[Update Ocotber 2020: I'm semi retracting this post, if Hor and Kadesh-Meribah are both in the area of Petra then the Israelites were right be the modern border of Israel and Jordan and so this detail of Numbers doesn't mean as much as I thought.]
Thursday, November 30, 2017
I just read an article saying Joktan never went to Arabia
http://www.eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm
[Update: https://web.archive.org/web/20230208105643/http://eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm]
I've talked about descent from Joktan before. On my Revised Chronology blog in the Queen of Sheba post, and the post about the Magi coming from Arabia. And on my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty blog talking about Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia and Feminism in Pre-Islamic Arabia. But this is a good opportunity to put my thoughts on this on record here.
This article first of all ignores that the Tower of Babel incident clearly took place before the events of Genesis 10, it's a prequel, and it's not the only place where Genesis isn't strictly chronological, just look at Genesis 25. But this site argues Joktan's clan must have broke off and headed East before the others reached Shinar.
It is the Sheba descended from Cush who wound up East of the Euphrates, in India, (The name of the Indian deity Shiva no doubt comes from Sheba). In India there are mountains called the Hindu Kush and there was an ancient Kushan empire. The Sheba and Dedan from Cush were sons of Ramah. In Indian mythology there was also a Rama who had two sons, but their names were changed to Kusha and Lava.
The Dedan in Arabia was most certainly the Dedan of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah, because we know that Dedan was located firmly within what was promised to Abraham, and is fairly consistent with where Josephus says the sons by Keturah were settled. The Abrahamic Sheba is the one I'm most uncertain where to place.
The Cushite Havilah is probably in the Near East but further north.
Many of the Arabian tribes descended from Joktan are known as Qahtanite tribes. Mount Shepher is mount Zafar in Yemen. The Yemeni Hadramaut kingdom descended from Joktan's son Hazarmaveth.
Joktan had 13 sons. So I'm fine with arguing they aren't limited to Arabia, that some went to Africa via Havilah. And some may have become Native Americans, giving Joktan's name to the Yucatan peninsula.
Many Mormon scholars have a theory that the Jared who founded the Book of Mormon's Jaredites is the same as Jerah son of Joktan. I think that could be what Smith intended given how he played with Biblical names. The unnamed brother was probably meant to be the firstborn Almodad since he seems to be depicted as having Firstborn authority.
I don't believe the Book of Mormon however. What I do believe is Native Americans came here via Asia and Alaska. I also believe the deported northern Israelites contributed a great deal to the populations of Asia east of the Euphrates and the Native Americans.
So as far as this article's desire to make a point out of how massive the populations of the far east are. Rebecca was told she'd be an ancestor of Thousands of Millions (that's Billions), Reuben was told in Deuteronomy 33 that his men would not be few. And Ephraim was told he would become the fullness of the nations.
The Pre-Babel language was obviously Hebrew.
I've talked about descent from Joktan before. On my Revised Chronology blog in the Queen of Sheba post, and the post about the Magi coming from Arabia. And on my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty blog talking about Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia and Feminism in Pre-Islamic Arabia. But this is a good opportunity to put my thoughts on this on record here.
This article first of all ignores that the Tower of Babel incident clearly took place before the events of Genesis 10, it's a prequel, and it's not the only place where Genesis isn't strictly chronological, just look at Genesis 25. But this site argues Joktan's clan must have broke off and headed East before the others reached Shinar.
Some Bible scholars have offered an opinion that Joktan migrated into ArabiaNow I do agree about there being Cushites in Arabia. The problem here is they ignore Ophir, there is no Ophir among the descendants of Cush, and Arabain traditions frequently linked Ophir to Sheba and Havilah. And The Bible does the same.
because two of his sons, Sheba and Havilah, have the same names as two tribes
in Arabia. But those Arabian tribes are of Cushite descent in the lineage of Ham
and are not in the lineage of Shem at all (see Gen. 10:6-7). Arabia is part of the
migration route to Africa, the land of Cush; therefore the first peoples in Arabia
were Cushite, in the lineage of Ham.
(Many Biblical names may occur multiple times in the different genealogies but
that does not confirm a genealogical kinship; only the context can indicate that.)
It is the Sheba descended from Cush who wound up East of the Euphrates, in India, (The name of the Indian deity Shiva no doubt comes from Sheba). In India there are mountains called the Hindu Kush and there was an ancient Kushan empire. The Sheba and Dedan from Cush were sons of Ramah. In Indian mythology there was also a Rama who had two sons, but their names were changed to Kusha and Lava.
The Dedan in Arabia was most certainly the Dedan of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah, because we know that Dedan was located firmly within what was promised to Abraham, and is fairly consistent with where Josephus says the sons by Keturah were settled. The Abrahamic Sheba is the one I'm most uncertain where to place.
The Cushite Havilah is probably in the Near East but further north.
Many of the Arabian tribes descended from Joktan are known as Qahtanite tribes. Mount Shepher is mount Zafar in Yemen. The Yemeni Hadramaut kingdom descended from Joktan's son Hazarmaveth.
Joktan had 13 sons. So I'm fine with arguing they aren't limited to Arabia, that some went to Africa via Havilah. And some may have become Native Americans, giving Joktan's name to the Yucatan peninsula.
Many Mormon scholars have a theory that the Jared who founded the Book of Mormon's Jaredites is the same as Jerah son of Joktan. I think that could be what Smith intended given how he played with Biblical names. The unnamed brother was probably meant to be the firstborn Almodad since he seems to be depicted as having Firstborn authority.
I don't believe the Book of Mormon however. What I do believe is Native Americans came here via Asia and Alaska. I also believe the deported northern Israelites contributed a great deal to the populations of Asia east of the Euphrates and the Native Americans.
So as far as this article's desire to make a point out of how massive the populations of the far east are. Rebecca was told she'd be an ancestor of Thousands of Millions (that's Billions), Reuben was told in Deuteronomy 33 that his men would not be few. And Ephraim was told he would become the fullness of the nations.
The Pre-Babel language was obviously Hebrew.
Monday, November 27, 2017
More speculation on The Little Horn
This Daniel 7 speculation could be made compatible with the Daniel 7 theory I posted a couple days ago. But it arguably works better in the context of the theory before that. And should definitely be compared with my last post on The Little Horn.
It derives from one of my earliest Lost Tribes posts. Where I suggested that the Fourth Beast proper is Edom but the Horns are Ephraim. That drew on connections between Edom and Ephraim made in Obadiah, and also Amalek being in Mount Ephraim during the Midianite oppression. And in the context of Daniel 2 that sees the Iron as Edom and the Miry Clay as Ephraim.
Now initially the main reason I had for associating the number 10 with Ephraim was that Jeroboam was given 10 Tribes. But I've noticed something else compelling.
In Deuteronomy 33 Moses gives Blessings to the Tribes of Israel, like Jacob did in Genesis 49. Verses 13-17 are the blessing for Joseph, one of the longer ones. This is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine taught in Rabbinic Judaism. Other aspects of this blessing I may talk about in future posts, but here I'm going to focus on a specific part of verse 17.
In the prior Little Horn post, one theory I suggested was seeing the Little Horn as The United States of America. And I have a prior post about America possibly being Manasseh.
But I also talked about seeing it as Modern Greece. On my Revised Chronology blog, I talked about possible links between ancient Greece and Northern Israelites, I may talk about that more in the future. That speculation has included specific figures of Greek mythology who might have been based on Jehu, a king who first arose in Gilead. But also the possibly of the Dorians coming from Dor, a city linked to Manasseh and Asher.
As far as the recent theory about the Fourth Beast being Arabia and Islam. The Little Horn being Jordan fits well, a recently created nation at the same time as modern Israel. It includes the core of ancient Edom and most of the land of the Trans-Jordan Tribes, in fact the capital of modern Jordan is arguably land given to Gilead in-spite of it's modern name making us think of Ammon. And Jordan also originally had the West Bank territories, which included Shechem, Samaria and Tirzah. And all Palestinians technically have Jordanian citizenship.
When it comes to Genesis 48, people talk a lot about Ephraim, but I think we might be overlooking Manasseh.
It derives from one of my earliest Lost Tribes posts. Where I suggested that the Fourth Beast proper is Edom but the Horns are Ephraim. That drew on connections between Edom and Ephraim made in Obadiah, and also Amalek being in Mount Ephraim during the Midianite oppression. And in the context of Daniel 2 that sees the Iron as Edom and the Miry Clay as Ephraim.
Now initially the main reason I had for associating the number 10 with Ephraim was that Jeroboam was given 10 Tribes. But I've noticed something else compelling.
In Deuteronomy 33 Moses gives Blessings to the Tribes of Israel, like Jacob did in Genesis 49. Verses 13-17 are the blessing for Joseph, one of the longer ones. This is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine taught in Rabbinic Judaism. Other aspects of this blessing I may talk about in future posts, but here I'm going to focus on a specific part of verse 17.
"his horns are like the horns of Aurochs: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."Mostly the numbers here are seen as just about how Ephraim has or will have a larger population then Manasseh. Genesis 48 says Ephraim would become a multitude of nations (or the fullness of them) while Manasseh would simply be one great people. But what I notice is this is specifically about the Horns of Joseph. If each Horn is a "thousands", then Ephraim is 10 and Manasseh is 1, making a total of 11.
In the prior Little Horn post, one theory I suggested was seeing the Little Horn as The United States of America. And I have a prior post about America possibly being Manasseh.
But I also talked about seeing it as Modern Greece. On my Revised Chronology blog, I talked about possible links between ancient Greece and Northern Israelites, I may talk about that more in the future. That speculation has included specific figures of Greek mythology who might have been based on Jehu, a king who first arose in Gilead. But also the possibly of the Dorians coming from Dor, a city linked to Manasseh and Asher.
As far as the recent theory about the Fourth Beast being Arabia and Islam. The Little Horn being Jordan fits well, a recently created nation at the same time as modern Israel. It includes the core of ancient Edom and most of the land of the Trans-Jordan Tribes, in fact the capital of modern Jordan is arguably land given to Gilead in-spite of it's modern name making us think of Ammon. And Jordan also originally had the West Bank territories, which included Shechem, Samaria and Tirzah. And all Palestinians technically have Jordanian citizenship.
When it comes to Genesis 48, people talk a lot about Ephraim, but I think we might be overlooking Manasseh.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Another variation of the Seven Heads of Daniel 7 view.
I laid out my view of the Seven Heads of Daniel 7, and then improved it a bit in my Basra post. This view is predicated on saying seven heads are implied in Daniel 7, 3 beasts with 1 head each and 1 beast with 4 heads.
The most controversial aspect of that was making Rome the seventh head instead of the 6th, defining it as yet future in John's time because it hadn't taken Babylon yet. And that still may be the best way of looking at Daniel 7. But I have recently devised a variation that keeps the basic premise but returns Rome to being the 6th and then present head.
Basically, it makes Rome not the 4th Beast anymore but the fourth head of the Leopard. The Leopard and his heads I associate with Javan and his four Sons, and there have long been reasons to justify associating Kittim with Rome. Rome was very influenced by Greece. In the Eastern Empire Greek was always the more popular language, and after the western Empire fell the Eastern Empire eventually even flat out made Greek it's official Language. So Rome as it was to it's Eastern conquests including Judea, was always very Greek, Paul used Greek and Gentile interchangeably even though he wrote during the Roman period.
My initial form of this Daniel 7 view was based on it being Babylon/Shinar's POV of history, for this we return to the focal point being the Land/Erets of Israel.
The Four Heads of the Leopard are thus Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Caesars.
Naturally, the fourth beast/seventh head must thus be the Islamic Empire. Chris White bases his objection to Islam as the 7th head mainly on saying you can't possibly define Islam as having a short reign. However in this theory, that's where the Horns come in.
Just as the Four Horns in Daniel 8 represent a Kingdom being divided. The 10 Horns/Toes represent Islam being divided. Initially it was just a split in two, the Sunni/Shia split, hence the Two Legs of the Statue in Daniel 2. But has since fractured even more.
It was a united Islam that had a comparatively short reign over the Eretz of Israel. It was the second Caliph who captured Judea, and then the Split was cemented as soon as the fourth died. All of the first five were people who knew Muhammad, meaning this all happened in the course of one lifetime.
If I'm going to look for a specific individual to identify with the Seventh Head, it would be Ali ibn Abu Talib based on what I've discussed elsewhere.
This does not necessarily prove an Islamic Antichrist view, it makes Islam relevant, but I still feel the Eight King of Revelation 17 is one of the first 5, not the seventh.
How should we define the Fourth Beast in terms of the Table of Nations? Since we know the first three are Asshur, Madai and Javan?
The thing is Arabia was a very ethnically mixed region. The word Arab is in the Hebrew texts spelled the same as the Hebrew word for an ethnically mixed person (sometimes translated Mongrel), when Israel is called a "Mixed Multitude" at the Exodus "Mixed" is also Arab there. And it's the same when Daniel 2:41 describes the toes of the Statue as "Iron mixed with Miry Clay".
Arabia had Cushites and possibly also Mizraimites from Ham, and also I think some Canaanite presence, particularly the Sinites. From Shem it had the Joktanites, the tribes of Ishmael the firstborn of Abraham, and also Abraham's sons by Keturah, by the time of Joseph Midianite and Ishmaelite became interchangeable. The Trans-Jordan tribes were often in conflict with Ishmaelites as 1 Chronicles 5 shows. And I think 1 Chronicles 4 shows Simeon migrated to some Ishmaelite lands, and I think the clan of Jamin specifically went to Yemen and provided Yemen it's name. My defining Arabia as being not just the whole peninsula but also everything between the Jordan and Euphrates rivers, also puts within it Moab, Ammon, and Edom, including the Amalekites who are linked to both Seir and Kadesh.
Edom is perhaps the most important. Removing Rome as the Fourth Beast would destroy my support for seeing Edom as Rome, because the foundation of that was largely how the Fourth Beast's unique fate of being completely destroyed with no national identity left in the Messianic Era, is outside Daniel given only to Edom and Amalek, some cities may be described similarly but no other whole nation. We see this in Balaam's Prophecies and in Obadaiah. Jeremiah 46-49 also foretells judgment on several nations, but with Edom lacking a promise of restoration. Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36 also seem to see Edom as the last Nation to be destroyed before The Messianic Era begins.
And it's possible Edom could be linked to more of Arabia then is traditionally assumed. Where you place Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea inevitably effects your view of how far Edom's borders stretch, and I've gone back and forth between a few theories that place Sinai at least pretty far away. And his having a grandson named Teman can justify linking Edom to Yemen. Genesis 14 links the Amalekites to the same region Ishmael would later settle.
It's also interesting thematically how all the passed over First Born lines from Abraham can be linked to Arabia. Ishmael's status is the one tied directly to Islamic theology. But Esau was also originally considered the firstborn of Isaac. And then the fact that some Tribes of Israel can be linked Arabia, they include Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob, and eastern Manasseh who was the firstborn of Joseph. Perhaps the Little Horn is an attempt by Satan to create an heir to all these lines?
It also could be viable to in Daniel 2 see the Iron as the peoples of Arabia and the Miry Clay as the Ottomans.
The most controversial aspect of that was making Rome the seventh head instead of the 6th, defining it as yet future in John's time because it hadn't taken Babylon yet. And that still may be the best way of looking at Daniel 7. But I have recently devised a variation that keeps the basic premise but returns Rome to being the 6th and then present head.
Basically, it makes Rome not the 4th Beast anymore but the fourth head of the Leopard. The Leopard and his heads I associate with Javan and his four Sons, and there have long been reasons to justify associating Kittim with Rome. Rome was very influenced by Greece. In the Eastern Empire Greek was always the more popular language, and after the western Empire fell the Eastern Empire eventually even flat out made Greek it's official Language. So Rome as it was to it's Eastern conquests including Judea, was always very Greek, Paul used Greek and Gentile interchangeably even though he wrote during the Roman period.
My initial form of this Daniel 7 view was based on it being Babylon/Shinar's POV of history, for this we return to the focal point being the Land/Erets of Israel.
The Four Heads of the Leopard are thus Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Caesars.
Naturally, the fourth beast/seventh head must thus be the Islamic Empire. Chris White bases his objection to Islam as the 7th head mainly on saying you can't possibly define Islam as having a short reign. However in this theory, that's where the Horns come in.
Just as the Four Horns in Daniel 8 represent a Kingdom being divided. The 10 Horns/Toes represent Islam being divided. Initially it was just a split in two, the Sunni/Shia split, hence the Two Legs of the Statue in Daniel 2. But has since fractured even more.
It was a united Islam that had a comparatively short reign over the Eretz of Israel. It was the second Caliph who captured Judea, and then the Split was cemented as soon as the fourth died. All of the first five were people who knew Muhammad, meaning this all happened in the course of one lifetime.
If I'm going to look for a specific individual to identify with the Seventh Head, it would be Ali ibn Abu Talib based on what I've discussed elsewhere.
This does not necessarily prove an Islamic Antichrist view, it makes Islam relevant, but I still feel the Eight King of Revelation 17 is one of the first 5, not the seventh.
How should we define the Fourth Beast in terms of the Table of Nations? Since we know the first three are Asshur, Madai and Javan?
The thing is Arabia was a very ethnically mixed region. The word Arab is in the Hebrew texts spelled the same as the Hebrew word for an ethnically mixed person (sometimes translated Mongrel), when Israel is called a "Mixed Multitude" at the Exodus "Mixed" is also Arab there. And it's the same when Daniel 2:41 describes the toes of the Statue as "Iron mixed with Miry Clay".
Arabia had Cushites and possibly also Mizraimites from Ham, and also I think some Canaanite presence, particularly the Sinites. From Shem it had the Joktanites, the tribes of Ishmael the firstborn of Abraham, and also Abraham's sons by Keturah, by the time of Joseph Midianite and Ishmaelite became interchangeable. The Trans-Jordan tribes were often in conflict with Ishmaelites as 1 Chronicles 5 shows. And I think 1 Chronicles 4 shows Simeon migrated to some Ishmaelite lands, and I think the clan of Jamin specifically went to Yemen and provided Yemen it's name. My defining Arabia as being not just the whole peninsula but also everything between the Jordan and Euphrates rivers, also puts within it Moab, Ammon, and Edom, including the Amalekites who are linked to both Seir and Kadesh.
Edom is perhaps the most important. Removing Rome as the Fourth Beast would destroy my support for seeing Edom as Rome, because the foundation of that was largely how the Fourth Beast's unique fate of being completely destroyed with no national identity left in the Messianic Era, is outside Daniel given only to Edom and Amalek, some cities may be described similarly but no other whole nation. We see this in Balaam's Prophecies and in Obadaiah. Jeremiah 46-49 also foretells judgment on several nations, but with Edom lacking a promise of restoration. Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36 also seem to see Edom as the last Nation to be destroyed before The Messianic Era begins.
And it's possible Edom could be linked to more of Arabia then is traditionally assumed. Where you place Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea inevitably effects your view of how far Edom's borders stretch, and I've gone back and forth between a few theories that place Sinai at least pretty far away. And his having a grandson named Teman can justify linking Edom to Yemen. Genesis 14 links the Amalekites to the same region Ishmael would later settle.
It's also interesting thematically how all the passed over First Born lines from Abraham can be linked to Arabia. Ishmael's status is the one tied directly to Islamic theology. But Esau was also originally considered the firstborn of Isaac. And then the fact that some Tribes of Israel can be linked Arabia, they include Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob, and eastern Manasseh who was the firstborn of Joseph. Perhaps the Little Horn is an attempt by Satan to create an heir to all these lines?
It also could be viable to in Daniel 2 see the Iron as the peoples of Arabia and the Miry Clay as the Ottomans.
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Biblical Egypt might not be Egypt
[This is a defunct theory now. See this post https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-tribes-of-mizraim.html]
Sunday, November 12, 2017
The Second Resurrection
I did a post on The First Resurrection already. I've updated that post fairly recently, so if you only read it when it was new, you might want to read it again.
Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events. But what Revelation 20 says does not support this. Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment. And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.
Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.
Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time. But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that. Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.
The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this. The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable. This is also about the Second Resurrection.
Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated. The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.
This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology. And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.
Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events. But what Revelation 20 says does not support this. Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment. And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.
Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.
Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time. But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that. Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.
The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this. The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable. This is also about the Second Resurrection.
Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated. The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.
This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology. And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Who is The Bride of Christ?
I did a post defending The Church as the Bride of Christ once. My views on a number of things have changed since then, mainly my becoming less Dispensational. I now believe The Church is grafted into Israel. Though I do still believe there are probably some unique promises for Church Age believers.
So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then. I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride. And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.
Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21. And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church. One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church. I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.
I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars. Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes. They simply wouldn't care.
But now to how I'm more open.
The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities. Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God. And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church.
In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber. Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here. What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.
I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together. My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate. The Children may then equate to the Inner Court. Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests. There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows. Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.
I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen]. The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.
Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21. It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel. It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17. Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.
In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17. A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.
It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.
Update: Types
Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament. I think he said there are at least 7 once. But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.
Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.
With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother. Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.
Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.
Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.
Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile. Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite. And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem. Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.
Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.
Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively. And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.
Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba. The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir. What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding. Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel. Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin. But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.
So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story. Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech. The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.
So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.
Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.
Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.
Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.
Methodius's writings we don't have in full. This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib. But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do. (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).
So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational. But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture. However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.
Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.
All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.
Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue. But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.
Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law. At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife. Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.
However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.
Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently. Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.
Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.
Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.
2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues. First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from. Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.
The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.
Some things about the word order are not what I expected either. The Young's Literal Translation reads.
Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.
So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then. I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride. And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.
Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21. And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church. One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church. I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.
I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars. Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes. They simply wouldn't care.
But now to how I'm more open.
The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities. Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God. And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church.
In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber. Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here. What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.
I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together. My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate. The Children may then equate to the Inner Court. Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests. There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows. Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.
I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen]. The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.
Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21. It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel. It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17. Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.
In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17. A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.
It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.
Update: Types
Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament. I think he said there are at least 7 once. But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.
Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.
With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother. Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.
Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.
Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.
Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile. Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite. And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem. Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.
Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.
Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively. And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.
Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba. The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir. What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding. Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel. Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin. But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.
So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story. Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech. The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.
So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.
Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.
Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.
Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.
Methodius's writings we don't have in full. This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib. But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do. (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).
So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational. But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture. However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.
Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.
All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.
Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue. But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.
Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law. At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife. Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.
However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.
Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently. Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.
Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.
Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.
2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues. First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from. Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.
The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.
Some things about the word order are not what I expected either. The Young's Literal Translation reads.
for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order. For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.
Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)