At the start of Spring I made a post laying out what I felt needed to happen, even allowing some wiggle room on the details.
http://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2018/03/ill-be-keeping-eye-out-this-spring.html
And it's June now and nothing happened.
So let it not be said I'm someone who denies when a theory I made turns out to be wrong.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
The Apocalypse of Peter
I don't consider any Apocryphal books Canon. But I do talk about Extra-Biblical Prophecies and Apocalyptic writings on this Blog sometimes as a curiosity.
The Apocalypse of Peter is unique because of the Muratorian fragment. That fragment dated to about 170 AD is frequently cited as evidence that our current Canon was basically agreed upon very early. However a few books in our current canon aren't mentioned (James, and both of Peter's Epistles are absent and it seemingly knows only two of John's). And it approves of three books not in our current Canon, though one of those is explicitly said not to be Scripture just that it isn't objectionable, the Shepherd of Hermas. It mentions The Wisdom of Solomon, which seems odd to be mentioned here since it would be Old Testament if it was Canon (it might be included as a reference point for how Paul uses it in Romans with the purpose of refuting it). And lastly it defines as inspired Scripture the Apocalypse of Peter, yet strangely says how some think it shouldn't be read in Church. According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria also considered the Apocalypse of Peter canon.
The Apocalypse of Peter is preserved for us in two versions, a Greek Text found in Egypt, Akhmim specifically, and the Ethiopian version. The translation Bart Ehrman included in his Lost Scriptures book is based on the Akhmim text, and in a 30 minute lecture on the book on YouTube he acts like only that version exists, claiming the book was lost until that manuscript was found when in fact the Ethiopian version was already well known even to Western scholars. So be aware that Ehrman doesn't provide all the information.
Now I think I'd already said in a prior post how the Apocalypse of Peter supports the interpretation that the Fig Tree of Matthew 24 represents Israel.
The Ethiopic version contains a passage that explicitly promises the eventual Salvation of all Sinners.
First of all that the surrounding context of this promise includes statements that it should be kept a secret from Sinners is the best explanation for why the Muratorian fragment says some felt it shouldn't be read in Church. This attitude (also held by Origen a student of Clement) is part of why I don't support adding this book to the Canon, I disagree with it as a modern Evangelical Universalist. Maybe it made some practical sense in the circumstances of 2nd/3rd century Egypt, but today the perception that God is a Wrathful monster who tortures people without end is purely an obstacle to The Gospel.
M.R. James who made the 1924 Translation for The Apocryphal New Testament expresses the opinion that the Ahkmim text isn't the proper Apocalypse of Peter at all but an Abridged version written to be included in a Gospel of Peter as it's Olivte Discourse. The promise of Universal Salvation may have been removed for the above stated reason.
The Christian Sibylline Oracles which were influenced by the Apocalypse of Peter also includes an equivalent promise.
And then lastly if we view it as God's Word, the Ethiopian version is the received text, so like my reasons for choosing the Textus Receptus Greek Text for the canonical New Testament, and why many Aramaic primacy supporters favor the Peshita over the Sinai Gospels, the true version must be the one The Holy Spirit preserved, not something buried and forgotten for millennia.
Meanwhile the Ahkmim version still doesn't contradict the promise of Universal Salvation. Chances are the word translated Eternal is Aionion/Aionios, but even if not I could still argue it to be compatible. At face value what's said in chapter 13 of Ehrman's version might seem to rule out Universal Salvation, but that scene happens in the Ethiopian version as well, then later on Peter pleads for them. That passage says they won't get released before their sentence is up based on their own repentance, just like a modern Prison sentence. But eventually it will be the Believers having mercy on them that will trigger their release.
If I were to view this text as Scripture, how would I deal with any apparent contradictions to other Scripture? Well first of all I see it being framed in a parable like fashion, so the details need not be something we build doctrine on, (like with the Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16), but is rather making the point that the punishments will fit the crime. I certainly don't think it intends to say it's a Sin for Women to braid their hair, that sequence is probably meant to be about Prostitution, though I don't know whether or not the word Porneia was used where English translations often say Fornication.
However I still do not view it as Scripture. But that it was pretty popular with the Early Church shows that Universal Salvation was not something they had a problem with. And I can build the Doctrine of Universal Salvation using John's Apocalypse.
The Apocalypse of Peter is unique because of the Muratorian fragment. That fragment dated to about 170 AD is frequently cited as evidence that our current Canon was basically agreed upon very early. However a few books in our current canon aren't mentioned (James, and both of Peter's Epistles are absent and it seemingly knows only two of John's). And it approves of three books not in our current Canon, though one of those is explicitly said not to be Scripture just that it isn't objectionable, the Shepherd of Hermas. It mentions The Wisdom of Solomon, which seems odd to be mentioned here since it would be Old Testament if it was Canon (it might be included as a reference point for how Paul uses it in Romans with the purpose of refuting it). And lastly it defines as inspired Scripture the Apocalypse of Peter, yet strangely says how some think it shouldn't be read in Church. According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria also considered the Apocalypse of Peter canon.
The Apocalypse of Peter is preserved for us in two versions, a Greek Text found in Egypt, Akhmim specifically, and the Ethiopian version. The translation Bart Ehrman included in his Lost Scriptures book is based on the Akhmim text, and in a 30 minute lecture on the book on YouTube he acts like only that version exists, claiming the book was lost until that manuscript was found when in fact the Ethiopian version was already well known even to Western scholars. So be aware that Ehrman doesn't provide all the information.
Now I think I'd already said in a prior post how the Apocalypse of Peter supports the interpretation that the Fig Tree of Matthew 24 represents Israel.
The Ethiopic version contains a passage that explicitly promises the eventual Salvation of all Sinners.
"My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, ... It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men... "There are a few reasons why I think this was in the original version and not something added on the way to Aksum.
First of all that the surrounding context of this promise includes statements that it should be kept a secret from Sinners is the best explanation for why the Muratorian fragment says some felt it shouldn't be read in Church. This attitude (also held by Origen a student of Clement) is part of why I don't support adding this book to the Canon, I disagree with it as a modern Evangelical Universalist. Maybe it made some practical sense in the circumstances of 2nd/3rd century Egypt, but today the perception that God is a Wrathful monster who tortures people without end is purely an obstacle to The Gospel.
M.R. James who made the 1924 Translation for The Apocryphal New Testament expresses the opinion that the Ahkmim text isn't the proper Apocalypse of Peter at all but an Abridged version written to be included in a Gospel of Peter as it's Olivte Discourse. The promise of Universal Salvation may have been removed for the above stated reason.
The Christian Sibylline Oracles which were influenced by the Apocalypse of Peter also includes an equivalent promise.
And then lastly if we view it as God's Word, the Ethiopian version is the received text, so like my reasons for choosing the Textus Receptus Greek Text for the canonical New Testament, and why many Aramaic primacy supporters favor the Peshita over the Sinai Gospels, the true version must be the one The Holy Spirit preserved, not something buried and forgotten for millennia.
Meanwhile the Ahkmim version still doesn't contradict the promise of Universal Salvation. Chances are the word translated Eternal is Aionion/Aionios, but even if not I could still argue it to be compatible. At face value what's said in chapter 13 of Ehrman's version might seem to rule out Universal Salvation, but that scene happens in the Ethiopian version as well, then later on Peter pleads for them. That passage says they won't get released before their sentence is up based on their own repentance, just like a modern Prison sentence. But eventually it will be the Believers having mercy on them that will trigger their release.
If I were to view this text as Scripture, how would I deal with any apparent contradictions to other Scripture? Well first of all I see it being framed in a parable like fashion, so the details need not be something we build doctrine on, (like with the Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16), but is rather making the point that the punishments will fit the crime. I certainly don't think it intends to say it's a Sin for Women to braid their hair, that sequence is probably meant to be about Prostitution, though I don't know whether or not the word Porneia was used where English translations often say Fornication.
However I still do not view it as Scripture. But that it was pretty popular with the Early Church shows that Universal Salvation was not something they had a problem with. And I can build the Doctrine of Universal Salvation using John's Apocalypse.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
My Olive Branch to Historicists
I've laid already why I can't accept The Day=Year Theory.
One Historicist argument I can relate to is their rejecting the idea that God's Prophetic calendar simply paused from 30 or 70 AD till some time still in the future.
I do think The Beasts of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are Kingdoms that exist in some form right now and always have. I don't see Gaps in Daniel 2 and 7 just as I don't see any in Daniel 9 or 11 anymore.
In Revelation I think chapters 2-3 are about the conditions of the Church Age, but I have rejected the Seven Church Ages version of that. In every period I feel there have been Churches that can fit into each of those Seven basic types.
I also view the "Non Signs" portion of the Olivite Discourse as a description of the entire period between 70 AD and when the End Times scenario will truly begin. And maybe the first 5 Seals can also correlate to that.
It's once you reach Revelation chapter 9 that arguing these conditions are either already fulfilled or in the process of fulfillment I view as completely not workable.
One Historicist argument I can relate to is their rejecting the idea that God's Prophetic calendar simply paused from 30 or 70 AD till some time still in the future.
I do think The Beasts of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are Kingdoms that exist in some form right now and always have. I don't see Gaps in Daniel 2 and 7 just as I don't see any in Daniel 9 or 11 anymore.
In Revelation I think chapters 2-3 are about the conditions of the Church Age, but I have rejected the Seven Church Ages version of that. In every period I feel there have been Churches that can fit into each of those Seven basic types.
I also view the "Non Signs" portion of the Olivite Discourse as a description of the entire period between 70 AD and when the End Times scenario will truly begin. And maybe the first 5 Seals can also correlate to that.
It's once you reach Revelation chapter 9 that arguing these conditions are either already fulfilled or in the process of fulfillment I view as completely not workable.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Amillennial and Post Millennialism
If you have trouble telling the difference between these two eschatological models, it's not just cause they seem effectively the same to us Pre-Millenialists, even unbiased scholars are unsure which of these best describes the Eschatology of Augustine of Hippo.
The gist is, Amillenials believe there is no Millennium, while Post-Millenial means you believe the Parusia(Second Coming) happens after the Millennium. Both however have a tendency to involve believing the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 are not literally that exact period of time. And both tend to involve not taking the Chronology of Revelation at face value thus putting them in direct conflict with the premise of this Blog.
My belief that the Resurrection is a literal physical bodily resurrection of the Flesh is core to my understanding of The Gospel itself. And that is why I have long been opposed to any model saying the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 are already fulfilled.
But, I have recently become aware that some people feel you can believe in both.
Some believe the General Resurrection at the White Throne Judgment at the end of Revelation 20 is bodily, but Revelation 20:4 can be read as defining itself as of Souls not Bodies sitting on those thrones. And I have been giving this view a very open-minded assessment.
That argument involves citing passages where Paul says we die in Christ and then are Risen in Christ when we become Believers, symbolically pictured in Baptism. So believers have a spiritual Resurrection before we even die. Which is why Revelation 20:4 isn't really describing the Resurrection event itself. Basically Unbeleivers Spirits/Souls aren't resurrected before their bodies but Believers are.
This overlaps with a view on the Second Death that exists among Evangelical Universalists. In the past I've taken the tactic of saying the Second Death is the death of death, but I've come to realize that only really fits one of the three verses to use the term. I've now seen it argued by supporters of Universal Reconciliation that the Second Death is when unbelievers become Dead to Sin, which for Believers happened during our mortal life so that's why the Second Death has no power over us.
The first issue is that I'm only open to an argument for Post-Millenialism that doesn't play games with the chronology of Revelation. You're not going to convince me that Apollyon and Satan are the same entity. The Book Revelation defined itself as a clear chronology.
Secondly even if I could accept that interpretation of Revelation 20:4. Revelation 11 is still clearly depicting the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses as bodily, you're not going to convince me that is merely symbolic. The various Preterist views on the Two Witnesses account for their Deaths but not their Resurrection.
And then there is the mater of the Rapture of The Man-Child which I've shown isn't Jesus but The Church, and the 144,000 being described as already Redeemed from the Earth and as Firstfruits in Revelation 14. And the Armies following the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19.
And the fact remains that it isn't the White Throne Judgment but various events between the 7th Trumpet and first Bowl that resemble how The Olivte Discourse and the Thessalonian Epistles describe The Paursia.
Revelation 20:4 also defines itself as being specifically those Martyred for not taking The Mark. So it could be they are not Physically Resurrected yet because they were Post-Rapture Believers.
On the subject of rejecting The Millennium altogether. I've read some anti Premilennial articles expressing how the face value chronology of Revelation 20 conflicts in their view with the plain reading of other passages on the Resurrection and the Parusia like 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3.
The whole Premise of my Blog is how Revelation right from the first Chapter defines itself as explaining what was unclear before. The very first verse says that what even The Son didn't know before is being Revealed to us now, from Matthew 24 we know the timing of events is specifically what that was. So whenever there is an apparent conflict between other passages and Revelation on Chronology, Revelation is the one to be taken at face value.
What's interesting is that Pre-Augustine those uncomfortable with the very idea of the Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, wanting to say Revelation was really the work of Cerethius or John the Presbyter. Pre-Nicea that was mostly a fringe minority, as the Muratorian canon shows Revelation's canonocity was not in question. And from Tertulian to Ireaneus to Hippolytus to Methodius of Olympus, everyone to speak on Eschatology in the Pre-Nicene Church was clearly Pre-Millennial. They had other areas of disagreement, but they were all Pre-Millennial.
But post Nicea this Anti-Revelation camp got a prominent supporter in Eusebius of Caesarea. In his discussions of what books to consider Canon what he says on Revelation is schizophrenic because of how his personal bias infests it. He acknowledges it as being universally accepted as Canon by all Churches, not even disputed the way Jude, 2 Peter or Hebrews were. But he also talks about it under spurious books because that's how he viewed it for no good reason.
It was Augustine of Hippo who introduced the idea that you can simply allegorize The Millennium away, along with a lot of other bad doctrines.
Before him everyone who considered Revelation Scripture, (which was the vast majority of Christians, especially who weren't part of some alternative Gnostic or Ebonite cult) believed in a Millennium. They of course were wrong when they predicted it to begin in the 500s AD, but that date setting mistake was the product of other bad assumptions and shouldn't be blamed on the Millennium doctrine itself.
The gist is, Amillenials believe there is no Millennium, while Post-Millenial means you believe the Parusia(Second Coming) happens after the Millennium. Both however have a tendency to involve believing the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 are not literally that exact period of time. And both tend to involve not taking the Chronology of Revelation at face value thus putting them in direct conflict with the premise of this Blog.
My belief that the Resurrection is a literal physical bodily resurrection of the Flesh is core to my understanding of The Gospel itself. And that is why I have long been opposed to any model saying the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 are already fulfilled.
But, I have recently become aware that some people feel you can believe in both.
Some believe the General Resurrection at the White Throne Judgment at the end of Revelation 20 is bodily, but Revelation 20:4 can be read as defining itself as of Souls not Bodies sitting on those thrones. And I have been giving this view a very open-minded assessment.
That argument involves citing passages where Paul says we die in Christ and then are Risen in Christ when we become Believers, symbolically pictured in Baptism. So believers have a spiritual Resurrection before we even die. Which is why Revelation 20:4 isn't really describing the Resurrection event itself. Basically Unbeleivers Spirits/Souls aren't resurrected before their bodies but Believers are.
This overlaps with a view on the Second Death that exists among Evangelical Universalists. In the past I've taken the tactic of saying the Second Death is the death of death, but I've come to realize that only really fits one of the three verses to use the term. I've now seen it argued by supporters of Universal Reconciliation that the Second Death is when unbelievers become Dead to Sin, which for Believers happened during our mortal life so that's why the Second Death has no power over us.
The first issue is that I'm only open to an argument for Post-Millenialism that doesn't play games with the chronology of Revelation. You're not going to convince me that Apollyon and Satan are the same entity. The Book Revelation defined itself as a clear chronology.
Secondly even if I could accept that interpretation of Revelation 20:4. Revelation 11 is still clearly depicting the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses as bodily, you're not going to convince me that is merely symbolic. The various Preterist views on the Two Witnesses account for their Deaths but not their Resurrection.
And then there is the mater of the Rapture of The Man-Child which I've shown isn't Jesus but The Church, and the 144,000 being described as already Redeemed from the Earth and as Firstfruits in Revelation 14. And the Armies following the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19.
And the fact remains that it isn't the White Throne Judgment but various events between the 7th Trumpet and first Bowl that resemble how The Olivte Discourse and the Thessalonian Epistles describe The Paursia.
Revelation 20:4 also defines itself as being specifically those Martyred for not taking The Mark. So it could be they are not Physically Resurrected yet because they were Post-Rapture Believers.
On the subject of rejecting The Millennium altogether. I've read some anti Premilennial articles expressing how the face value chronology of Revelation 20 conflicts in their view with the plain reading of other passages on the Resurrection and the Parusia like 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3.
The whole Premise of my Blog is how Revelation right from the first Chapter defines itself as explaining what was unclear before. The very first verse says that what even The Son didn't know before is being Revealed to us now, from Matthew 24 we know the timing of events is specifically what that was. So whenever there is an apparent conflict between other passages and Revelation on Chronology, Revelation is the one to be taken at face value.
What's interesting is that Pre-Augustine those uncomfortable with the very idea of the Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, wanting to say Revelation was really the work of Cerethius or John the Presbyter. Pre-Nicea that was mostly a fringe minority, as the Muratorian canon shows Revelation's canonocity was not in question. And from Tertulian to Ireaneus to Hippolytus to Methodius of Olympus, everyone to speak on Eschatology in the Pre-Nicene Church was clearly Pre-Millennial. They had other areas of disagreement, but they were all Pre-Millennial.
But post Nicea this Anti-Revelation camp got a prominent supporter in Eusebius of Caesarea. In his discussions of what books to consider Canon what he says on Revelation is schizophrenic because of how his personal bias infests it. He acknowledges it as being universally accepted as Canon by all Churches, not even disputed the way Jude, 2 Peter or Hebrews were. But he also talks about it under spurious books because that's how he viewed it for no good reason.
It was Augustine of Hippo who introduced the idea that you can simply allegorize The Millennium away, along with a lot of other bad doctrines.
Before him everyone who considered Revelation Scripture, (which was the vast majority of Christians, especially who weren't part of some alternative Gnostic or Ebonite cult) believed in a Millennium. They of course were wrong when they predicted it to begin in the 500s AD, but that date setting mistake was the product of other bad assumptions and shouldn't be blamed on the Millennium doctrine itself.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians
[Update July 2023: The better version of this argument is here.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David
Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption. Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David. But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said "so what". Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy in at least Matthew.
But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians. Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?
Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her. That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.
I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family. They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible. This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.
Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.
In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God. And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.
Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite. It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.
II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed. But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere. The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died. What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God. So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David. And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.
The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity. The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David. Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.
I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37. As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.
I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by Blood of Saul. In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.
Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's. But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World. David became a Son of Saul regardless.
Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal. To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son". This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.
But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.
What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism. It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected. Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh. For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.
But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David. Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot. These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom. So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.
But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians. Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?
Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her. That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.
I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family. They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible. This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.
Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.
In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God. And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.
Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite. It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.
II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed. But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere. The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died. What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God. So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David. And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.
The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity. The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David. Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.
I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37. As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.
I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by Blood of Saul. In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.
Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's. But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World. David became a Son of Saul regardless.
Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal. To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son". This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.
But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.
What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism. It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected. Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh. For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.
But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David. Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot. These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom. So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)