even if they were fleeing in a sense already from the Abomination before. 1260 days from Yom Teruah takes us to about the 20th or 21st of Adar, and 1260 days from Yom Kippur takes us to about the end of Adar and Beginning of Nisan. This is when their Messiah, a namesake of Joshua, will lead them into the Promised Land from Edom, as shown in Isaiah 63.
I think we need to consider that how the Armageddon reference in the 6th Bowl ties into Revelation 19 isn't quite what we assume. And also that Satan being sealed in the Abyss is not the same day as Revelation 19 either.
I now respond to Post-Tribbers who say everyone else believes in more then one Second Comings by pointing out that Revelation 19 is never Biblically defined as the Second Coming. Revelation 14 is where the Greek word Paursia is used.
Zechariah 12-14 is one vision but it has pieces, 9-11 are a separate vision. Chapter 12 has the reference to Meggido/Armageddon, Chapter 13 has a possible illusion to the Idol Shepherd of chapter 11 being dealt with, and I think maybe the two thirds who are cut off and die are the armies following the Beast in Revelation 19 not Israelites as people often assume, two thirds of all gentiles, or the world's total population.
And Chapter 14 depicts Jerusalem still under siege, perhaps from Satan directly this time. And Jesus Second Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. This one will also be on the 10th of Nisan, this time He'll be riding on a White Horse. And given a Coronation on the 14th or 15th of Nisan. And perhaps raise from the dead whoever among the saved are still not yet raised on First Fruits (Ezekiel 37). So this Nisan will be important even though the Passover won't be kept till the following month.
The 1335 days is the one number form Daniel I'm most certain on. It begins on the Yom Teruah that finished Revelation 11 and ends early in Sivan. There is a strong possibility of it ending on Pentecost or the Sabbath the day before Pentecost. No matter what the next Sunday after will be the Biblical date of Pentecost.
Pentecost as the day the Church Age began, and the Day Israel as born as a Nation with the giving of the Covenant in Exodus 19-20, fits perfectly as the day to formally begin The Millennium, or the Government that will rule The Millennium and a little after. Because as I said before the only event that happens right when the Thousand years expire is Satan being released. So I think the end of the 1335 days will be when Satan is bound in The Abyss.
Will the Spring Feats have relevance after The Millennium? Well I think Satan will be released the same day he was bound, on if not near Pentecost. I have a hunch the Gog and Magog war will involves the 17th of Tammuz, 9th of Ave and 3rd of Tishi, because God said in Zechariah he'd make their Fast Days joyous celebrations.
Seven years after 3rd of Tishri fits what I said on the Fall Feasts about New Jerusalem and Tabernacles. Seven months later may mean they'll be finished cleaning up the dead bodies after Passover and need to do one last Second Passover.
So that is my view of the End Times relevance of the Spring Feasts.
Jesus' Crucifixion is the most important fulfillment of Passover. But I think it has post shadowings as well as foreshadowings. In the Book of Acts, Passover (incorrectly translated Easter once in the KJV) and Unleavened Bread continue to come up well after the Pentecost on which The Church was born.
This is a follow up of sorts to my recent post on the Fall Feasts. That was focused on the Midway Point, this post will deal with how the Week begins and ends. So like The Godfather Part II it is a prequel and a sequel at the same time.
I shall interpret the time periods from Revelation 11-13 (I'll mention Daniel's too, but I no longer feel Daniel's need to be Eschatological). The math I did with my current 2030-2037 theory in mind, but I did similar calculations before with other years. I encourage you to do your own calculations.
Revelation 11:1-2 says Jerusalem will be trodden under the foot of the Gentiles for 42 months. Many have come up with all kinds of convoluted explanations of what that means, but using Scripture to interpret Scripture this is explained by Luke 21:24 as clearly an expression of military occupation.
"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." and the next verse is the Second Coming and The Rapture. Luke 21:20 through the first part of this verse I believe was fulfilled in 70 AD and Revelation 11 is the last part of the times of the gentiles. But if it has a second fulfillment in the End Times, I believe it is at the start of the week not the midway point.
After the Two Witnesses are resurrected and ascend into heaven the people of the city (who we were told at the start are mostly gentiles) will believe and praise God, then the Last Trumpet sounds. That is when the Fullness of the Gentiles are come in (Romans 11:25).
The 42 months I don't think necessarily need to be fulfilled to the day, they're broadly the same time period as the 1260 days but different in the specifics. 42 months before Yom Teruah takes us to (assuming there is a second Adar in there) the New Moon of Nisan three and a half years before. Allowing wiggle room the siege could happen a little before or after.
The possibly that something will happen in the last month before the Week begins is logical, in the last month of the year the Barley Harvest is what lets Israel know the next New Moon will be the New Year. Ezra 6:15 tells us the Second Temple was finished on the 3rd of Adar. It is possible the Third Temple will be finished right before the Week begins, but I also think it possible it could last awhile before it begins.
The Two Witnesses will be killed three and a half days before Yom Teruah. 1260 days before that takes us to about, depending on when the proceeding Barley Harvest is, either the 7th of Nisan or 7th of Iyar. Ezra 3:8 tells us Iyar was when Zeubabel and Jeshua began their work, they are considered types of the Two Witnesses so the Witnesses beginning their ministry in Iyar makes sense. The 7th of Nisan is traditionally conjectured from the narrative of Joshua to be when his two spies were sent into Jericho, they too are types of the Witnesses.
I've argued before that the 1290 days are the first half of the Week not the second as usually assumed. I've gone back and forth on if the Abomination of Desolation should begin or end it. Either way what does happen at the beginning is the sacrifice and oblation being taken away.
If the 1290 days end on Yom Teruah then they could begin about either the 10th of Nisan or exactly a month before. I could also see when they end being 10 days before or 10 days after. If the earlier month for this is what happens it'd be the same with the Two Witnesses, and visa versa. The 10th of Nisan I think will be important either way.
My theory on the first 6 seals is they happen very quickly in the Nisan that begins the Week. The White Horseman might be the Antichrist before his death, or might be an anitchrist and/or a decoy antichrist. Christians who want to co-opt the Rabbinic concept of Messiah Ben-Joseph as someone separate from Jesus could easily see that figure in the White Horseman. The other three horseman will ride at about the same time, maybe as his allies or maybe as his enemies.
Whatever identity for him is true, I think he'll have his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on the 10th of Nisan. Maybe as someone many Jews and Christians will accept as a Messiah, or maybe as a conqueror. And then maybe given a Crown on the 14th of Nisan. And maybe killed on either the 14th or 26th of Nisan. Cause either way for most of the first half of the Week the First Beast isn't a factor.
The Fifth Seal is a heavenly event, it shows all Martyrs of the Church, not just victims of a specific persecution. But it's opening could still correlate to a specific persecution, like the one Jesus described in Matthew 24:9-14.
I've argued before that the Sixth Seal will open on the 14th of Nisan based on it's connection to Acts 2 and Joel 2 making the Earthquake and Darkness when Jesus was on The Cross it's near fulfillment.
I had argued then the 144,000 are sealed in Revelation 7 on Pentecost, I still feel they're connected to Pentecost but they're also called the First fruits in Revelation 14 so I now think their sealing will begin on First Fruits.
In one Seventh Trumpet post I talked about how Jewish custom has the Last Trump on Yom Teruh and the First Trumpet on Pentecost. Connecting Trumpets to Pentecost is justified by Exodus 19-20 where in the third month when the Decalogue was given on Pentecost the Trumpets were sounded.
I think on the Pentecost following the start of the Week the 144,00 will be saved sparking a massive revival, the latter rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a repeat of the Pentecost of Acts 2. Their Prayers will fill the golden Censor in the Heavenly Temple, it'll be thrown into the Earth causing more Earthquakes and thunder and lighting. Then the Trumpets will be given to their Angels and the first will sound burning up the green grass and trees right as the Harvest season is starting.
I have no theories yet on when the 2nd-4th Trumpets will sound. I have a post where I discus the timing of the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets. Where I conjecture the Five Months the locust torment men will end on the 17th of Nisan, the day Jesus Rose, and Haman was hanged.
The text of Daniel 12 does not in any explicit way link the end of the 1290 days to the Sacrifices being restored. It could be they're are restored 2300 mornings and evenings (1250 days, about 37 lunar months, 3 years) after their taken away, like Daniel tells us was the case with Antiochus' Abomination. But in this case that wouldn't end on Hanukkah but in the Nisan that starts year four of the week. Or perhaps they never will be restored.
If one insists the 1290 days need to be the second half. If they begin on Yom Teruh they could end on the last day of Unleavened Bread, if they begin on Yom Kippur they could end on the New Moon of Iyar. Either way fitting what I already suspect that when the Week is over the Israelites won't be able to observe Passover at the proper time and will need to delay to Second Passover. If they begin three and a half, seven or ten days before Yom Teruah. Still not quite allowing everything to be cleansed in time for a proper Passover.
The 42 months the Beast is allowed to continue, if they begin in early Tishri or late Elul would end in about Adar, again not needing to be fulfilled to the day. Purim is when the sons of Haman were hanged.
The 1260 days Israel (The Woman) is in the wilderness begins right after The Rapture, even if they were fleeing in a sense already from the Abomination before. 1260 days from Yom Teruah takes us to about the 20th or 21st of Adar, and 1260 days from Yom Kippur takes us to about the end of Adar and Beginning of Nisan. This is when their Messiah, a namesake of Joshua, will lead them into the Promised Land from Edom, as shown in Isaiah 63.
I think we need to consider that how the Armageddon reference in the 6th Bowl ties into Revelation 19 isn't quite what we assume. And also that Satan being sealed in the Abyss is not the same day as Revelation 19 either.
I now respond to Post-Tribbers who say everyone else believes in more then one Second Comings by pointing out that Revelation 19 is never Biblically defined as the Second Coming. Revelation 14 is where the Greek word Paursia is used.
Zechariah 12-14 is one vision but it has pieces, 9-11 are a separate vision. Chapter 12 has the reference to Meggido/Armageddon, Chapter 13 has a possible illusion to the Idol Shepherd of chapter 11 being dealt with, and I think maybe the two thirds who are cut off and die are the armies following the Beast in Revelation 19 not Israelites as people often assume, two thirds of all gentiles, or the world's total population.
And Chapter 14 depicts Jerusalem still under siege, perhaps from Satan directly this time. And Jesus Second Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. This one will also be on the 10th of Nisan, this time He'll be riding on a White Horse. And given a Coronation on the 14th or 15th of Nisan. And perhaps raise from the dead whoever among the saved are still not yet raised on First Fruits (Ezekiel 37). So this Nisan will be important even though the Passover won't be kept till the following month.
The 1335 days is the one number form Daniel I'm most certain on. It begins on the Yom Teruah that finished Revelation 11 and ends early in Sivan. There is a strong possibility of it ending on Pentecost or the Sabbath the day before Pentecost. No matter what the next Sunday after will be the Biblical date of Pentecost.
Pentecost as the day the Church Age began, and the Day Israel as born as a Nation with the giving of the Covenant in Exodus 19-20, fits perfectly as the day to formally begin The Millennium, or the Government that will rule The Millennium and a little after. Because as I said before the only event that happens right when the Thousand years expire is Satan being released. So I think the end of the 1335 days will be when Satan is bound in The Abyss.
Will the Spring Feats have relevance after The Millennium? Well I think Satan will be released the same day he was bound, on if not near Pentecost. I have a hunch the Gog and Magog war will involves the 17th of Tammuz, 9th of Ave and 3rd of Tishi, because God said in Zechariah he'd make their Fast Days joyous celebrations.
Seven years after 3rd of Tishri fits what I said on the Fall Feasts about New Jerusalem and Tabernacles. Seven months later may mean they'll be finished cleaning up the dead bodies after Passover and need to do one last Second Passover.
So that is my view of the End Times relevance of the Spring Feasts.
Monday, October 20, 2014
The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy
I know all the arguments out there against thinking The Lost Tribes are a thing. I've heard it from Chuck Missler and Chris White.
I know that the Levites moved South when Jeroboam fell into idolatry. And Chuck insists we can infer everyone not Ok with the idolatry did the same. Even though it's repeatedly demonstrated that The North had a believing remnant. God never tells his people that as a rule they must leave a country if it's sinful, we should be trying to make our countries better. The Levites had a special purpose linked to The Temple.
I know that they claim Assyrian Records show the deportation to be not just incomplete but even it seems only a very small portion from select regions. I prefer to believe Biblical Records over Secular ones, which say people remained but not a whole lot. Most of those that did intermarried with Gentiles to become the Samaritans, who Jesus considered not Children of Israel.
See the problem with the point about the Assyrian Records is the Deportation happened in phases. Just as the Southern Kingdom's did. And those records cited deal with only one of what were at least 3 deportations. The records of the 722 BC (724 BC in Usser) deportation is what people focus on. But 1 Chronicles 5 alludes to earlier deportation of specifically the Trans-Jordan tribes, and additional deportations likely happened during Sennacherib's campaign against Hezekiah, or when they deported King Manasseh, the latter probably explains when Simeon was deported.
I know Josiah and Hezikiah and Asa had their special Second Passover where they invited northern Kingdom Survivors to come South and join them. There were far from complete, but Anna the Prophetess I think descends from those Asherites.
I know the return from captivity records people from every Tribe but Dan returning. That Return wasn't complete even for the Southern Tribes. After even the last major return in the days of Nehemiah a significant population remained behind.
I know that after the captivity The Bible often treats Judah and Israel as synonymous. But that is poetic in nature.
Even if all those points were as completely valid as they make them seem. The Fact remains that Bible Prophecy speaks of a reunification of Judah and Joseph/Ephraim as Eschatological/End Times.
Chuck Missler in his commentary on Ezekiel 37 actually goes on about all those points as if Ezekiel 37 proved his point, Judah and Joseph are one. The entire point of that reference is it's foretelling their reunification as part of that Prophecy. And I also disagree with Chuck's desire to remove the literal Bodily Resurrection from this passage. Yes it is about Israel's restoration as a Nation. But it's not 1948, it's them being restored in belief, during The Millennium, after the First Resurrection is finished. The references to the Resurrected David being there should leave that beyond dispute.
Now the thing neglected by people who tend to want to see this reunification as all flowers and roses is some of the Prophecies on this theme seem to predict more conflict between Judah and Ephraim, like they often had before. Isaiah 9-11 may or may not have an End Times second application, but Isaiah 28 is indisputably End Times. Zachariah 9-11 may also be of interest. But on Isaiah 9-11, those that see the End Times there usually think The Assyrian is The Antichrist. But in Ezekiel, The Assyrian is the Terrible of The Nations, who kills The Antichrist. Isaiah 11 seems to me to allude to both The Antichrist and The False Prophet when speaking of Ephraim. Jeremiah 4 and Micah 1 are also worth considering.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel when foretelling the Southern Kingdom's coming fall to Babylon compared it to the earlier fall of the Northern Kingdom. God is saying you fell into the same error so I'll do unto you as I did unto them. Well it's interesting that the captivity of Judah happened twice, it had a second fulfillment under The Romans.
Lots of Christians see an eschatological significance to much of Hosea. But they insist the End Times application must manifest in Israel as a whole, even though the book is about Ephraim.
Chris White makes a solid argument that The Antichrist might claim to be the non Biblical Messiah Ben-Joseph. I've talked on that before and how he leaves out the whole Northern Kingdom aspect of that. I also discus some of my thoughts on British Israelism there.
I also have a post where I respond to his view on Daniel 7.
Hosea 13:7-8 "Therefore I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I observe them:I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them. "
I don't think it's a coincidence that this uses the same three animals used of the first three Beasts in Daniel 7. Yes God uses them of himself coming upon Israel, but he often Judges Israel by foreign nations fighting wars with them. But if that's the case where is the fourth beast? I'm speculating it could be viewed as Ephraim, in the sense that Ephraim represents the Northern Kingdom in general.
I know that the Levites moved South when Jeroboam fell into idolatry. And Chuck insists we can infer everyone not Ok with the idolatry did the same. Even though it's repeatedly demonstrated that The North had a believing remnant. God never tells his people that as a rule they must leave a country if it's sinful, we should be trying to make our countries better. The Levites had a special purpose linked to The Temple.
I know that they claim Assyrian Records show the deportation to be not just incomplete but even it seems only a very small portion from select regions. I prefer to believe Biblical Records over Secular ones, which say people remained but not a whole lot. Most of those that did intermarried with Gentiles to become the Samaritans, who Jesus considered not Children of Israel.
See the problem with the point about the Assyrian Records is the Deportation happened in phases. Just as the Southern Kingdom's did. And those records cited deal with only one of what were at least 3 deportations. The records of the 722 BC (724 BC in Usser) deportation is what people focus on. But 1 Chronicles 5 alludes to earlier deportation of specifically the Trans-Jordan tribes, and additional deportations likely happened during Sennacherib's campaign against Hezekiah, or when they deported King Manasseh, the latter probably explains when Simeon was deported.
I know Josiah and Hezikiah and Asa had their special Second Passover where they invited northern Kingdom Survivors to come South and join them. There were far from complete, but Anna the Prophetess I think descends from those Asherites.
I know the return from captivity records people from every Tribe but Dan returning. That Return wasn't complete even for the Southern Tribes. After even the last major return in the days of Nehemiah a significant population remained behind.
I know that after the captivity The Bible often treats Judah and Israel as synonymous. But that is poetic in nature.
Even if all those points were as completely valid as they make them seem. The Fact remains that Bible Prophecy speaks of a reunification of Judah and Joseph/Ephraim as Eschatological/End Times.
Chuck Missler in his commentary on Ezekiel 37 actually goes on about all those points as if Ezekiel 37 proved his point, Judah and Joseph are one. The entire point of that reference is it's foretelling their reunification as part of that Prophecy. And I also disagree with Chuck's desire to remove the literal Bodily Resurrection from this passage. Yes it is about Israel's restoration as a Nation. But it's not 1948, it's them being restored in belief, during The Millennium, after the First Resurrection is finished. The references to the Resurrected David being there should leave that beyond dispute.
Now the thing neglected by people who tend to want to see this reunification as all flowers and roses is some of the Prophecies on this theme seem to predict more conflict between Judah and Ephraim, like they often had before. Isaiah 9-11 may or may not have an End Times second application, but Isaiah 28 is indisputably End Times. Zachariah 9-11 may also be of interest. But on Isaiah 9-11, those that see the End Times there usually think The Assyrian is The Antichrist. But in Ezekiel, The Assyrian is the Terrible of The Nations, who kills The Antichrist. Isaiah 11 seems to me to allude to both The Antichrist and The False Prophet when speaking of Ephraim. Jeremiah 4 and Micah 1 are also worth considering.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel when foretelling the Southern Kingdom's coming fall to Babylon compared it to the earlier fall of the Northern Kingdom. God is saying you fell into the same error so I'll do unto you as I did unto them. Well it's interesting that the captivity of Judah happened twice, it had a second fulfillment under The Romans.
Lots of Christians see an eschatological significance to much of Hosea. But they insist the End Times application must manifest in Israel as a whole, even though the book is about Ephraim.
Chris White makes a solid argument that The Antichrist might claim to be the non Biblical Messiah Ben-Joseph. I've talked on that before and how he leaves out the whole Northern Kingdom aspect of that. I also discus some of my thoughts on British Israelism there.
I also have a post where I respond to his view on Daniel 7.
Hosea 13:7-8 "Therefore I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I observe them:I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them. "
I don't think it's a coincidence that this uses the same three animals used of the first three Beasts in Daniel 7. Yes God uses them of himself coming upon Israel, but he often Judges Israel by foreign nations fighting wars with them. But if that's the case where is the fourth beast? I'm speculating it could be viewed as Ephraim, in the sense that Ephraim represents the Northern Kingdom in general.
Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns
of unicorns: 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."
Jeremiah 31:18 " I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and
I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I
shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God."
And remember the Idols Jeroboam set up were Bulls, modeled after The Golden Calf. Bulls are horned animals, they don't have 10 but that's irreverent, they're a horned animal. The number being 10 could mean 10 nations that are claiming to be the Ten Lost Tribes.
I think the 4th World Empire is a hydride Empire, Edom/Rome (the Iron in both) and Ephraim/Dan. I think in the Statue of Daniel 2 Ephraim would be the Miry Clay. Many have interpreted the Miry Clay to represent the "Barbarian" tribes mingling with Rome as the Western Empire fell apart. Those are the same tribes often identified as being entirely or at least partly descended from The Lost Tribes in British Israelism/Franco Israelism/Britam. Usually those two Biblical connections for them aren't made by the same commentator however, (Example: Britam sees the Miry Clay as Ishmaelites).
Chris White continues to be skeptical of seeing the European Union as the Fourth Beast because it has more then 10 nations. I've posted one response to his objections before. But I now have a better one. The Ten Horns are not the entire confederation, only part of it as they'ree only part of The Beast.
I think the Ten Horns are the nine European nations Britam claims are Israelite nations plus Germany (who Britam wants to see Edom but they're really more like the other supposedly Israelite nations then the Edomite ones). The iron teeth are Edom/Rome and hence Italy, Spain, Portugal and Western Mediterranean Islands like Malta and Corsica. And the nails/claws of brass/bronze going back to Daniel 2 would be Modern Greece, and perhaps to a lesser extent Turkey/Cyprus. I know people like to list all kinds of reasons Turkey will never become part of the EU, but militarily speaking it effectively already is via it's involvement in both the WEU and NATO.
That even those don't cover the entire EU (mostly it's eastern Europe that is left out) isn't a big deal because they're still not the entire body of The Beast clearly, but they're the key clues emphasized.
Chris White continues to be skeptical of seeing the European Union as the Fourth Beast because it has more then 10 nations. I've posted one response to his objections before. But I now have a better one. The Ten Horns are not the entire confederation, only part of it as they'ree only part of The Beast.
I think the Ten Horns are the nine European nations Britam claims are Israelite nations plus Germany (who Britam wants to see Edom but they're really more like the other supposedly Israelite nations then the Edomite ones). The iron teeth are Edom/Rome and hence Italy, Spain, Portugal and Western Mediterranean Islands like Malta and Corsica. And the nails/claws of brass/bronze going back to Daniel 2 would be Modern Greece, and perhaps to a lesser extent Turkey/Cyprus. I know people like to list all kinds of reasons Turkey will never become part of the EU, but militarily speaking it effectively already is via it's involvement in both the WEU and NATO.
That even those don't cover the entire EU (mostly it's eastern Europe that is left out) isn't a big deal because they're still not the entire body of The Beast clearly, but they're the key clues emphasized.
In the closing verses of Obadiah, the prophecy of the finale Destruction of Edom seems to allude to some Judgment coming on Ephraim/Samaria at the same time.
I made a post arguing against the Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon view. What I have considered since then is that maybe Mystery Babylon could be Samaria, looking at passages like Micah 1. Or maybe a different Northern Kingdom Capital within the land allotted to Ephraim and/or Manasseh.
In Hosea God says he shall avenge the Blood of Jezreel against the House of Jehu. Jehu I've argued could be a type of The Antichrist.
Chris White has argued that Armageddon in Revelation might refers to Hadadrimmon rather then Megiddo. Zechariah 12:11 refers to both, and both like Jezreel are in or by the Valley of Jezreel.
In Revelation 16 Armageddon is the gathering place, not where the battle itself is. I think maybe The Beast gathers his armies after the 6th Bowl and then marches south. Attacks whatever city Mystery Babylon is in the Mountains of Samaria (could that be why it's on 7 hills?) because we're told The beast will turn on The Harlot. Then he marches on Jerusalem, but Jerusalem he won't destroy because Jesus comes back to defend Jerusalem.
Follow Up Post
Follow Up Post
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
The Olivite Discourse, Matthew and Luke
Mark 13 may be a separate matter altogether.
First off, the setting.
| Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the ____________________________________ Lu 21:5 And as some |
Matthew's is a
private conference with the Disciples where some time has passed since
his "not one stone left" statement. And said statement is not really
what the Disciples asked, they asked about his coming and the time of
the end. Maybe they assumed they'd be the same thing, but the Answer Yeshua gave made no illusion to The Temple's destruction.
But in Luke he's asked to elaborate on what he said immediately, and is clearly in context something he preached publicly. The introduction to Luke's Gospel if you know the Greek implies Luke interviewed eye witnesses, he wrote down I think reports he got from many, not just the Disciples with whom his contact was limited if he knew them at all, cause he joins Paul in Acts 16, after his last meeting with the Disciples.
The very set up tells us their different. See I'm going to argue that the Preterists are mostly right about Luke 21, but not at all about Matthew 24. Luke's context is to explain the Destruction of The Temple, but Matthew's is The End Times and his Second Coming
But in Luke he's asked to elaborate on what he said immediately, and is clearly in context something he preached publicly. The introduction to Luke's Gospel if you know the Greek implies Luke interviewed eye witnesses, he wrote down I think reports he got from many, not just the Disciples with whom his contact was limited if he knew them at all, cause he joins Paul in Acts 16, after his last meeting with the Disciples.
The very set up tells us their different. See I'm going to argue that the Preterists are mostly right about Luke 21, but not at all about Matthew 24. Luke's context is to explain the Destruction of The Temple, but Matthew's is The End Times and his Second Coming
| Mt 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. __________________________________________ Lu 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am He; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. |
These
have difference in details but I won't dispute he's talking about the
same thing. This is the section constantly interpreted to be parallel
to the Four Horsemen, I'll explain my issues with that in a future
study, but for my purpose here that's irrelevant.
The key distinction is the timing of what comes next. Persecution of believers is what's being described in both, in some similar terms because persecution are often similar, Satan isn't that creative. but how their timed with what he just described is distinct.
The key distinction is the timing of what comes next. Persecution of believers is what's being described in both, in some similar terms because persecution are often similar, Satan isn't that creative. but how their timed with what he just described is distinct.
| Mt 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, _______________________________________________ Lu 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, |
In
Matthew he speaks of a persecution that follows the prior signs he just
described. But in Luke the Persecution comes first. In Luke it's the
persecutions inflicted by Jews that Luke latter records in Acts, as
starting with Stephen. Specifically Jewish references exit in Luke like
Synagogues. No references to False Prophets here, meaning no falling
away within the Church, because they were prepared for this persecution.
In Matthew no specific Jewish references like Synagogues exist, but we are hated of All Nations for his name's sake. False Prophets do arise to deceive many, and iniquity abounds. The believers were not prepared for this Persecution. Even though I'm against Pre-Trib I'm not gonna blame people being Pre-Trib on this, cause lots of Pre-Tribbers like Chuck Missler believe a Pre-Trib persecution. Regardless of their Rapture views all Western Christians have become complacent by having it too easy for so long now. But Matthew also says during this time The Gospel shall reach all kingdoms of the world, and then the time of the End shall come.
I'm not gonna quote the Persecution accounts here, read them for yourselves. My next point is what follows Persecution. The centerpiece of both accounts are different.
In Matthew no specific Jewish references like Synagogues exist, but we are hated of All Nations for his name's sake. False Prophets do arise to deceive many, and iniquity abounds. The believers were not prepared for this Persecution. Even though I'm against Pre-Trib I'm not gonna blame people being Pre-Trib on this, cause lots of Pre-Tribbers like Chuck Missler believe a Pre-Trib persecution. Regardless of their Rapture views all Western Christians have become complacent by having it too easy for so long now. But Matthew also says during this time The Gospel shall reach all kingdoms of the world, and then the time of the End shall come.
I'm not gonna quote the Persecution accounts here, read them for yourselves. My next point is what follows Persecution. The centerpiece of both accounts are different.
| Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: _______________________________________________ Lu 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains |
No
reference to Daniel in Luke, no Armies surrounding the city in Matthew.
No Abomination or Holy Place in Luke. Also Jerusalem is only named in
Luke but that's not significant both clearly mean Jerusalem.
Only the word "Desolation" and a warning to Flee to Mountains gives any basis for thinking their the same.
Desolation only refers to "The Abomination of Desolation" when both words are used together. The Hebrew Scriptures often uses "Desolations of Jerusalem" to refer to Jerusalem being desolate after the destruction in 588 B.C. Like in Daniel 9 setting up the 70 Weeks prophecy. In Luke Yeshua is foretelling that that shall happen again.
Some trying to insist a preterist interpretation doesn't work even for Luke's insist the word Desolation should make us think only of the Abomination, and that he's clearly directed people to the 70 Weeks prophecy. But the second to last verse of Daniel 9, in the same sentence that foretells the Second Temple's destruction says "and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." Same word that's translated "desolation" in the next verse.
It shouldn't surprise us both these events would be followed by people fleeing, possibly to mountainous regions, and some similar poetic language used. Josephus records how the problems of succession in Rome following Nero's death, the Romans Armies surrounded Jerusalem for a year before the siege really started. The Early Church fathers like Eusebius of Caesarea record how the Christians of the Jerusalem Church under their second "Bishop" Simon (possibly the half Brother of Jesus) fled Judea heeding Jesus warnings and so no Christians were killed in the 70 A.D. siege.
Some criticizing this view of Luke 21 insist things seem to happen to quickly in the description here to match 70 AD. This is not the only time that how much time passes can seem shorter in divine Prophecy. Remember Preterist base their whole argument on things like "I Am coming quickly". I don't think it's good idea for Futurists to fall into the same trap when it suits us. Unless a amount of time is given, I feel it's unwise to build Doctrine to strongly on things seeming to happen quickly.
The big problem with making Luke 21:20-14 End Times is Jerusalem will NOT be successfully sieged in the End Times. Zachariah 12-14 make clear that siege will fail because Jesus will return to defend Jerusalem. When people Flee Jerusalem in the End Times it's after the Abomination of Desolation, something that doesn't happen until the Wars of the first half of the 70th Week are over.
But also only Luke refers to
Only the word "Desolation" and a warning to Flee to Mountains gives any basis for thinking their the same.
Desolation only refers to "The Abomination of Desolation" when both words are used together. The Hebrew Scriptures often uses "Desolations of Jerusalem" to refer to Jerusalem being desolate after the destruction in 588 B.C. Like in Daniel 9 setting up the 70 Weeks prophecy. In Luke Yeshua is foretelling that that shall happen again.
Some trying to insist a preterist interpretation doesn't work even for Luke's insist the word Desolation should make us think only of the Abomination, and that he's clearly directed people to the 70 Weeks prophecy. But the second to last verse of Daniel 9, in the same sentence that foretells the Second Temple's destruction says "and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." Same word that's translated "desolation" in the next verse.
It shouldn't surprise us both these events would be followed by people fleeing, possibly to mountainous regions, and some similar poetic language used. Josephus records how the problems of succession in Rome following Nero's death, the Romans Armies surrounded Jerusalem for a year before the siege really started. The Early Church fathers like Eusebius of Caesarea record how the Christians of the Jerusalem Church under their second "Bishop" Simon (possibly the half Brother of Jesus) fled Judea heeding Jesus warnings and so no Christians were killed in the 70 A.D. siege.
Some criticizing this view of Luke 21 insist things seem to happen to quickly in the description here to match 70 AD. This is not the only time that how much time passes can seem shorter in divine Prophecy. Remember Preterist base their whole argument on things like "I Am coming quickly". I don't think it's good idea for Futurists to fall into the same trap when it suits us. Unless a amount of time is given, I feel it's unwise to build Doctrine to strongly on things seeming to happen quickly.
The big problem with making Luke 21:20-14 End Times is Jerusalem will NOT be successfully sieged in the End Times. Zachariah 12-14 make clear that siege will fail because Jesus will return to defend Jerusalem. When people Flee Jerusalem in the End Times it's after the Abomination of Desolation, something that doesn't happen until the Wars of the first half of the 70th Week are over.
But also only Luke refers to
| Lu 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. |
The
"times of the Gentiles" is further explained in Romans 9-11. It's an
idiom of the Church Age. After this the materiel again matches
Matthew's, in a very broad sense at least, lots of details are missing.
Where the Preterists stumble is that that reference is were it jumps forward. As long as Jerusalem is still trampled by Gentiles (is even now with the Muslim shrines there) this Prophecy isn't done.
Some insist the "Times of the Gentiles" refer to here must be only the Three and Half Years Revelation 11 speaks of the Outer Curt being trodden under. That view however makes that Three and half years the Second half of the 70th week. Revelation 11 as I've argued elsewhere must be the first half. I do believe Revelation 11 marks the end of that period though, which is why I believe it ends as it appears to, when The Rapture is to happen, Mid-Trib.
Harmonizing The Gospels, The Disciples who were likely present when this Pubic sermon in Luke was given, may have at first drew the same false conclusion from this public speech Preterists take, that the End Times signs immediately follow Jerusalem's destruction, and sought more details on the subject.
The statement that prompts The Olivet Discourse occurs in all 3 Synoptic Gospels. But Luke uniquely seems interested in recording Jesus predictions of the Coming fall of Jerusalem even outside this Chapter. After the Triumphal entry Luke 19:41-44 records that Jesus.
Where the Preterists stumble is that that reference is were it jumps forward. As long as Jerusalem is still trampled by Gentiles (is even now with the Muslim shrines there) this Prophecy isn't done.
Some insist the "Times of the Gentiles" refer to here must be only the Three and Half Years Revelation 11 speaks of the Outer Curt being trodden under. That view however makes that Three and half years the Second half of the 70th week. Revelation 11 as I've argued elsewhere must be the first half. I do believe Revelation 11 marks the end of that period though, which is why I believe it ends as it appears to, when The Rapture is to happen, Mid-Trib.
Harmonizing The Gospels, The Disciples who were likely present when this Pubic sermon in Luke was given, may have at first drew the same false conclusion from this public speech Preterists take, that the End Times signs immediately follow Jerusalem's destruction, and sought more details on the subject.
The statement that prompts The Olivet Discourse occurs in all 3 Synoptic Gospels. But Luke uniquely seems interested in recording Jesus predictions of the Coming fall of Jerusalem even outside this Chapter. After the Triumphal entry Luke 19:41-44 records that Jesus.
| And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying. "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." |
And then the cleansing of The Temple follows this.
As Jesus is bearing his Cross on to his Crucifixion Luke 23:27-
As Jesus is bearing his Cross on to his Crucifixion Luke 23:27-
| And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? |
Where
he speaks of Judgment that will come upon them in the lifetime of their
small Children, when they've become full grown adults. Some people want
to add an End Times context here because of "say to the mountains, Fall
on us" but such idioms of distress are not limited to the actual End
Times.
What's interesting is Matthew and Mark were written way before Luke, The Gospels were written in the order we place them in according to all early Church sources. Mark was written based on what Peter taught in Rome in the Second year of Claudius. So the discourse(s) given more privately were written down first. Logical since people already knew what he taught publicly, only the bare essentials of that were of high priority to write down at first, mainly the Sermon on the Mount. which Matthew has the most complete account of
Luke was written right when it's narrative ended I believe, two years after Paul's first arrival in Rome. 62 A.D. about the latest possible date. So Luke was inspired to write down these Prophecies Yeshua gave of The Temple's destruction when it was less then a decade away.
In terms of the intent Audience wise, is the usual Pre-Triber view that Matthew's is to Israel and Luke's The Church accurate?
Matthew's is a Gospel that is in some ways the most Jewish as it was written in Hebrew first, and is the first Gospel written, Paul said "The Gospel is for the Jews first and then the Gentiles". But Matthew's is also kind of very Church specific, being the most themed on Discipleship.
Luke was a Gentile, who's audience was over all Gentiles ultimately. But that ironically results in Luke spending the most time explaining Jewish things.
The Church and Israel are separate Covenants, but they do overlap, all Jewish believers, the remnant not under the Spiritual Blindness Paul spoke of, are heirs to both Covenants. That begins with the 12, promised to rule over the 12 Tribes, and goes don to any present at the Rapture. I'm still unsure if I view the 144,000 as part of The Church.
If either Discourse was only for the Church it would be Matthew which was given, like the Kingdom parables, to only the Disciples. While Luke's account is a Public speech all of the Jews, whether they became saved or not, in Jerusalem during that Passover season heard. But in fact I view both as being equally for both, in terms of 70 A.D. only Christians heeded the warning, but he gave it to all.
But in terms of what the Disciples were told about the End Times, it's supposed to be what those of us who already know the content of this warning are proclaiming to the people of Israel who's time of Trouble is at hand, and I think chiefly the 144,000 will be doing just that, as well as the Two Witnesses. So that when it happens, they will know at that moment the New Testament was right, and their national salvation won't happen all at once here , but it begins in this moment. The persecution Matthew records before the Abomination of Desolation however is a Christian persecution not Jewish. The Disciples listening (representing the Church) are refereed to inclusively with those who are persecuted, but not with those who flee Judea.
Some have minimized the significance of the Sabbath reference in the fleeing part of Matthew's account. Saying that on the Sabbath it's difficult to travel for anyone in the region. Those usual traffic patterns of Israel however will be mot when this very Public Earth shattering event happens. The Sabbath isn't part of the Luke warning.
My interpretation of the Sabbath reference making it a warning for the Jews doesn't mean that I think they should delay fleeing when this happens if it's the Sabbath. Just to hope that it isn't an issue.
Now some hold the view that the people in Judea being told to flee here must be Christians because it must be understood in the context of the earlier persecution where they are hated "for my Name's sake. That doesn't fit grammatically or contextually at all. These people flee in response to the Abomination event, the victims of the earlier persecution are obviously all ready on the run, they did not need to see this event to become frighted. In fact Christians in this period should be relived, we should know his coming is imminent.
Who are the Elect. Elect means Chosen, 7 times the same Greek word is rendered Chosen. It can mean either the Church or Israel, or maybe even sometimes both. And once is used of Yeshua's Messianic claim in Luke 23:35. And of Angels in I Thessalonians 5:21. Those who want to assume it always refers to the exact same Elect are not paying close enough attention.
Thinking it means only The Church or The Saved is chiefly a Calvinist heresy to support their twisted take on Predestination. 1 Peter 1:2 makes clear we're Elect/Chosen because of the foreknowledge of God. God is outside time, so when we accept Yehsua as our Savior he writes our names in the Lamb's Book of Life before the Foundation of the World.
But some Pre-Tirbers insist it always means Israel to support their desire to claim Matthew 24:31 isn't the Rapture. Yet this part of Matthew resembles Paul's two definitive Rapture accounts in Corinthians and I Thessalonians more definitively then any other supposed Rapture reference.
The Elect in Matthew 24:31 are gathered from "all the winds of Heaven" Israel at he the end of the 70th week is in Edom, not scattered in different regions. And we know from Comparing John 19 and Isaiah 63 Yeshua returns to them, gathering is only a part of the Rapture.
Sadly, many fellow Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath supporters (like Chris White) state definitively "Elect" NEVER means Israel in their zeal to refute the Pre-Trib view here. I don't know if he is Calvinist, or just ignoring the Calvinist implication of this very dangerous conclusion.
He cites John's Second Epistle's "Elect Lady" as a proof it means The Church always. This one is the least clear to me, first off I believe the individual woman being written to may well be like many others suspect Mary the Mother of Christ, who is the individual Woman in whom the core purpose of the Revelation 12 Woman was fulfilled, birthing The Seed of The Woman. And who Jesus entrusted John to take care of from The Cross.
To those who insist there is no individual in mind in 3 John,and it's simply to The Church, she has specific relatives refereed to in verse 4 and 13. Why not use this phrase in all three epistles if it simply means the Church?
Verses like "For many are called, but few are chosen." can't meant the Church unless you support the Calvinist heresy. This refers to Israel being God's Chosen people. It doesn't meant their Salvation works any differently, but they have an Election for a special status in Eternity if they accept Yeshua. Some of the Parables elaborate on this.
Eklegomai (ek-leg'-om-ahee) is a related but different word also rendered Chosen. On many occasions this and not Elect is used to refer to the 12 Disciples, that might help confuse people, it clearly includes Judas who was not saved. John's Gospel always uses this word, not Elect. He may have meant the same thing by the word. Either way, using it of Judas proves you don't need to be saved to qualify for that word.
The 12 are part of the overlap between Israel and the Church remember, they will rule over the 12 Tribes in Eternity.
Paul in Romans 8-11 uses another Greek word related to Elect, translated Election, clearly refers to the same concept, the verb form. 9-11 is all about refuting replacement theology. Those of us who are saved are saved by the "Election of Grace" Israel's covenant is a different Election, but is an Election. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." enemies of the Gospel only because of a temporary Spiritual Blindness.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 is absolutely using Elect of Israel, not the Church, because he wants them to become Saved, so their clearly not saved believers already in The Church.
Back to The Olivet Discourses' usage of the word. Luke's doesn't use it at all. In addition to the key Rapture reference. The reference to "deceive if possible even the Elect" is probably also The Church, I'm not sure what exactly this means, if it means we can't be deceived, or that we could be if we're not paying close enough attention. But I know it's related to having The Holy Ghost, being biologically of Israel gives no special resistance to Deception. All the Unsaved will accept The Mark.
The first usage of the word is Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." And Mark 13:20 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.". Must be chronologically after the rest, regardless of what you think Elect means or when the Rapture is, this is referring to the days in question, and what follows is talking about what leads to that.
In this Context I feel it means Israel, because their people at risk of being killed if those days aren't shortened. Saved here clearly doesn't mean Eternal Salvation, but being saved from death and destruction, because it speaks of the flesh. But why even in the same discussion mean something different with each usage? Because the Rapture helps bring about the Spiritual Salvation of Israel.
What's interesting is Matthew and Mark were written way before Luke, The Gospels were written in the order we place them in according to all early Church sources. Mark was written based on what Peter taught in Rome in the Second year of Claudius. So the discourse(s) given more privately were written down first. Logical since people already knew what he taught publicly, only the bare essentials of that were of high priority to write down at first, mainly the Sermon on the Mount. which Matthew has the most complete account of
Luke was written right when it's narrative ended I believe, two years after Paul's first arrival in Rome. 62 A.D. about the latest possible date. So Luke was inspired to write down these Prophecies Yeshua gave of The Temple's destruction when it was less then a decade away.
In terms of the intent Audience wise, is the usual Pre-Triber view that Matthew's is to Israel and Luke's The Church accurate?
Matthew's is a Gospel that is in some ways the most Jewish as it was written in Hebrew first, and is the first Gospel written, Paul said "The Gospel is for the Jews first and then the Gentiles". But Matthew's is also kind of very Church specific, being the most themed on Discipleship.
Luke was a Gentile, who's audience was over all Gentiles ultimately. But that ironically results in Luke spending the most time explaining Jewish things.
The Church and Israel are separate Covenants, but they do overlap, all Jewish believers, the remnant not under the Spiritual Blindness Paul spoke of, are heirs to both Covenants. That begins with the 12, promised to rule over the 12 Tribes, and goes don to any present at the Rapture. I'm still unsure if I view the 144,000 as part of The Church.
If either Discourse was only for the Church it would be Matthew which was given, like the Kingdom parables, to only the Disciples. While Luke's account is a Public speech all of the Jews, whether they became saved or not, in Jerusalem during that Passover season heard. But in fact I view both as being equally for both, in terms of 70 A.D. only Christians heeded the warning, but he gave it to all.
But in terms of what the Disciples were told about the End Times, it's supposed to be what those of us who already know the content of this warning are proclaiming to the people of Israel who's time of Trouble is at hand, and I think chiefly the 144,000 will be doing just that, as well as the Two Witnesses. So that when it happens, they will know at that moment the New Testament was right, and their national salvation won't happen all at once here , but it begins in this moment. The persecution Matthew records before the Abomination of Desolation however is a Christian persecution not Jewish. The Disciples listening (representing the Church) are refereed to inclusively with those who are persecuted, but not with those who flee Judea.
Some have minimized the significance of the Sabbath reference in the fleeing part of Matthew's account. Saying that on the Sabbath it's difficult to travel for anyone in the region. Those usual traffic patterns of Israel however will be mot when this very Public Earth shattering event happens. The Sabbath isn't part of the Luke warning.
My interpretation of the Sabbath reference making it a warning for the Jews doesn't mean that I think they should delay fleeing when this happens if it's the Sabbath. Just to hope that it isn't an issue.
Now some hold the view that the people in Judea being told to flee here must be Christians because it must be understood in the context of the earlier persecution where they are hated "for my Name's sake. That doesn't fit grammatically or contextually at all. These people flee in response to the Abomination event, the victims of the earlier persecution are obviously all ready on the run, they did not need to see this event to become frighted. In fact Christians in this period should be relived, we should know his coming is imminent.
Who are the Elect. Elect means Chosen, 7 times the same Greek word is rendered Chosen. It can mean either the Church or Israel, or maybe even sometimes both. And once is used of Yeshua's Messianic claim in Luke 23:35. And of Angels in I Thessalonians 5:21. Those who want to assume it always refers to the exact same Elect are not paying close enough attention.
Thinking it means only The Church or The Saved is chiefly a Calvinist heresy to support their twisted take on Predestination. 1 Peter 1:2 makes clear we're Elect/Chosen because of the foreknowledge of God. God is outside time, so when we accept Yehsua as our Savior he writes our names in the Lamb's Book of Life before the Foundation of the World.
But some Pre-Tirbers insist it always means Israel to support their desire to claim Matthew 24:31 isn't the Rapture. Yet this part of Matthew resembles Paul's two definitive Rapture accounts in Corinthians and I Thessalonians more definitively then any other supposed Rapture reference.
The Elect in Matthew 24:31 are gathered from "all the winds of Heaven" Israel at he the end of the 70th week is in Edom, not scattered in different regions. And we know from Comparing John 19 and Isaiah 63 Yeshua returns to them, gathering is only a part of the Rapture.
Sadly, many fellow Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath supporters (like Chris White) state definitively "Elect" NEVER means Israel in their zeal to refute the Pre-Trib view here. I don't know if he is Calvinist, or just ignoring the Calvinist implication of this very dangerous conclusion.
He cites John's Second Epistle's "Elect Lady" as a proof it means The Church always. This one is the least clear to me, first off I believe the individual woman being written to may well be like many others suspect Mary the Mother of Christ, who is the individual Woman in whom the core purpose of the Revelation 12 Woman was fulfilled, birthing The Seed of The Woman. And who Jesus entrusted John to take care of from The Cross.
To those who insist there is no individual in mind in 3 John,and it's simply to The Church, she has specific relatives refereed to in verse 4 and 13. Why not use this phrase in all three epistles if it simply means the Church?
Verses like "For many are called, but few are chosen." can't meant the Church unless you support the Calvinist heresy. This refers to Israel being God's Chosen people. It doesn't meant their Salvation works any differently, but they have an Election for a special status in Eternity if they accept Yeshua. Some of the Parables elaborate on this.
Eklegomai (ek-leg'-om-ahee) is a related but different word also rendered Chosen. On many occasions this and not Elect is used to refer to the 12 Disciples, that might help confuse people, it clearly includes Judas who was not saved. John's Gospel always uses this word, not Elect. He may have meant the same thing by the word. Either way, using it of Judas proves you don't need to be saved to qualify for that word.
The 12 are part of the overlap between Israel and the Church remember, they will rule over the 12 Tribes in Eternity.
Paul in Romans 8-11 uses another Greek word related to Elect, translated Election, clearly refers to the same concept, the verb form. 9-11 is all about refuting replacement theology. Those of us who are saved are saved by the "Election of Grace" Israel's covenant is a different Election, but is an Election. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." enemies of the Gospel only because of a temporary Spiritual Blindness.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 is absolutely using Elect of Israel, not the Church, because he wants them to become Saved, so their clearly not saved believers already in The Church.
Back to The Olivet Discourses' usage of the word. Luke's doesn't use it at all. In addition to the key Rapture reference. The reference to "deceive if possible even the Elect" is probably also The Church, I'm not sure what exactly this means, if it means we can't be deceived, or that we could be if we're not paying close enough attention. But I know it's related to having The Holy Ghost, being biologically of Israel gives no special resistance to Deception. All the Unsaved will accept The Mark.
The first usage of the word is Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." And Mark 13:20 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.". Must be chronologically after the rest, regardless of what you think Elect means or when the Rapture is, this is referring to the days in question, and what follows is talking about what leads to that.
In this Context I feel it means Israel, because their people at risk of being killed if those days aren't shortened. Saved here clearly doesn't mean Eternal Salvation, but being saved from death and destruction, because it speaks of the flesh. But why even in the same discussion mean something different with each usage? Because the Rapture helps bring about the Spiritual Salvation of Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)